How does one find a word with a rhyming middle syllable?

In conversation today I wanted to find a set of words that have an "or" sound in their middles, as in "torrent" and "sorcerer". I couldn't find one. Most rhyming dictionaries I found only concerned themselves with the last syllable. I think that part of the problem is that I'm not aware of the correct term for what I'm looking for. "Rhyme" almost always means the final syllable, not anything in the middle of the word. Thus, I'm hoping English.SE can help. Is there a term for words which share a common middle syllable? Do you know of any sources that contain sets of such words?


hear of Vs hear about

Is _to hear of_ perfectly synonymous with _to hear about_? Or are there contexts in which one excludes the other? Hearing _of_... is great news. Hearing _about_... is great news.


Infinitive without to: The first thing I do is open my eyes

I have not been able to find an explanation for this use of an infinitive without _to_ : > The first thing I do in the morning is go to the bathroom. > > The first thing I do in the morning is open my eyes. > > The first thing I do in the morning is turn off the alarm clock. Infinitives without to are used in the following cases: -After modal auxiliary verbs (We can managed it) -After _do_ (I do admit I was wrong) -After certain verbs like _let_ , _make_ , _see_... (They made me wait) -After _rather_ , _better_ and _had better_ (I would rather go alone) -After _and, or, except, but, than, as_ and _like_ (It is as easy to smile as frown) -After _why_ (Why pay more at other shops?) [ http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/infinitives-without-to.htm ] I have found no mention of using an **infinite without _to_** after the verb **_to be_**. Are the examples above a special case? Are they very colloquial? Or are they incorrect?


English proverb for when a solution comes too late

In Dutch we have a saying "Vijgen na pasen". Translated: "figs after Easter".   It means a solution comes too late to be of any use. What is the English equivalent for this? Some googling gives me "Closing the barn door when the cow has bolted", but the explanation seems to point more towards the wrong solution for a problem.


Do tenses in a time clause never back-shift in reported speech? For example, does "I went to Italy when I finished school." become "She said she had gone to Spain when she finished school." and "I will go to Italy when I finish school." becomes "She said she would go to Italy when she finishes school."?


Present Perfect with "that"

I came across the sentence _"It's been thirty years since my parents first met."_ I am sure that if I heard _"It's been thirty years **that** my parents first met"_, I would accept it as grammatical, but I can't find any reference to support this. Am I wrong?


Which one has better influence in academic writing?

I am writing the acknowledgment of my article and so I wrote: _I would like to appreciate the Reviewers' subtle comments on improving this article._ My main problem is to use _in improving_ or _on improving_. I found both forms used in different sentences on the web. And so I am in a doubt which one has a better taste in English? Thanks.


Is a "heist" somehow more remarkable, or different in nature, from a robbery?

Am I wrong to assume a heist in someway implies the existence of a particular plan? Is it more of an anglo or american term? Does it mean the same thing across the pond? (Also: is it pronounced more like heest or hyst?)


“as much as” vs. “as much as is”"

In a textbook, I read this sentence: > Stretch your arms as much as **is** comfortable for you. But can you say it without the _is_? > Stretch your arms as much as comfortable for you. Is there any difference?


PrP Continuous vs. PrP | Nuance?

I have a question regarding the usage of the Present Perfect and the Present Perfect Continuous. So first, here's the context: I was playing an online game with a couple friends and in this game you have to go into dungeons which have treasure chests at their end and these chests normally contain valuable items (some do not) and normally you do those dungeons just to make money. Anyway, we made our way through a dungeon right to the end of it and then one of my buddies opened the chest and we looted the items. Then I asked him if there was anything valuable you could get out of the chest in that specific dungeon as I hadn't been sure about it. We were still in the dungeon. He told me there actually was something of high value obtainable and I replied with either (I've forgotten what EXACTLY I said but I'll try to recall as best as possible):   * **Oh I didn't know, I've always been playing this dungeon only for fun.** (but now I might consider playing it for the valuable items) or   * **Oh I didn't know, so far I've been playing this dungeon only for fun.** (but now I might consider playing it for the valuable items) Now my question is that if I had used the "simple" Present Perfect, would the meaning drastically change? Could I have said it like this:   * **Oh I didn't know, I've always played this dungeon only for fun.** (but now I might consider playing it for the valuable items) or   * **Oh I didn't know, so far I've played this dungeon only for fun.** (but now I might consider playing it for the valuable items) To me it feels like both are right, there's only a slight nuance namely that in the version with the PrP Contionuous I convey that I played the dungeon more frequently or habitually than in the simple PrP version but maybe I'm completely wrong, I don't know. So, what do feel or think when hearing something like that and which version would you choose? I'm looking forward to reading your answers. :)


How to express "some place for children to play in restaurant or other public"?

I found some translations but am not sure if there are better and shorter alternatives:   1. "children playground" — I am thinking about a small place inside, not a large playground;   2. "corner for children" — maybe this is the only one valid. Is there any other short idiomatic phrase to describe it?


Word meaning "to make valid"

Usage situation: Joan submits a document to an office. The office validates the document; if it is not valid, they return it to her. Joan sees the error, _makes it valid_ , and resubmits it. I'm looking for a word that means "to make valid". Any ideas?


Synonym for “be consistent with”

I'm looking for an expression similar to _be consistent with_ , when reporting studies which have the same results, such as: > The results of X's research **consist with / are consistent with** Y's > findings. Alternatives such as _do not contradict_ or _agree with_ do not fit the context, which is formal, and _do not contradict_ somehow changes the meaning. There's nothing wrong with _be consistent with_ , but sometimes I need to write such an expression in an article 10 times; its language must not be the same everywhere. How about _are parallel with_? Does it convey the same meaning?


superlative + -ing participle + noun ok?

Is it always ok to have a superlative hyphenated with a present participle ending in -ing acting as an adjective (so long as the superlative describes the base verb of the participle)? For example: >   * most-burping woman >   * fastest-drinking college student >   * quietest-singing bird > Such a phrase that is commonly used is "highest-grossing film." Is this just a particular idiom?


"The development" or simply "development"?

Here is a sentence similar to the one in the text I'm proofreading right now: **Groundwork for (the) development and implementation of my cunning plan.** The text is very formal and there're multiple instances of this "the" that to me appears to be doing nothing but the author is so insistent that I have lost my certainty :-) Googling gives no definite confirmation of whether I'm to take it out or leave it be so I decided to try and ask for advice. **Should the definite article be used with nouns denoting process in formal texts and circumstances?**


Thrice or triple?

There is a fairly well known recipe for _Triple Cooked Chips_. It involves cooking chips three different ways / times. Is _triple_ cooked correct or should it be called _Thrice Cooked Chips_ as they have been cooked three times?


I translated a sentence from my native language Tamil to English using Google Translate and got this: > What qualifications do you have to talk about it? Is there a better alternative for this question?


Origins of "Seedy"

> seed·y ˈsēdē adjective 1.sordid and disreputable.   >  "his seedy affair with a soft-porn starlet" synonyms: sordid, disreputable, > seamy, sleazy, squalid, unwholesome, unsavory shabby and squalid. "an increasingly seedy and dilapidated property" synonyms: dilapidated, tumbledown, ramshackle, falling to pieces, decrepit, gone to rack and ruin, run-down, down-at-heel, down-at-the-heel(s), shabby, dingy, slummy, insalubrious, squalid;   antonyms: classy My wife and I live in NYC and we like to joke that this terms comes from Avenue C and Avenue D, a particularly run-down and, well, seedy part of Manhattan. I doubt this is true. What is the origin of the word and how did it come to mean "sordid and disreputable" and "shabby and squalid"?


What is the exact usage of "the"

I've seen this word many times but I never understand what that exactly means. AFAIK it is used to refer to a known object but sometimes I see different usages. Can any one explain exact usage and meaning of this word? Regards


On the usage of the prepositions for the word "Globalization"

I'm a bit confused with the usage of the prepositions for the word _globalization_. Should I say: > In order to achieve globalization of digitization... or > In order to achieve globalization for digitization... or > In order to achieve globalization on digitization... or something more applicable? _PS: I'm developing a facebook app that's like Branchout. However, instead of finding jobs, networking professionally, and recruiting employees, this app is about meeting new people - it is a combination of a dating site, Branchout, an internet forum and anything you can think of that have to do with interacting with strangers. It connects people together in different ways. (As the application is still under development, I can't tell you about the key ingredient that digitizes people's lives. Just bear in mind that this is the digitization I am talking about.)_


Plural form of "someone"'?

> _**someone_** > > Used for referring to a person when you do not know or do not say who the > person is. So in the sentence: > I will need someone from different continents who can help me to spread this > application and you are the first person that I approach. Should the pronoun _someone_ be plural and does it even have a plural form? Or.. Should I just use the word _people_ to replace the pronoun?


"What am I meant to have"

I heard the following on 'The Office' in episode Downsize (#1.1): > David Brent: I'm going to have to let you go first. > > Dawn: What? Why? > > David Brent: Why? Stealing. Thieving. > > Dawn: Thieving? **What am I meant to have stolen?** > > David Brent: Post-It notes. What does the 'what am I meant' part mean here? Is it a common expression used in BrE or AmE? Cant we simply say: What have I stolen? What might have I stolen?


Using besides in a sentence

> **Besides** gaining my career, the course will surely contribute to our > country’s wealth. Is this use of _besides_ correct?


"Time elapsed" or "elapsed time"

In a document I have a plot where one of the labels represents the total time taken for the process to complete. Should I label it as "Elapsed Time" or "Time Elapsed"? Which one is correct?


Disambiguating of dialogue

Let us read the dialogue below between two people, A and B: > A :    _Have you even eaten squid fried?_ > > B :    _Yes._ > > A :    _How was it?_ > > B :    _Better than when I was sober._ Can the adjective _fried_ be understood to modify either the subject or the object? If so, is there some way to disambiguate the dialogue?


Can anyone please tell me the origin of the phrase "gotta have milk?"

I'm familiar with the phrase from a US advertising campaign some years ago. It was used to promote consumption of "cow juice" when it was getting a bad press because of its fat content. Later the phrase was adapted in "gotta have park, " a campaign to get local support of a particular park in NYC. I'd like to know the derivation of the phrase, assuming it predates the milk campaign.


Is there a rule for how to pronounce words such as "dance", "prance", "castle"?

Is there a grammatical rule for the pronunciation of words such as _dance, castle_ and _prance_? I believe the British English pronunciation is "ah", while in American English it is a short "a" sound.


Is there a word for the final stone of a foundation? Analogous to the word "cornerstone"?


What was going on with "quha", "quhat" and the like in Scots and English?

From the _Dictionar o the Scots Leid_ : > **Quha** , **Quhay** , interrog. and rel. pron. Also: **qwha** , **qha** , > **qua** , **qwa** , **wha** , **vha** , **hua** ; **qhaa** ; **quhaw** ; > **quhai qwhay** , **whay** , **quay** ; **quhae** , **whae** ; **quhe** , > **quhey** , **qwhey**. > > [North. ME _qua_ (Cursor M.), _wha_ (Rolle), mid. and south. _hwo_ (c 1200) > etc. (see **Quho** ), early ME _wha_ (Orm), _hwa_ (c 1230), _wa_ (12th c.), > OE _hwá_ nom. personal interrog. pron. sing. or _pl._ cf. **Quho**.] Who. There are other such spellings: “quhat” for “what”, “quham” for “whom”, “quhamto” for “to whom”. I’ve been trying to find some explanation for that on the web but with little success. One thing I found is what follows. I do believe I’m not infringing any copyrights by the looks of the text. I don’t know who wrote it and when though. I took it from here. My notes are italicized. > 8\. To clere this point, and alsoe to reform an errour bred in the south, > and now usurped be our ignorant printeres, I wil tel quhat befel my self > quhen I was in the south with a special gud frende of myne. Ther rease, upon > sum accident, quhither quho, quhen, quhat, etc., sould be symbolized with q > or w, a hoat disputation betuene him and me. After manie conflictes (for we > ofte encountered), we met be chance, in the citie of Baeth, with a Doctour > of divinitie of both our acquentance. He invited us to denner. At table my > antagonist, to bring the question on foot amangs his awn condisciples, began > that I was becum an heretik, and the doctour spering how, ansuered that I > denyed quho to be spelled with a w, but with qu. Be quhat reason? quod the > Doctour. Here, I beginning to lay my grundes of labial, dental, and guttural > [ _velar?_ ] soundes and symboles, he snapped me on this hand and he on > that, that the doctour had mikle a doe to win me room for a syllogisme. Then > (said I) a labial letter can not symboliz a guttural syllab. But w is a > labial letter, quho a guttural sound. And therfoer w can not symboliz quho, > nor noe syllab of that nature. Here the doctour staying them again (for al > barked at ones), the proposition, said he, I understand; the assumption is > Scottish, and the conclusion false. Quherat al laughed, as if I had bene > dryven from al replye, and I fretted to see a frivolouse jest goe for a > solid ansuer. My proposition is grounded on the 7 sectio of this same cap., > quhilk [ _whilk=which_ ] noe man, I trow [ _believe_ ], can denye that ever > suked the paepes [ _I have no idea quhat “suked the paepes” might mean._ ] > of reason. And soe the question must rest on the assumption quhither w be a > labial letter and quho a guttural syllab. As for w, let the exemples of wil, > wel, wyne, juge quhilk are sounded befoer the voual with a mint of the > lippes, as is said the same cap., sect. 5. [ _I don't understand this > sentence._ ] As for quho, besydes that it differres from quo onelie be > aspiration, and that w, being noe perfect consonant, can not be aspirated, I > appele to al judiciouse eares, to quhilk Cicero attributed mikle, quhither > the aspiration in quho be not ex imo [ _what does_ ex imo _mean_?] gutture, > and therfoer not labial. That does seem to give some insight so I would like to divide my question in two parts now. The first part will be about the interpretation of the above, and the second part will be about the spellings in general. ## Part 1. I understand that the text is about a discussion between the author on one side and two other people (his friend and the Doctour of divinitie) on the other side. The discussion was about the spelling of the words which have “wh” in them in standard Present-day English. The author said that these words should be spelled with “quh” instead of “wh”. The friend and the Doctour disagreed. The author said that the reason for his conviction that the “quh” spellings are right is that the sound in these word is guttural, which I understand means velar, and not labial. What was the sound the author used in this word? Was it [ʍ]? He said the sound was velar, and clearly said it wasn’t labial. Could it mean that he produced a sound that wasn’t labialized? I have never heard of such a realization of this phoneme in any historical dialect of English, but I know very little about these things and it's perfectly possible that it existed from my point of view. The author seems to have been Scottish. First, he advocates the spellings I have only encountered in Scottish texts, and second, according to the Doctour, he made a “Scottish assumption” about the sound. I think it could mean that the Doctour was English (did he live in Bath?) and used the delabialized allophone. I don’t know when the split occurred, or when the text was written, so I can’t judge whether it’s possible. He says, “As for quho, besydes that it differres from quo onelie be aspiration, and that w, being noe perfect consonant, can not be aspirated, I appele to al judiciouse eares, to quhilk Cicero attributed mikle, quhither the aspiration in quho be not ex imo gutture, and therfoer not labial.” I understand the “quo” he’s talking about is the Latin word. I think that this might be a clue that the spellings were a Latin influence, which I thought anyway when I first encountered one. But his explanation of the phonetics is puzzling to me. He says that “quho” and “quo” differ only in aspiration. I will not try to give my guesses about that here because it would make this post even longer than it is. I’ll just ask what he could have meant by that. I know of course that he surely knew less about phonetics than we do now and that he didn’t have our standardized terminology, but he must have meant something, mustn't he? And again, how did he pronounce “quho”? ## Part 2. So what were those spellings about? What were their origins? When did they die out? Were they only used in Scotland or in England as well? Why? Here's another, seemingly related spelling: > **WHEEN** , _n_.2 I.Sc. form of Eng. _queen_ (Sh. 1825 Jam.; I.Sc. 1866 Edm. > _Gl_.; Sh. 1916 J. Burgess _Rasmie’s Smaa Murr_ (Maerch 20); I.Sc. 1974). > See P.L.D. § 165 and **W** , letter, 7. (2) (ii). [ʍin] This confuses me even more. Was it some kind of hypercorrectness introduced by those who, like the Doctour, didn’t like the spellings with the “q”? It seems rather inconsistent though, as it is not “quheen”, but “queen”.


What is the proper word to say "terrorist hood" in English?

What is the correct word for the thing that gangsters have on their head during hold ups? ![balaclava](http://i.stack.imgur.com/ONfDM.jpg)


Primary is to Secondary as Principal is to...what?

If something is divided into _principal_ divisions, what is the next level "down"? For example, if a generic term for a US state or Canadian province is a "principal country division", what is a good name for the next level down, like a county? Edit: I'll probably just go with Primary Division and Secondary Division, unless someone has a better idea.


Wondering if the use of the word "gotta" is correct here

You gotta be very angry. From an American movie. My intuation is that is to say **you are really very angry** or **it seems you are angry**. Why the guy used **gotta** here. **gotta** implies force, like saying **you have to be very angry** that means ** you do not have any other choices** I have my doubts if the speaker ment something like that!


What is my highest level of qualification if I have graduated with a bachelors degree?

An _undergraduate_ is quite clearly: > a student at a college or university who has not yet earned a bachelor's or > equivalent degree. But now that I have received a bachelor's degree what am I? I ask becuase a on a prominent job search site the relevant options for "Highest Qualification" are "Undergraduate" and "Post-graduate degree", with nothing in-between. (I asked and they said "Undergraduate" is the best fit - but I disagree - how would an employee distinguish me from a student then?) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/YKUTK.png)


Where does the idiom “root for sth” come from?

I am familiar with the idiom “to root for sth” meaning that I am hoping for something to happen or taking the side of something. But what does this have to do with roots? Does it mean that I am putting my root where somebody else stands? Where did this idiom originate?


Usage of 'bovinely' when fastness or slowness are involved

I know that in English 'I tried to go as slow as possible' and 'I tried to go as fast as possible' have a very different meaning, but I'm unsure how 'bovinely', before 'possible', change that difference. >   1. 'I tried to go as slow as _bovinely_ possible.' > >   2. 'I tried to go as fast as _bovinely_ possible.' > > Thus my question is: Can anyone explain what the semantic difference between (1) and (2) is? In other terms, do you think that 'bovinely' nullify the difference between 'slow' and 'fast', so that one can indifferently use either?


Participles Modifying Direct Objects

Here's a simple question: Is is possible for a participle -- past or present -- to modify a direct object? "You deserve every ounce of respect garnered." Is this correct? My reasoning is based on the fact that participle phrases can modify nouns, as in "the twins doodling in their tablets" or "the model destroyed by the fire."


Is there a term for authorial name expurgation?

In 19th century English texts, but also seen elsewhere (e.g. Heller's _Catch-22_ ) there is a practice of omitting part of a name such as: > I was going to visit Mrs. P_ ___ _, but decided to remain at home. which is intended to shroud the name of the person. You may also find bowdlerization of a similar form in the same texts: > I'd have been successful if not for the d____d rain. where the author (or publisher) would prefer not to use "damned". Is there a term for this practice? Is there a modern (e.g. TeX, Unicode, HTML etc.) way to represent this typographic convention? The best I can find is the Unicode/ASCII codepoint 0x5f which has the unfortunate habit of being rendered as a continuous line "d____d" where older practice would allow for a small inter-glyph space so you could see that four letters had been omitted in "d····d".


A term for "Groceries, toiletries & Conveniences" everyday products

Is there a common term that covers both groceries & conveniences. Products that one would purchase either at supermarkets or corner stores? Is there a venue type that would describe supermarkets, corner stores, bakeries... in one? This word would not necessarily other shopping products like clothes, electronics, medication, furniture.


Correct punctuation before a name or list of names

I'm trying to get some clarification on restrictive and non-restrictive appositives (specifically, names) when used at the end of a sentence (as well as multiple names in the form of a list). My friend asks me who I invited to a party, and I tell him: **I invited my cousin, Bill.** Am I saying that . . . a) I have one cousin and I invited him. His name is Bill. or b) The friend who asked the question is named Bill. I am telling Bill that I invited my cousin. I specified in option A that I have only one cousin because I assume the comma causes the name to act as a non-restrictive appositive. If I had _more_ than one cousin, and I wanted to say that I invited _only_ the one named Bill, I would say "I invited my cousin Bill." (As a restrictive appositive.) But then if I've got a list of cousins, does the punctuation change to a colon? I invited my cousins: Bill, Jane, and Andrew.


Difference between "place" and "position"

Can these words be used interchangeably when referring to a point in the world?


Right word to represent "speaking with low audible voice"?

Please consider the following sentence > "Oh my god, bad opening for the day", the shopkeeper **___ __ ___** while > seeing the trouble making customer and flashed a smile when customer > approached him. Which word of the below suits for the blank. Please find the words along with dictionary meanings: > Whisper= speak very softly using one's breath without one's vocal cords, > esp. for the sake of privacy > > Murmur = a soft, indistinct sound made by a person or group of people > speaking quietly or at a distance > > Mutter = say something in a low or barely audible voice, esp. in > dissatisfaction or irritation: > > Mumble = say something indistinctly and quietly, making it difficult for > others to hear Seems to be all words are suitable for the blank.


Why was "how much" used in the following context instead of "how many"?

> Elasticity is a measure of how much buyers and sellers respond to changes in > market conditions. The sentence above is from page 95, _Principles of Microeconomics Fifth Canadian Edition_.


Using the word "difference" in the meaning "result of subtraction" taking into account the negative values

The result of subtraction is called "difference". At first glance it might seem that it shouldn't cause an ambiguity over the value denoted by this word; until we stumble upon subtractions that produce negative results. What do I actually mean? It is clear that: > 2 − 5 = −3 But when we say "the difference between 2 and 5" don't we mean "3" in the first place irrespective of the order in which we place the numbers in the sentence? What expression should we use to make it clear, regardless of the context, that we imply "−3"?


What is a good word for the identifying characteristics of something?

For example, let us say we were conducting a study of facial features and we were comparing hair color, nose type and eye shape. Those three characteristics would identify something or someone. What would a good term be for the items that are used to identify a unique point in the problem space? I looked at a few similar words in the Thesaurus on thefreedictionary.com. For example, under coordinate (n) it yielded co-ordinate, Cartesian coordinate, polar coordinate and number. Most of those were not even synonyms except in the most trivial sense. "Characteristics" is a superset of what I am referring to, as it includes all characteristics, not simply the ones considered unique or defining.


"Leaving a field intact for a season"

In Czech, we have a special word for "leaving a field (agricultural) without seeding, resting." I wonder if English has such a word.


Which is the right sentence?

I was typing in a description and I got the following problem, and I don't know which of the sentences is the right one.   * The angel's image, now appears correctly.   * The angel's image now appears correctly.   * The image of the angel now appears correctly. The phrase is to justify a change/update in an application, where an image of an angel that was not present having been correctly updated. Sorry if it's too silly of a question. But I'm basing my question in the FAQ   * Usage, **word choice** , and grammar But in this case, is a small phrase. =D


How should I understand this comment from Mark Twain about Chicago?

> "It is hopeless for the occasional visitor to try to keep up with Chicago > --- she outgrows his prophecies faster than he can make them." wrote Mark > Twain in 1883, when Chicago was just fifty years old. I think "she" refers to "Chicago", and "he" refers to "the occasional visitor". But what does "outgrows his prophecies" mean? Does it mean Chicago grows very fast?


Can we use "off-chance" in a scientific paper?

In an article that I'm writing, I would like to say that some special ideas are at a disadvantage concerning their consistency in producing results. In other words, we use those approaches in the hope of getting a reasonable result, but the methods are presently poorly understood, so we can only hope for a good result. So please help me to correct any grammatical deficiencies in the quoted sentence: > The main disadvantage to these approaches is that they tend to be on the off > chance. "These" refers to the mentioned approaches in a previous sentence. Is _off chance_ correct here? Is it OK to use in a scientific paper?


Is the phrase "produces meaning" valid?

Please consider the below sentences > The word X produces meaning Y   >  The word X produces meaning Y in sentence Z Is "produces meaning" valid in the above sentence? If yes, which seems to be more valid between the both of the above sentences? And if not, may I know why it is not valid? (the sense intended here is _the **word** X has meaning Y_, not **_sentence** Z has meaning Y_).


"See you all" or "see you everyone"

When leaving from work, how to say "see you" to colleagues? Which one is appropriate, "see you all" or "see you everyone"?


Is 'gloomy sunlight' an oxymoron?

Is 'gloomy sunlight' an oxymoron? I don't see how its an oxymoron. I am not sure how else to phrase this question.


What's the double hyphen after greetings in emails?

I usually see just format in the emails I receive daily: > Hello Dorian-- > > I'm calling you in regard with the something... > > Thanks, I see comma after the greetings too but I am not sure why double hyphen is being used there. Can someone explain it?


What is the word for "Slow raining"?

Today in my city, it's raining very slowly. What is this called in English?. I am from India. In Hindi we say **'Rimjhim'**. What is it called in English?


American pronunciation of "professor" and "law"

In this video, around 0:45, when Amy Chua says "I am a professor at Yale law school". I was wondering why her mouth pouted twice, once at the end of "professor" and the other between "law" and "school"? I read the sentence myself, but my mouth doesn't pout.


"She did X with the same enthusiasm she would have done Y."

I have this sentence in something I'm writing: > She slipped her head into the helmet with the same enthusiasm she would have > slipped it into a guillotine. This sounds wrong to me. I feel like it should be something like "...with the same enthusiasm _she would have shown_ slipping it into a guillotine". Some kind of problem with the tenses, perhaps. Is this wrong, or is it just me? If so, what rule of grammar is it breaking, and what alternatives exist, ideally less wordy than my proposed alternative?


Why am I always compelled to begin a response with "Well, "?

Because of a certain 140 character limit I've learned where I can trim characters on responses but even after all this time I still reply with "Well, so and so . . ." and I go back and have to delete it (even on comments to this site I start with _well_ and then delete it). Is it because that's generally how I would speak a response and I should watch out there too or is this just me?


How can I practice differentiating between the "æ" and "ɛ" sounds in English phonology?

For a non-native English speaker like me, it's always been hard to sound æ and ɛ differently. For example, "salary" and "celery" are two words that I tend to pronounce identically. Is it OK to go on like this or should I practice to get it right?


Antonym of coterminous, or single word for "having the same beginning"

I find myself wanting to say that two things have their beginning together (not necessarily in time). The word _coterminous_ came to mind, but that is the opposite of what I'm trying to say. I thought of _simultaneous_ , but that is too punctiliar (whereas I want to express something more enduring, as implied by the word _coterminous_ ) and perhaps a little too time-laden. So, for example: > To know the truth and to begin to know that you know the truth are `<things- > originating-inseparably>`. Is there a single English word for this?


"Get intoxicated" vs. "become intoxicated"

I was on the Islamic site of Stack Exchange which is currently on beta. We are preparing the website for new users, and one of the moderators and I are confused about some grammar. My answer said "with the insignificant amount of alcohol it is impossible to become intoxicated" and it was edited to "get intoxicated". Would one be more correct or are they equally correct?


Identifying a specific fallacy

So basically I came through this fallacious argument (image). Which translates into: > "Without stress   >  Without bombs   >  Without beggars   >  Without prisons   >  Without fast food   >  Without external debt   >  Without contamination   >  Without poverty   >  And yet they dare to call me PRIMITIVE" The thing is that (without trying to be racist), this native from the Amazon could well be primitive, since none of the previous statements proves that he/she is not. After a lot of research I came through the "argument from fallacy" as the best choice for this fallacy, but I'm not 100% sure. Am I wrong or not?


Portuguese native speaker

In order to be clear enough, I would say that I am a "European Portuguese native speaker" rather than a "Portuguese native speaker". - As a translator, I am expected to let potential clients know my native language as well as (in this case) its variant. My question is: Is it correct to add the variant "European" to the expression? Thank you.


Rethink as a noun

I came across the word 'rethink' so many times. But it still puzzles me if it is correct to use the word 'rethink' as a noun. Is it okay to use the word 'rethink' as a noun? Your inputs are highly appreciated. Thanks.


Epoch Making Canvasses

Hemingway said that "It's better to write about what you can write about and try to make it come off than have epoch making canvasses etc." Does this mean you should focus on what you can do instead of striving for groundbreaking achievements? Did he use the word "canvas" here as the one we know from painting? To refer to an artwork in general?


All I know vs. Alls I know

Are the two sayings proper English? > "Alls I know" and > "All I know" Alls I know just sounds bad to me, but while people agree, no one can tell me if it is right or wrong.


"If you or somebody you know" vs "If somebody you know or you"

The following sentence makes sense:   * _If you or somebody you know is an experienced such-and-such, please contact us._ However, reversing the subjects (and choosing "are" based on the proximity rule) makes it sound extremely awkward:   * _If somebody you know or you are an experienced such-and-such, please contact us._ The is/are verb choice does not really matter, placing "somebody you know" first makes the sentence difficult to read and awkward to say. However, switching subjects in a compound subject doesn't always "ruin" the sentence, e.g.:   * _If your dog or your cat is sick, call the vet._   * _If your cat or your dog is sick, call the vet._ My question is: What is wrong with "If somebody you know or you"? Is this violating some grammatical rule? Why is this sentence so hard to parse? I know it doesn't "feel" right but I'd like to know why.


Is "half-a-dozen" an accepted term?

I suspect that the parent term is "half of a dozen" which is just being shortened to half-a-dozen. But I caught myself using half-dozen earlier today and wondered which of the variants are considered valid. Both half-dozen and half-a-dozen seem odd written out even though they sound fine to my ear.


Surname, family name and last name

What is the difference between the three terms: surname, family name and last name? Do they mean the same? Or are there any particular contexts wherein one is more appropriate than the other?


What is a formal alternative to verb 'toggle'?

For a long time I've been using a word 'toggle' to express change of states (normally button). Now I found out on Dictionary.com / toggle that toggle has such meaning in an _informal_ language as a verb. Which would be the correct word to express verb for 'change state'?


Is it correct to use the word "something" to describe a plural form?

> Then, as I continued gazing at her, **something** came to my mind. **They** > were the remnants of the dream I had before waking up. Is that grammatically correct? If not, what's the closest alternative?


Which is correct and why

1. You work (too hard/ too much hard).   2. I have (quite a lot of free time/ quite free time).


How widespread are snow goblins?

I live in the Northeastern part of the US. We've had a lot of snow recently. Part of living in a snowy area is clearing the collected snow pack from the wheel well so that it doesn't interfere with driving. The snow is usually filthy and ice-coated from where the tires have kicked crud up from the road surface. We call these _snow goblins_ and most people make it a habit to kick off the snow goblins before setting out in the car. It's a common expression around here, but I'm wondering how far it extends regionally. Do most snow-experiencing regions in the US and Canada have snow goblins? Or are they called something else? And I'm not asking what _snow goblins_ are called, because they are called snow goblins, so the "duplicate" doesn't have an answer for me.


Passive voice expressed by means of the active voice

I wonder what the reason is to say _These cakes sell well_ instead of _These cakes are being sold well._ I understand that it’s shorter but it doesn’t work with any verb, does it? For example, _The house is being built_ can’t be substituted by _The house is building._ So, what justifies and makes it acceptable to compose such a sentence which we can see in the example with the verb _sell_? Does it have something to do with the verb used or something else? If so, are there many verbs which can be used that way?


Nearly or Almost

The words _nearly_ and _almost_ seem to be interchangeable to me. I can't think of any instance when one can be used where the other cannot. eg:   * I almost fell   * I nearly fell Are there any circumstances where this is not possible and if so, what is the reason?


"work as a journalist on/at a magazine"

Could you please tell me why and when people use "on a magazine"? I thought it should be _at_ but it seemed that many people use _on_. Thank you for your reply.


What's the opposite of 'dense'

I'm referring to densities of materials, not the number of particles per unit volume.


Term for accurately descriptive and misleadingly descriptive toponyms

A question popped up on GIS.stackexchange.com ("geographical information systems") asking "Is there a name for a situation when the place is clearly or unclearly named?". The example given there was the fictitious "Red Rock Mall", which would either be an accurate descriptive toponym if the mall was actually located near a red rock, or misleading if it wasn't. There's the term aptronym, "a person's name that is regarded as amusingly appropriate to their occupation", and inaptronym has been suggested as the antonym for that. However, the use of those terms seems to be limited to names of people, not places. I also came across the term semantic fitness, "the degree to which a name is perceived to fit with the object it identifies". The name "Red Rock Mall" would have a high semantic fitness if there were a red rock nearby. It seems that that's not a very wide spread word, though, especially in the context of toponymy. Is there a better word to describe that a descriptive toponym is accurate or that it is misleading?


Words that describe food and eating

I'm writing a piece that relates to food and eating and am looking for adjectives that describe both. I just picked up the word _prandial_ and that piqued my interest. Are there any similar words out there?


Can I use "progress" in this way?

I saw the following sentence: > Something unknown has blocked the progress of the biggest diameter tunnel.   1. Then, can I replace these words as follows: > Seattle has progressed the biggest diameter tunnel.   2. Before I read this material, I thought the word "progress" was used to mean something like "start". But it seems to be wrong, because people can't "start" the "biggest diameter tunnel". Am I right in thinking "progress" can work as "start"? If not, what should it be?


Euphemism for "There's more than one way to skin a cat"

Growing up in the 80s, I ended up hearing/using this phrase a lot whenever I wanted to express that there was more than one way to do something: "there's more than one way to skin a cat." I have recently been in situations where I need to express the same thing, but am realizing that the phrase is actually quite grotesque. Is there a well- known euphemism to express the same thing - that there is more than one way to get something done? This questions is slightly related, but only asks for the origins: Origin of the phrase, "There's more than one way to skin a cat."


Difference between 'retreated into' and 'retreated back into'

What is the difference between _retreated into_ and _retreated back into_? > They retreated into Pakistan


"Concision" vs. "conciseness"

Is there any difference in the meaning between _concision_ and _conciseness_? Is one preferred over the other? My friend claims that _concision_ is more correct.


Origin of idiom "full of hot air"

Does anyone know the origin of idiom _full of hot air_. Was it created by Kipling in 19th century? I need it for 6th grade assignment.


Word for "product version that was scheduled to be released but never was, in favor of a better version"

Let's say, DirectX 4.0 is never released; Microsoft launches DirectX 5.0 instead. So DirectX 4.0 is like a very special version of DirectX that is never made public for whatever reason. Is there a word for an act like this (preferably a verb), or for an unreleased version of that kind (preferably a past participle)? More generally, you have made a product, version 1.0. But you decide that it should stay unreleased. You make a better version 1.5 and release that one. Is there an apt word that describes (what happened to) version 1.0?


When a sentence contains both “not” and “or”, which one has priority?

I am changing a piece of text which current reads: > Payment not deducted to also include the situation where payments are withheld. The suggested revision of text given to me is > Payment not deducted or withheld Is this semantically correct? To me it reads: > Payment not deducted and payment not withheld when what it should really read as is: > Payment not deducted or payment withheld The ambiguity can be removed by rephrasing as: > Payment withheld or not deducted but I’m curious to know the rules regarding the word _not_ preceeding an _or_.


Word to describe someone who does whatever they please?

I’m looking for a word that could be used to describe someone that does whatever he wants and doesn't listen to anyone else. Someone like Julius Caesar maybe?


Why (and for whom) does "unbeknown" become "unbeknownst"

I know there's been an earlier question What is the meaning and usage of the word “beknownst”?. But nothing there satisfies my curiosity about that extra **-st** at the end. I might have supposed the "extended" version to be dated / formal / literary, but I just heard it on the UK Channel 4 news. C4 newsreaders are normally far more relaxed about diction than those on other major channels (with glottal stops and dropped aitches aplenty). So, what's the situation as regards actual usage? Is there a UK/US difference? And how does that extra **-st** come about in the first place? It doesn't seem connected to the archaic the second-person singular (as in Macbeth's _"Thou com’st to use thy tongue; thy story quickly."_ ).


Disdainful pity...?

My question stems from a conversation on _sympathy_ and _pity_. My girlfriend and I agreed that sympathy is feeling for someone, but without taking action or desiring to take action. _Pity_ , then, overlaps with _sympathy_ except there's a desire to take action to help the person in need. But _pity_ , can also be more cynical, and it can demean, intentionally or otherwise, the person receiving pity. So, this is where I'm curious, **is there a word that means specifically _disdainful or demeaning pity_?**


Can an adjective follow dynamic verbs ("leave", "declare")?

I know that an adjective can come after some verbs, such as: be, become, feel, get, look, seem, smell, sound. These verbs are "stative" verbs, which express a state or change of state. For example: > Dinner smells good tonight But I also find this kind of sentence. > Seventeen years of war left the country bankrupt > > The company was later declared insolvent In those sentences, an adjective can follows other dynamic verbs (leave, declare) as well. Is it right for those sentences? Or who knows what is another grammar point being used in those examples? Thanks.


Differences beetween past perfect continuous and past continuous

I would like to know the difference between _past perfect continuous_ and _past continuous_ in these examples:   1. We were playing tennis when it started raining.   2. We had been playing tennis when it started raining.


How does one translate 'mast' into English

The Persian word **مست** (romanized as 'mast') is a staple of mystic poetry. Literally, it means drunk or inebriated. More accurately, it is used to mean a state of spiritual euphoria. It has very positive and active connotations. Despite the Islamic prohibition of alcohol, it is considered a great compliment. How can it be translated into English?


Does it make sense to use "They're welcome" as a response to "X says thanks"?

I've seen someone respond with "They're welcome" to "X says thanks" where X is another person and/or group of persons. The reply seemed okay to me, but its correctness has been immediately contested by a few others. The fact that I cannot find instances of it being used anywhere on the web got me to doubt my initial belief, and now I'm starting to think it's some sort of rookie mistake that nobody (else) does. There are no real arguments given by the people contesting its correctness, but I don't have any to support its correctness either. My guess is the confusion started because "You're welcome" is always translated as "Cu placere" in Romanian, which literally means "With pleasure" rather than "You're welcome (to...)". Even so, the expression still seems appropriate.


Can I mix "would" and "kind of"?

Is this sentence correct? > The test would be kind of homework activity like last time.


British slang for "being reassigned to the unsophisticated and remote regions or villages"

I am stumped in trying to remember the British expression used as a derogatory slant on being relegated, demoted, assigned to a lower position, reduced in rank, or (quite literally) being reassigned to the unsophisticated and remote regions or villages. I get stuck with "sent off to the 'colonies'," but I know _colonies_ is not the term involved.


Can "presently" and "currently" be used interchangeably? For example which is better: I am presently teaching Grade 12 or I am currently teaching Grade 12 ?


Should I use "both" or "each"?

**Two sisters went away to college for four years.** In restating the above, which of the following sentences is correct?   1. Both sisters went away to college.   2. Each of the sisters went away to college.  I've been told "both" implies that the girls went to the same school (they didn't). I maintain that "each" should be used with _more than two_.


Naming Conglomerate Company

I am looking to name a Canadian corporation that is the holding corporation for a group of companies, a conglomerate. I am wondering whether to include the word "the" in the company name. For example, would you use: The Smith Group Inc. or Smith Group Inc.


English "whole" and Greek "holos"

Is the English adjective "whole" genealogically related in any way to the adjective "holos", which means "whole" in Koine (and possibly other varieties of Greek; I'm not sure), and has a similar pronunciation? If so, how are they related?


A case of optional “that”: “check the” vs. “check that the”

Consider the following use case:   * Please check the username and password are correct.   * Please check _that_ the username and password are correct. In this case, I would say that _that_ is required because it feels more natural to me and so the flow is better. However, is the lack of _that_ wrong in this case? The question boils down to: when is _that_ optional? See here. A quick summary:   * _That_ is optional if the pronoun is the object.   * _That_ is required if the pronoun is the subject. I think that we fall into the second case: _that_ is required because the relative pronoun is the subject. But I'm not sure if I'm interpreting these rules correctly. Can someone please advise?


What's the correct usage of "hopefully"?

I said, "Hopefully, I will get better" to a friend and he said that I was using it incorrectly, stating that _hopefully_ is an adverb meaning "full of hope" that modifies a verb. It sounds right, but I'm pretty sure that this usage of _hopefully_ has become prevalent enough to be accepted for this use case. Am I right, is he right, or are we both right?


"Bobsled" versus "Bobsleigh"

What is the difference between "Bobsled" and "Bobsleigh"? Can they be used interchangeably? Which one is used more widely?


Bourbon whiskey, Bourbon monarchy: is there a connection?

Is there any connection between _bourbon_ , the name of the American whiskey, and _Bourbon_ , the French monarchy, or is it just a coincidence?


Does the noun "stable" have meanings other than "place for animals"?

I came across someone noting that an English term for the training area of Sumo wrestlers is "sumo stable", and that "stable" is usually a word used for horses. She found it a bit funny. I'm not sure whether she meant "funny" as in "haha", or "funny" as in "strange". Wiktionary doesn't have any definitions of stable other than a place for animals, or the horses from a stable. Do English-speakers view sumo wrestlers as being like animals, or is there a meaning of "stable" that I'm unaware of?


What do you call the fire that is built outdoors and for cooking only (not for camping)?

Example: > The barbecue tasted incredible, with that unique aroma that only [...] gives > to the meat. I thought of using the word _campfire_ but in the sentence the barbecue isn't taking place in a camp; it’s just some grilling on the beach. I also thought of _open air fire_. But I wonder if there’s a shorter phrase or a single word for it?


"Overlaid" or "overlain" as an adjective

I have a set of three images, which I have put on top of each other in an image editing program and made transparent. I would like the filename to describe what I have done with the component images. Which is the correct phrase to use for the filename in this situation: "Overlain Images" or "Overlaid Images"?


What would be a suitable name for the game panel in tetris?

I am trying to develop a Tetris clone. However, I am unsure what to name the panel where the user places the pieces. _Game panel_ seems too generic since the entire frame is in fact the panel of the game. Are there any other options?


On the use of "it is shown"

I am refereeing an academic paper where the authors constantly use the construct "it is shown that (blah)" immediately followed by a demonstration of (blah). I don't recall seeing this construct used in this way; the demonstration is usually anywhere other than immediately after (another paper, another book, a previous paragraph, whatnot). Is this usage correct? If not, why? * * * I can't quote the paper, but here is a more concrete made-up example of their construct: > First, it is shown that there is at most one foo in this list. Consider any > bar from the first sequence, they all fall into one of the three cases > above. Since these three cases lead to the same foo, there is at most one > foo in this list. > > Next, it is shown that there is at least one foo in this list. Note that odd > bars are guaranteed to lead to a foo. Since there is an odd bar in the first > sequence, there must be a foo in this list.


Do thence/whence linger only as rhetorical variants for there/where?

The King James Bible has numerous instances of _from thence/hence_ , including the famous line of Psalm 121: > _I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my help_. Do _thence/whence_ linger only as rhetorical variants for _there/where_ in reference to place? Or are these words only old-fashioned?


"It is fun to write letters" vs. "It is fun writing letters"

Grammatically, "It is fun to write English letters." is correct. But is the following also grammatically correct? > It is fun writing English letters.


what book to read & which book to read

In the absence of a clear context regarding how known or unknown is the number of books available for me to read, should I use _what book to read_ or _which book to read_? > I don't know _what_ book to read (= I don't know how many books there are > for me to choose from.) > > I don't know _which_ book to read (= I know how many books there are for me > to choose from, and choose one from that specified number.) Are these assumptions correct or not? If not, why?


Reserve or book tickets?

In an app I am writing the user can book/reserve tickets for riding a bus.   Which of the following terms does fit this process best?   'Reserve Tickets' or 'Book Tickets' Also, in some cases the user would need to make a change/transfer, but can buy tickets for both buses together/at the same time. How would one best describe this process?


What preposition do I use  -- on, to, for, -- when writing "stand for election" for a group?

Hopefully this is a simple question, although possibly too simple for this site - if so I apologise! Which, if any, are acceptable phrases: > ...stand for election **on** a place on the group > > ...stand for election **to** a place on the group > > ...stand for election **for** a place on the group I'm immediately drawn to the final option, but the use of 'for election for' bugs me somewhat - I don't know why.


Chandlery: From candles to ships

If you do a search for _chandler_ , most of the results are for suppliers to boats. Dictionaries suggest that one of the meanings of the word is a dealer or trader for a specialized market. Both dictionaries there mention a _ship's chandler_ as one example, without saying that it's the predominant example (the other example given is _corn chandler_ ). Both of these dictionaries, and the Online Etymology Dictionary also define a chandler as one who makes or deals in candles. The etymology dictionary gives only this definition. My guess is that _chandler_ broadened from _a dealer in candles_ to _a dealer in any specialised trade_ and then narrowed to _a supplier for boats_. Is that right? Just to confuse matters further, Wikipedia does not mention the _any specialised trade_ definiton, suggesting the word moved directly from describing a candle-maker to describing a ship's supplier.


Pronunciation of the big-O notation

How should I pronounce the following things? (These are complexities of algorithms.) >   * O(n) >   * O(n*log(n)) >   * O(n^2) >


Etymological relationship between "to" and "too"

The words _to_ and _too_ have rather different meanings but from what little information I can gather (from their Dictionary.com references) they seem to potentially be from the same old-English root. If these two words are related in origin, how and why was the original word divided into two different spellings?


Can I use the word "library" to refer to collections of things other than books or software?

It makes sense to say "library of books". Is it legitimate to use the word "library" in other contexts. For example, could one have a "library of hedgehogs" or a "library of apples"?


Meaning of "How do I get featured?" in context of software development

This is my first question at _English Language & Usage_ and I'm glad! My English is not so good and sometimes I feel myself very helpless when facing phrases like > How do I get featured? What does it mean? I've heard this phrase in Google I/O 2011 presentation and I can't figure it out.


Dare + have done

Here is an example from an old book. I know it’s old but it can’t be simply discarded, I hope. > "I never dare have spoken — never dare have told you that my love for you > was killing me" So, I wonder if the following three all mean the same thing?   1. I never dare have told you.   2. I never dared to have told you.   3. I didn't ever dare to have told you. I would like to know how popular in terms of the usage frequency the combination of _dare_ and a perfect infinitive is.


"Pace" vs. "speed"

Is there a difference between " ** _pace_** " and " ** _speed_** "? I have a feeling that with "speed" we usually specify the actual value, while with "pace" we talk more relatively. Am I right?


Difference between "partly" and "partially"

What is the difference between _partly_ and _partially_? An example of usage for each word would be great.


I am trying to learn JavaScript, but my English is not that good. While reading _Simply JavaScript_ by Kevin Yank & Cameron Adams, I came across this paragraph, and I want to know what one sentence in it means: > Thanks to the wide adoption of the Document Object Model (DOM) standard, > accessing HTML elements in your JavaScript code works very similarly in > every browser. **If only the same could be said for every aspect of > JavaScript!** As it happens, running JavaScript code in response to an event > stands out as one of the few remaining features that are implemented in > wildly varying ways in current browsers. What does "If only the same could be said for every aspect of JavaScript!" mean?


"Seek" vs."search"

I've been wondering, what is the difference between _seek_ and _search_? When should one be preferred over the other?


Hypernym for injured and dead

I'm working on some project that deals with natural disasters. I need to find the most proper word that can be used to refer to someone who either was injured or died in a disaster. Can I use _casualty_? Or maybe _involved_ is better?


Are "coded" and "encoded" synonymous?

I was creating a domain for a website, but I couldn't understand the difference (if there is any) between the words _coded_ and _encoded_. What's the right use of them? Or are they just synonyms I can use interchangeably without worrying about context or register?


How should I reply to "Dude, are you there?"

Let's say I am having a telephone conference with rest of the team, and somebody asks me "Dude, are you there?" How should I reply? > Yes, dude, I am there. or > Yes, I am here? It is difficult for me to see the difference.


What part of speech are the words in the phrase “as well as”?

In the sentence: > My car **as well as** my lap top were stolen last night. What part of speech are the words in the phrase _as well as_? I believe the first _as_ is the preposition of the phrase, that _well_ is an adverb, and that the last _as_ is again a preposition. But I am not sure. Or do the three words function together as a syntactic element? If so, what would that be called?


Usage of the word "genocide"

I am wondering whether the word _genocide_ can also be used for the killing of a group of people based on their religion, for example: 'the Sikh genocide'. I have never seen it used that way, I have seen 'Armenian Genocide', 'Kurdish genocide', so on and so forth.


Do you have mixed feelings "on" something or "about" something?

It seems to me that both the forms are used but I don't know if they have the same meaning or not.


"Alan's first birthday" vs. "Alans' first birthday"

when writing out invitation cards would it be "Alans' first birthday" or "Alan's first birthday"?


Isn't the word "shotgun" a self-redundancy?

I was googling the reason for why it's called " _shotgun_ " to ride beside the driver when it suddenly hit me - why on Earth is the firearm called " _shotgun_ "?! Is there any other kind of a **gun** than one used for **shooting**?! Why is it called " _shotgun_ " instead of just a " _gun_ " or a more technical term (9-gauge, barrel gun etc.)?


A word for an action that's not illegal but morally dubious

I am writing an essay on Political Correctness currently, and striving to find a word fitting this description. I want to say that something **wasn't nice,** but it **wasn't breaking the law**. It wasn't legally wrong. But, in the sight of people around me, it was illegal, disallowed, inappropriate, taboo. But after then, I proceeded to say something else that was actually "legally illegal". What is a term that would replace the words in the quotation marks? Here is an example: It's recess, and there's joking everywhere. Then someone cracks a joke at someone else. Everyone laughs. The person whom the joke is against laughs as well, then shouts,"You Jew!" What he said was actually prosecutable. It was "legally illegal" I need a term/adjective fitting this description


"It's working for me": correct?

This question came to my mind, while working with StackOverflow. Whenever a solution to a question is posted, I usually see people writing:   _"It's working for me"._   I somehow do not like this expression. It also forces me to think, whether it is a grammatically correct expression? I personally would write:   _"It's working in my case"._


What is meant by the phrase "Charlie Brown management"?

Recently I came to hear the term "Charlie Brown management" in a news article. I tried searching the net on this term, but didn't get anything useful. Please help me to decipher this idiom.


Time format "10 to 10"

Can someone tell what does this time format "10 to 10" mean? Is it 9:50 or 10:10?


"Hope you won't" vs "Hope you don't"

What is the difference between "Hope you don't mind" and "Hope you won't mind"? What could be a contextual difference between the two? In a situation like the following, which one seems more approproitae? >   * Expect me to knock on your door sometimes. "Hope you don't mind(my > knocking on your door)" Or "Hope you won't mind" >


Meaning of "sniped in"

What is the meaning of _sniped in_? Can I use it in the following sentence to replace _bought_? > John has **bought/sniped in** a new BMW.


What is the opposite of "free" as in "free of charge"?

What is the opposite of **_free_** as in "free of charge" (when we speak about prices)? We can add _not_ for negation, but I am looking for a single word.


Can I use "on this occasion" to start a sentence?

Can I use _on this occasion_ to start a sentence? For example: > I worked for three years as administrator of XXXX. **On this occasion** I > managed. . . .


What is the origin of "stat"?

When watching medical television shows, I often hear the doctors (actors) using the term _"stat"_ , which I understand to mean _"do [action] quickly/immediately"_. Where did this term originate, and where is it derived from?


Does "he has some issues to work out" have some special meaning? Is it an idiom? How is its meaning different from "he has some problems to solve"?


"Bad" or "Poor" is more severe?

Saw this thread. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/xk9h0.png) In the thread, **poor** is implied in a sense that it is more severe than **bad**. I myself would choose to replace **poor** with **terrible**. But I don't see anything implying that in dictionaries. Is that always the case— **poor** is worse than **bad** —if the two words are used under the same context?


Meaning of "that's the idea"

I read a book in which a character wrote a poem. She told herself > I should fix the first part, but that's the idea. What does this mean, "but that's the idea"? Does it mean   1. she should fix the first one, but she is doing well over all.   2. she should fix the first one, and this idea (to fix the first part) is good.


What is "hership"?

I've been reading Scott's _Ivanhoe_ , and in it Cedric has been complaining of the general lawlessness of England at the time, when an alarm sounds... > "To the gate, knaves!" said the Saxon, hastily, as soon as the tumult was so > much appeased that the dependents could hear his voice. "See what tidings > that horn tells us of - to announce, I ween, some hership and robbery which > has been done upon my lands." I wonder if anyone could explain what _hership_ means? I have tried to search for it but my attempts are corrected to _hardship_ or _heirship_.


Is there any difference in verb tense after the phrase "Isn't it about time you"

Isn't it about time you left the hospital? vs Isn't it about time you leave the hospital? or Isn't it about time you forgave yourself? vs Isn't it about time you forgive yourself?


Is 'et cetera' used in spoken English?

I've never heard someone say it. I'm more interested specifically in British English, but also in general.


What is changed in 'guerrilla' and 'guerrillas' usage during the last two hundred years?

_" **guerrilla** : a member of a usually small group of soldiers who do not belong to a regular army and who fight in a war as an independent unit"_ (M-W) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/FNDNF.png) Surely there are specific historical reasons behind the peaks #1, #2 and #3, and it is not difficult to see that the peaks #2 and #3 are connected respectively to the WW2 and to the Vietnam War. I don't know what is due peak #1, neither I want to know that. Instead I would like to know the reason why, contrary to what happened during WW2 and VW, during 1860 to 1870 the plural _guerrillas_ was more common that the _singular_.


Certain That and Certain To

Are these sentences grammatically correct? (I feel as though "it" should refer to something in the first one.)   1. It is certain that the weather will change.   2. The weather is certain to change. Thank you.


What is the right word for converting slides into pictures?

I'd like to know the correct word for converting PowerPoint presentation slides into a PowerPoint slideshow which consists of images of the original slides (so that the contents does not shift when presenting on a different computer). Please help me to find the word describing such a transformation.


Can you refer to public venues as rooms?

For example can I say something like: "We were at the restaurant. Then Bill came with the birthday cake. Applause filled the room." If not, what's a better word to use?


What does the phrase "it does not become you" mean?

I have heard it used in a negative sense. For example, "rudeness does not become you" etc. Is this phrase used in a positive context as well? (like "generosity becomes you")?


Mixing subjunctive and indicative, "if you tripped every time someone mentions"

> If you tripped every time someone mentions your name, you would have been > dead by now. My question is about the subordinate clause of the above sentence, "If you tripped everytime someone mentions your name...". Is the mixture of the subjunctive _tripped_ and the indicative _mentions_ correct?


Why is it called an adam's apple?

Why is it called an **adam's apple**? ![Adam's Apple](http://i.stack.imgur.com/KnXEx.jpg)


Meaning of "the C team analysts worry whether the divorce may not have side effects"

> The key relationship in the C team model is the centrality of the link > between political sovereignty and fiscal authority on the one hand and money > creation, the mint and the central bank on the other. A key fact in the > proposed Euro system is that the link is to be weakened to a degree rarely, > if ever, known before. … There is to be an unprecedented divorce between the > main monetary and fiscal authorities **… the C team analysts worry whether > the divorce may not have some unforeseen side effects.** I came across this sentence in _The Economist_ but couldn't make out the actual meaning of it. Can anyone explain? What can we tell about "C team analysts"? Also about the usage of "whether...may not."


How to use "used to use"?

Is it correct to say something like this? > I used to use the knife to open things like cans.


Using term "shot dead"

I'm curious about newscasters using the term "shot dead" in describing the death of a gun shot victim. Is this correct? They would never describe a survivor as "shot live".


Why should I use "ought to"?

Is "ought to" still used in modern English? If yes, in what contexts is it used, and is it used more in formal or informal cases?


Use of "perform" in academic jargon?

I was reading this article when I came across the following quote: > "it’s a savvy and interesting thing to not **perform** the legitimacy of The > Professor. Because this is the double thing: you’ve got people saying, > 'You’ve made a bad choice, but we have to keep sacred this term professor so > you have to **perform** this cultural capital.'" Twice in succession she's using "perform" in a phrasing that sounds unusual and stilted to me. Is this an example of "perform" being used as jargon in a particular technical sense that's unfamiliar to me? Or is it just one person's slightly unconventional turn of phrase?


Phrase for correcting text in a particular manner

If someone writes in a manner such as "U hve to run daily ... only then U will lose weight" and you correct it to "You have to run daily, only then you will lose weight." I suppose you can't say you have corrected grammar. What can you say you have corrected? Punctuation?


Continuing a sentence in a parenthesis and then starting a new one inside the same

Take a look at this meaning: > By the way, I marked position 2854 (in the code. It's the slash). Is is correct to start a new sentence within a parenthesis like this? Or another, worse, example: > By the way, I marked (a lot of things of which you are unaware. Please try > not to eat) the semicolon. If it's not possible to do this, is there than any other solution (except rephrasing!).


Dependent clause after pronoun

This question arose from why sentence #1 is correct and why sentence #2 is incorrect - > I pity those who lost their money in gambling. > > I pity them who lost their money in gambling. I have asked the question in ELL forum, as well as in Linguistics forum. But the answers their made me more confused. **RULE 1** > Jlawler's comment contains the direct answer to the question. Definite > personal pronouns (I/me, you, he/him, she/her, it, we/us, they/them) cannot > take a restrictive modifier. In other words, they cannot take a dependent > that narrows the set of entities that they denote. This trait of personal > pronouns underlies their use as test words for constituent structure. For > example: >   >   >      (a)  The man with the hat knows the woman with the scarf. >   >      (b)  He knows her. >   >      (c) *He with the hat knows her with the scarf. >   > > Sentence (a) is the starting sentence. Sentence (b) shows proform > substitution; the personal pronouns _he_ and _her_ have been substituted in > for the noun phrases _the man with the hat_ and _the woman with the scarf_. > Based on the acceptability of sentence (b), one concludes that both _the man > with the hat_ and _the woman with the scarf_ are constituents. Definite > pronouns such as _he_ and _her_ (and _them_ ) take the place of > constituents, in this case of complete noun phrases. > > The unacceptability of sentence (c) reveals that the strings _the man_ and > _the woman_ in (a) are not constituents. In other words, the definite > personal pronouns _he_ and _her_ cannot take dependents (=modifiers), since > they necessarily replace an entire noun phrase. This fact explains why _them > who lost their money_ in the question is bad English. The relative clause > _who lost money_ is a postdependent (=postmodifier), and as such it cannot > modify _them_ (because _them_ as a definite personal pronoun cannot be > modified). > > The plural demonstrative pronouns ( _these_ and _those_ ) behave > differently. They can take postdepndents (=postmodifiers, i.e. a modifier > that follows them), e.g >   >   >      (d)  These with hats know those with scarves. >   > > This is simply a trait of the plural demonstrative pronouns ( _these_ and > _those_ ) -- there is no good explanation why plural demonstrative pronouns > behave differently than definite personal pronouns; they simply do. Note > that the plural demonstrative pronouns also behave differently than the > singular demonstrative pronouns in this regard, e.g. >   >   >      (e)  *This with a hat knows that with a scarf. >   > > Singular demonstrative pronouns ( _this_ and _that_ ) are behaving like the > definite personal pronouns; they cannot take dependents. > > The combination **plural demonstrative pronoun + restrictive relative > clause** can actually be viewed as a particular construction in English and > related languages. That is, it is a combination that occurs relatively > frequently and has therefore been lexicalized. German has a very similar > construction, e.g. >   >   >      (f) Diejenigen mit einem Hut kennen diejenigen mit einem Schal. >          those      with  a   hat  know     those   with  a   scarf. >   > > By acknowledging that one has a particular construction, one is in a sense > admitting that there is no real grammatical "explanation" for the > phenomenon. It simply exists. > > Finally, note that there are certain apparent exceptions to the principles > mentioned above. There are uses of personal pronouns that actually allow > modification, e.g. >   >   >      (g) He who studies a lot gets a good grade. >   > > In this example, the personal pronoun _he_ is not referring directly to a > specific entity, which means it is not definite; it is, rather, being used > as an indefinite pronoun; it means 'the one, anyone', e.g. _Anyone who > studies a lot gets a good grade_. **MY CONFUSION** Reading this answer make the following sentence consider wrong - > It is she who stood second in class. So another person came up with another rule - **RULE 2** > Nominative personal pronouns can be modified by relative clauseas just like > demonstrative pronouns; it's the objective personal pronouns that can't. _He > who, she who, they who, you who_ are all grammatical, if archaic. _Him who, > her who, them who_ , however, aren't. **MY CONFUSION** Now this rule create a conflict with the rule 1 I quoted first. In the first rule it says - **_He with the hat knows her with the scarf_** \- sentence is wrong, but if we consider the second rule then this particular sentence should be correct. Another problem with the second rule is that it makes the following sentence incorrect - > The action was performed by her who is the secretary of XYZ company. So another rule came in picture - **RULE 3** > "Them," combined with the "who," has to be used with a preposition like > "to," "from," or "with." > > "I pity them," by itself, is a grammatically correct sentence, but when you > connect the dependent clause with "who," it is no longer correct. Now I am really confused. Can anyone here please help?


“In the menu” vs. “on the menu”  (in software)

I usually see this phrase used interchangeably with the prepositions _in_ and _on_. I know that their meaning isn’t the same, but I can’t think of situations where we should use one instead of another. Can anyone shed some light on any differences between these two: >   1. In the menu. >   2. On the menu. > Just to clarify, I’m talking about menus of computer programs.


Does "intense" have a negative meaning?

I always thought that _intense_ has a positive meaning, meaning something that has no tensions, therefore _an intense activity_ is actually a fun activity. So, what does _intense_ exactly mean? A few days ago I was having a sub for breakfast and my colleague said to me "that's intense". I'm really confused now, what did she mean? And if _intense_ has a negative meaning, then is _tense_ positive? _Tense_ is not an adjective, is it?


Single word to indicate a nonsense poem, a poem with invented words?

Is there any English single word that can be used to indicate a poem with invented words, like Jabberwocky? I am looking for a single word rather than a two-word expression like "nonsense poem", "nonsense verse". Also, it doesn't have to indicate necessarily a Limerick. (Of course, should this word _not_ exist, please feel free to invent one …) EDIT: I have found that in Italian this is called "metasemantic poetry" which is not a single word but it sounds ok to me. However, apparently this expression is not used in English.


what is meant by "holy cows" phrases?

When holy cows are used in the phrases? Any sample phrases with holy cow. Also, the meaning of those phrases.


Synonym for "call bulls--t"

I am writing a column for publication in a widely circulated newspaper, and would like to use a phrase meaning something like "call bullshit". I can't think of one that captures the meaning so succinctly. I certainly don't want to use the original phrase (not my style, and it's partly aimed at school students of varying ages). To aid in finding options, the intended excerpt is something like: > If you claim to have compiled such a list then I know I can always call > bullshit by finding an item you missed. NB: the deception was not intentional on the part of the list compiler — they _missed_ an item, not omitted it.


Meaning of "about all..." and "hold on to the hand of..." in the sentence

What are the meanings of "about all..." and "hold on to the hand of" in the sentence "There are many times in life when about all we can do is to hold on to the hand of the Divine Guide until we have run through the storm zone." ? Thanks.


Divide to two parts, not necessarily equal

I am writing a paper about a geometric algorithm where one of the main operations is dividing a rectangles to two smaller rectangles. It is important that there are two pieces, and that the pieces don't have to be equal. I am looking for a single verb that I can use in this context. There are many English words that are specific to the number 2, for example "couple" (a group of 2), "half" (one of 2 equal parts), "both", etc. So, I thought there may be a word specific for dividing to two parts I thought of _bisecting_ , but according to Meriam-Webster it means "two equal parts". _Bipartite_ seems like a good candidate, but according to Meriam-Webster it is an adjective, and I need a verb. I asked in ell and got many answers ( _splitting_ , _cleaving_ , _dividing_ , _separating_ , _breaking_ ), but none of these imply that there are exactly 2 pieces. EDIT: In the future I may change the algorithm to cut into 3 parts, so, it could be good to have a verb that can be naturally modified to indicate 3 parts.


Word for a being smarter than a normal person

I'm looking for a word for sentient beings that are smarter than ordinary human beings. This word should at least include the following:   * Geniuses with artificially enhanced intelligence   * Alien lifeforms that are smarter than normal human beings   * A.I.s that are smarter than normal human beings The words "overmind" and "posthuman" have come to my mind, but "overmind" seems to be generally understood as "being controlling other beings", while "posthuman" doesn't include super-smart aliens. **Edit:** Fixed misleading wording.


Usage of 'represent' to mean 'present again'

Can the word ' _represent_ ' be used to mean 'present again'? Is the usage in the following sentence correct? "You cannot _represent_ a bounced cheque.'


How to assess "an access of butchness"

I read this phrase in Alan Bennett’s Diary years ago and found it so unusual I’ve never forgotten it. Italics mine: > 8 December. Trying to find someone a Meccano set for Christmas, I’m reminded > of a couple, friends of Russell H., who had a son of twelve or so who they > were worried might be growing up gay. However, they were greatly heartened > when the boy said that what he wanted for Christmas was a Meccano set. > Delighted by what they saw as an _access of butchness_ , they bought him the > biggest set they could find … The Free Dictionary provides this fifth and final definition for the noun access: 5\. An outburst or onset: an access of rage. And Dictionary.com this: 5\. an attack or onset, as of a disease. My Shorter OED lists ten definitions of access, of which: 1\. A (sudden) coming on of illness b. _spec_ an Ague fit (LME-L19) and 10\. An outburst of anger or other emotion. In four decades of extensive reading in English, I have never come across “access of” until this reading. Given the definitions, whether outburst or onset, I think Bennett’s use of it in context is brilliant. I’m curious to find other examples of this usage. Is it archaic? Precious? Fully contemporary? Is it more British, more American? Doing an internet search for “access of” does not lead to obvious examples. Typically you’ll find “access of (subject) to (object).” This has me thinking it must be used more in literary contexts. And if so, does anyone have any contemporary examples of its use?


"would like you to" vs. "please"

I am writing an email, in which I would like to ask for something but I don't want to be very direct. I came up with the following two constructions: > In addition, I will not be receiving my stipend while working. So _please_ > consider my remuneration package carefully. > > In addition, I will not be receiving my stipend while working. _So I would > like you to_ consider my remuneration package carefully. Any additional improvements are welcome.


Why do we use the plural "heads" and "tails" when describing sides of a coin?

_Head_ or _tail_ sound fine to my ESL ears. What's the reasoning behind the plural usage? I looked it up on etymonline but didn't find anything interesting.


what will be the alternate word for convey in the following sentence

I am writing my first official email in English which happens to be my second language. I am unsure about the correctness of the following sentence. Please help. **The detected error is false positive, and I have verified this against the source. I believe you have updated your system to check against improper pricing, but the same was never conveyed to us.** explain--> The situation is that we send our stock related information to another site for selling. the format of data that we send was agreed between us. Now suddenly they had changed the system without telling us hence the error came.


How do you say "hands-on experience" with this technology to an interviewer?

Generally, I would tell an interviewer that I have "hands-on experience" with this technology, by which I mean that my experience in this field is very limited, but quite efficient and knowledgeable. I've had this feeling that quoting it this way does not give the correct message. It does not clearly explain the "efficient and knowledgeable" part. So how do I say it? Is there a one-word expression for it, or is there any better statement to express this?


What does the expression "Brothers in Arms" mean?

I was listening to Dire Straits and wondered what "brothers in arms" are...


Is it acceptable to say "badly efficient"

If you didn't want to say someone is "inefficient", how would you concisely describe someone who has bad efficiency - badly/poorly efficient doesn't sound quite right, or is this ok?


Is there any difference between "admonish" and "warn"?

Is there any difference between _admonish_ and _warn_?


Etymology of "quick" of a fingernail, as in "cut to the quick"

Part of a fingernail known as the hyponychium is informally known as the "quick". It is referenced in the saying "cut to the quick". What is the etymology of the word quick as in reference to the fingernail?


Is there any difference between "a few relatives" and "a few relations"?

In the following sentence I prefer saying _relatives_ but I am unable to explain why. > It's going to be a small wedding. Only a few friends and **relatives** have > been invited On doing research I found that both nouns can be collocated after the following adjectives; _distant_ , _blood_ , and _close_. We also have the phrase: > **Friends and relations** 307,000 results   >  **Friends and relatives** 1,210,000 results Judging from the Google Ngram graph below it looks like the former was more commonly used in BrEng and is becoming increasingly rare. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/1CQm3.jpg) I can't even say that _friends and relations_ is an old fashioned BrEng expression because according to CDO (set at American English) for **relation** it offers this example of usage: > _On our trip, we visited friends and relations on both sides of the family._ In TFD **relation** is defined thus; > _n. 2. The connection of people by blood or marriage; kinship. 3. A person > connected to another by blood or marriage; a relative._ > > **Relative** _n. One related by kinship, common origin, or marriage._ Is there any difference in usage? Are both terms interchangeable? Are _relatives_ and _relations_ , truly synonymous when referring to family members? _EDIT_   I would like to expand my question and ask:   * What is the difference between _relations_ and _relatives_ when talking about family?    * Is _relations_ a word that is becoming out-of-date, or as @WS2 commented, is it the "downmarket" version of relatives in BrEng?    * Does the term _relatives_ sound more intimate and meaningful compared to _relations_ as suggested by @Kris?


Do "I guess" and "I would say" have the same meaning?

I often read sentences where the idea is "I would say" but it starts with "I guess". For example: >   * **I would say** he is not coming. >   * **I guess** he is not coming. > Do both have the same meaning?


What countries use "bond" to refer to a security deposit?

I run a vacation rental and require renters to pay me a $400 refundable security deposit. A customer from Australia was confused by this and when I explained it, they said "oh, in my country that is a called a bond." So now I refer to it as "$400 refundable security deposit (bond)" when I'm dealing with Aussie guests. I think the U.S.-based customers, the word "bond" is not common and could end up being confusing (since it typically refers to the instrument traded in financial markets, i.e. stocks and bonds). But what other countries would refer to this as a bond?


Placement of the word "later" in a sentence

Why is it correct to say "it later came to pass" instead of "it came to pass later"? What is the rule for this placement?


Interpretation of "The biggest thing to happen to iPhone since iPhone"

When I read the phrase > The biggest thing to happen to iPhone since iPhone I interpreted it to imply that the first occurrence of iPhone happened to itself -- that is, > the first iPhone happened to iPhone. Is this the correct interpretation, or are there any alternatives that I am missing? If this is the only interpretation, assuming the _happen to_ phrase is being used to mean _have a significant impact on_ , how does the notion of iPhone happening to itself make any sense (if at all)?


What noun means "the state of being intrigued/amazed by something"? For example, the state of _being poor_ is **poverty**. Is there such a word for _being intrigued/amazed_?


Why would you want to do that?

I recently shared with several coworkers that I wanted to go to a particular class. My coworker responded to me with the following question: "Why would you want to do that?" I responded with a sarcastic comment. Her question seemed negative to me. Can someone explain the "usage" to me. > One of the district's maintenance supervisors, John, came to the school > where I work one day looking for the asst principal. We had a conversation, > during which I said to John, "After I get my F.O.I.D. card, [your wife] and > I should go for shooting lessons." > > The other secretary in the room then said, "Why would you want to do that?" > > I replied with the following flippant comment: "To shoot you." > > I am now getting fired. I was joking, but I need to explain in technical terms that I thought she was being negative.


Alternatives to "enthusiasm declined"?

I'd like to say something like "My enthusiasm declined after I read the news", but I'm not sure _decline_ goes well with _enthusiasm_. Is there a better alternative? Or is _decline_ just fine?


What's a word that means "cost-effective" in the monetary context?

"Cost-effective" is a generic term that can be used to describe anything that is "productive relative to the cost" whereby _cost_ is a very vague term which can refer to either time, money, or human resources, etc. "Time-effective" will be a specific case of "cost-effective", in the context of "time". What may be a word to mean "cost-effective" in the context of "money"?


"To tame" for "to cultivate [vegetables, a land, etc.]" and "to domesticate (or farm) [poultry, fish, etc.]" in AmE

The Harrap's New Shorter French and English dictionary Ed. 1985, defines both verbal and adjectival "tame" as Americanisms for respectively "to cultivate" and "cultivated", as of a plant or a land [ _adj. 1.(b) NAm: (of plant, land) cultivé_ (cultivated, farmed, tilled)] and [ _v.tr. (b) NAm: (of plant, land) cultiver_ (to cultivate, to till, to farm)]. But then, checking on the definition online and searching the Net for examples, I realized these terms could also encompass respectively the sense "to domesticate" and "domesticated" -- i.e. to convert to domestic uses, as of farm animals -- but also, occasionally, coincide quite strangely with the sense "to farm, to raise" and "farmed, raised", as in "Our wild salmon compete with the organic tame salmon." The subtlety to all of this is that in France we use "domestiquer" [to domesticate] as the general term to mean to reduce an animal from the wild to a domestic state. Then -- specifically -- we use: "élever" [to raise] for farming; "apprivoiser" [to domesticize, to housebreak] for pets, [to tame] birds, wild animals; "dresser" [to tame or to break] for large or fierce or erratic animals (like elephants, horses, ornery dogs, etc.); "dompter" [to tame] especially for lions and tigers; and "cultiver" [to grow, to till, to cultivate] for plants and lands. And so, saying "tame" for a plant or a farm animal (e.g. tame carrots, a tame lamb, tame salmon, etc.) sounds kind of unnatural to my ear. Do any of these senses have any currency in AE today? If "yes", how does saying "to grow (a carrot), to cultivate (a land)" and "to domesticate (a lamb, salmon)" differ respectively from saying "to tame (a carrot, a land, a lamb, salmon)? Consider these sourced examples: > "Domestic bird" means any tame poultry raised for food or as a pet, > including but not limited to turkeys... source > > He rendered about twenty-five pounds of tallow of each bear and discovered > that it took less salt to cure bear bacon than it did wild or tame beef, > venison... source > > There is a debate in the relationship of "wild" and "farmed or tame" salmon. > source > > Trying to tame tomatoes? I am. I'm a beginner to growing veggies and > fruits... source > > One word of caution tho -- if you have wild carrots in the area your tame > carrots will cross with them. source http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tame


Single word for "something that is entertaining"

I feel there is a word for an object that is interesting or entertaining. For example, > I find that song or magic trick entertaining, and because I find it > entertaining it is a ___. I'm positive there's a word for that, and I believe it starts with F.


What is the best way to describe someone who is very social in a party?

If a person is very social in a party, striking up conversations with different people from one end of the hall to the other end, are there some good expressions to describe this person? In Chinese, we say she is a butterfly dancing among the flowers. What is the closest expression or metaphor in English?


What is the difference between doctrine and dogma?

How exactly do the literal meanings of doctrine and dogma differ? Or do they? Are their definitions suitable in religious context only?


What's a word for a voice doppelganger?

Someone that looks exactly like you is a dead ringer or a doppelganger. But what if they just _sound_ exactly like you?


Name of the trade(s) that are involved in making animal-drawn carriages

What are the terms for tradesmen involved in making carriages? One specific vocation comes to mind: **wheelwright** or, simply, **wheeler**. But, obviously, that name implies narrow focus of the profession. Did they, historically, concern themselves with wheels only, or did they work on other parts as well, especially as applied to undercarriage? Would the general blacksmith be producing iron-work (springs, stays, plates, joints, nuts, bolts etc.)? Was the regular carpenter the one to work with timber articles? Who, then, makes axletrees (axle beam made of wood, but trimmed with metal pieces and fittings, and considered as part of carriage iron-work)? William Felton, author of “A Treatise on Carriages” (1794) calls himself a **coach-maker**. Would that be a one-man show, or hands-on supervisor of a large operation? Given Mr. Felton’s apparent expertise, would such skilled professional be solely involved in production of most exquisite machinery, or were they your half-pence, run of the mill, everyday coach-makers? Is coach-maker someone who works primarily with finer, bodied, passenger carriages? Were there different tradesmen who made industrial cargo transport, or simpler ox-drawn village cart? In general, how availability of specialists differed from large cities to rural areas, or from established countries to the far colonies (e.g. British Isles or Continental Europe vs. West and East Indies). The more terms, archaic and otherwise, the merrier. Historical references to changes overtime are welcome. My current project is focused on mid-XVIII century New England, but I wanted to make the question as possibly broadly applied.


Difference in "capable" and "able"

What is the difference in being physically _capable_ and physically _able_? When would one choose one over the other?


Why do Americans go 'downtown' whilst people in the UK go 'up town'?

People in London, who live in the suburbs, may tell you they work 'up town', meaning in the City or the West End. In other large cities in Britain, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc., I think people who earn their living in the City Centre (equivalent to Downtown with capital D) will say casually that they work 'in town'. I think I'm right when I say that only Londoners go 'up town'. So where did the idea of 'Downtown' come from?


Does a comparative always need to compare with something?

As I understand it, comparatives compare with something. So something that is _colder_ is _more cold_ than another thing. However, can't a word like _colder_ be used as an adjective without being compared to something else? For example, is it ungrammatical to say the following? > People who live in _colder_ climates should be careful about their heating > bills. The adjective _cold_ could be inserted in place of _colder_ , but I think the meaning would be different. To me _colder_ sounds like 'somewhat cold' as opposed to 'absolute cold.'   So my questions are as follows:   1\. Is this use of _colder_ grammatical?   2\. If so, is it still considered a comparative?   3\. Do you agree with my understanding of _colder_ vs. _cold_ in the example?


Does the idiom "The chips will fall as they may" really exist?

I heard this idiom "The chips will fall as they may." in the Elementary drama. I want to know what it means so I have been trying to search it on the internet. But what I could only find is "let the chips fall where they may". I want to know if the idiom "The chips will fall as they may." really exist or it does not?


What is the comparative form of the adverb "nicely"?

The adjective _nice_ can be inflected: _nicer, nicest_. Can the derived adverb _nicely_ be inflected as well, or does it only have the absolute form?


Term for type of mask

What is the term for this? In my language we have a special word for it, not just _mask_.


What's the word for someone who pretends to buy something from a street-seller, in order to draw other people?

So there's a guy on Oxford Street in London who's always shouting through a PA system from his shop that they're "closing down tomorrow" and all their crappy perfume is on sale. I walk past this place every day and I realised that just as he opens the shop, two people with sullen expressions turn up, say a few words to him, then stand in front of him with fake smiles pretending to offer him money for stuff. It's a typical East End wide boy scam. I know there's a word for people who do this - I'd read it somewhere but have since forgotten it. What is it?


What is the opposite to being "consumed"?

What is the opposite to being "consumed" in a sense of being soon to be "consumed" but not yet happened to be. Or, to put it in a different way, is there a nicer way (synonym?) to say "unconsumed"? _Background & context_: The subject of "consumption" here is a character (a symbol/letter from a long line of text). I am working on a parser, so for each given rule the outcome of feeding a character to the parser can be either consumed (we can move on to the next character) or unconsumed meaning we should try to apply another rule if any, for either outcome there must be a type that represents it, the type needs a name, hence the question, I know I can go with unconsumed but it sounds a bit awkward.


Is there an idiom that conveys the meaning of the French “mi figue mi raisin”?

The French idiom _“mi figue, mi raisin”_ (literally: “half fig, half grape”) refers to someone or something that is neither entirely good, nor entirely bad. I guess the meaning of the expression can be rather well conveyed by translating it as “neither good nor bad”, “not entirely good or bad”, or “part good, part bad”, but… is there a common English idiom that express this idea?


Is or "verse" or a homonym of "verse" another word for versus?

I have heard a television news figure say what sounds like _verse_ when it seems he means to say _versus_. Is this an alternate pronunciation, or is it a different word? If it's a different word, what is the spelling? I suspect it's a mistake, but it is MSNBC news talk show host, Chris Hayes, who generally seems to speak in standard English in a way that indicates he is highly educated, who I've repeatedly heard use this word. For instance, he might say what sounds like, "Consider policy A "verse" policy B." There is a very similar question here on ELU asking about using _verse_ as a verb to mean _challenge_ , which I believe is related but not the same as my question.