"Should probably be" vs. "should be probably"

Which one is more correct? > This one should probably be similar to the other one. > > This one should be probably similar to the other one. My gut tells me it's the first one, but I'm not sure.


ACME technology or ACME's technology

EDIT 2: The nuance difference may be subtle, maybe even subliminal to most people, but still important to me. I don't think there's _one_ right answer to this question (but maybe there is), as any answer is subjective, so I'm interested in any opinion from anyone. Let's assume we have a company ACME that has some technology used in some product. To _your_ ears, what would be the difference between saying   * "The benefit of using ACME technology to accelerate the development of [...]" and   * "The benefit of using ACME's technology to accelerate the development of [...]"? The former sounds to me as if the technology was developed by ACME, regardless of who owns it. The latter makes it sound like ACME owns the technology (patents etc.), but didn't make it themselves. At the same time, saying "our technology" should be analogous to the second variant (assuming you work for ACME), but it doesn't feel quite the same. EDIT: I ran a few searches on Ngram, substituting ACME for various well-known industry names, and the two forms seem to run hand in hand, occurring with about the same frequency. I still don't think the two are entirely interchangeable.


Name a group of frequently used items or things

What name would you give to a grouping of items or things that you use frequently? I am preferrably looking for a one word answer please.


"going to" in conditionals

1. _If you said 'no', I would call your parents_ " =      * If you said 'no', **I am going to** call your parents   OR   If you said 'no', **I was going** to call your parents   2. _If you had said 'no', I would have called your parents_ =      * If you had said 'no', **I was going to** call your parents   OR   If you had said 'no', I **had been going** to call your parents [?] Which is correct?


A suspended hyphen in a list with only one hyphenated word

Consider the list: > experimental economics, behavioral economics, cognitive economics, > evolutionary economics, and neuroeconomics. Well, I am editing a submission with the above list rendered by the author as: > experimental, behavioral, cognitive, evolutionary, and neuroeconomics. I don't like that. But, I thought, "neuroeconomics" is also acceptable as the hyphenated "neuro-economics." So I wrote out this as a possible alternative: > experimental, behavioral, cognitive, evolutionary, and neuro- economics. Anyone think that's a reasonable solution?


Modal vs Non-Modal vs Auxiliary modal vs Conjugated Verb

Please help me. I am very confused.   1. How are these kinds of verb related to each other?   2. Specially Non-Modals and Conjugated Verb.   3. Is the "Auxiliary modal" just another name for "Auxiliary verb"?


How to say that the phone is held between shoulder and ear?

What are common phrases an English native speaker would use for the pose of speaking on the phone where you use your shoulder to keep the receiver against your ear (and mouth), so your hands are free? I have some ideas, but they all sound wooden, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe this pose in words. It's also pretty much impossible to google for a pose or look it up on leo.org or other dictionaries. OK, since people keep asking for what phrasings I found, I'll provide two, though I was hoping I could avoid influencing people who answer here by not providing them: "balance on one's shoulder", "held/nestled/sandwiched between shoulder and ear".


How to interpret the expression "of any city" in this sentence?

(thinkquest) > London itself is a living museum, with more than 2,000 years of history and > culture. But it also boasts one of the greatest concentrations of > significant museums (more than 100) **of any city** in the world. In the second sentence, how to interpret the expression "of any city"? Does it refer to **"museums of almost every city in the world"** or " **museums that cannot be compared by any city in the world** "? Why? It seems that I cannot find a proper explanation for either interpretation. In other words, I even think this sentence is not correct. Can anyone tell me which expression or word in the sentence is around with the expression " _of any city_ "?


Expression meaning "as it certainly turned out"

I think there was a phrase that meant precisely that. The only thing that I remember is that it ended with ... _enough_ (I'm not very sure, though). Example: > I glanced around to make sure I was still in the same room. And [...] > enough, everything still looked the same: the same wooden tables, the > same... Of course I could be mistaken. In that case I welcome other alternatives.


Should a second definition for a word be used over the first definition of another word? (Both appropriate words)

Say we have two words that essentially mean the same thing that can fit in a sentence. One of the words has a "primary" or first definition that allows it to fit in this sentence. The other word is a "secondary" or second/third definition of the word. Would it be more appropriate to use one over the other? Does it depend on who you are speaking to? I feel like it is better to use a "primary" definition over a "secondary" one. When I say "primary" and "secondary" I am referring to any dictionary or source to define words that list multiple definitions for a word. Do any of these definitions take priority over others? Or is the first definition the most frequently used? For example, ignorant can be defined as: Discourteous or rude, ex. this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist... What if you just used rude or discourteous instead of ignorant since someone would be more likely to understand that over knowing that ignorant can be defined as discourteous or rude? (Definition - Google <\-- define: ignorant)


Use "Plumb it down" instead of "Track it down"

Can we use these two sentences in place of another:   1. I've tracked the problem down and found something blocking our way.   2. I've plumbed the problem down and found something blocking our way. I am using these sentences in the context of programming stuff.


Origin of "Made out of whole cloth"?

Today I came across an idiom I have never before seen. > Joe Garagiola, his lifelong friend from the old neighborhood in St. Louis, a > fellow catcher, and great raconteur, got a lot of mileage telling Yogi > stories on the lecture circuit. He often reworded Yogi-isms to make them > funnier, and some he **made up out of whole cloth**. I understood from the context that he invented 'sayings' and attributed them to Berra. I researched this, and frankly, it still makes no sense to me. I also saw it worded as **cut from the whole cloth**. I can't get to how it's a falsification. I know that **to fabricate** means to make up (as in lie); are the two related, or is this pure coincidence?


The subject of "and" in a compound statement

I'm wondering the subject of the second clause in a sentence like               You should tell him to get up and get back to work      The subject of `get back to work` is ambiguous to me. It could be interpreted as either               You should tell him to get up and [you] get back to work      or               You should tell him to get up and [him] get back to work      How should I form the sentence so that either option is explicit and unambiguous?


Origin of "Plumb" to mean "absolutely"

"plumb" as far as I know is a predominantly American usage, as in "That was just plumb crazy!" I thought plumb meant some kind of weight in bricklaying or such like, so how did it come to mean "absolutely"? What was its origin and history? Edit: After Callithumpian's answer, I have a little addition: Why is it a US usage chiefly, and why do not the British use it as much?


Usage of "odyssey" and "splendid"

> I started my **odyssey on** the **splendid** world of mathematics when... Is this a right way to use the word "odyssey"? Is "odyssey on sth." correct? Can I use "splendid" to describe the world of mathematics here?


"conduct intakes"

What does _conduct intakes_ mean when one says “a doctor is trained to conduct intakes”? Is it something related to the amount of medication the patient will take? Or is it something related to prescribing medication?


"From here, to there" quote meaning

I read a story which used _"From here, to there"_ as a love measurement. Does it mean distance or time period. In the story _"From here"_ was used when they where happy, with no worries in their life. As the story moved on they had complications, they lost trust for each other and they parted ways. After half a year the one who said _"From here"_ was depressed and on the brick of no returning when she wrote _"To there"_ to the other person. What does this quote mean ?


What's a "brace" in the expression "brace yourself"?

I know the meaning of the expression, "brace yourself," and also the meaning of the word "brace" but I don't understand why they have that word in that expression and what its origin or history is. Why brace? Aren't braces what dentists install in people's jaws?


separate vs separate out

I cannot bear to hear separate out, but maybe it's just me. Is this correct? When I do the laundry, I need to separate out the red shirts so that my underwear doesn't turn pink.


What does "in 6 months" mean?

I'm not sure about the usage of "in" and "after". For example, it's January now and I got rejected in a job application, some one tells me that I can re- apply in six month. Is this "in" the same as "within"? Does it mean I can re- apply in the period between January and June but not after June? Or does it mean I should re-apply after June?


Full Steam Ahead ... malappropriated when applied to Trains?

Would the phrase "Full Steam Ahead" be appropriate to use in reference to trains? I know there where plenty of steam powered trains, but I thought it was a nautical term. Would it have been used by the Engineer (Assuming that is the name for the chief train operator.)?


Place of "often" in the sentence

My question is simple. Is the following sentence correct? > They don't watch TV often. My English teacher has told me that the only correct option is: > They don't often watch TV. Is she right?


Is 'disabilitated' a real word?

I think not, but look on this Wikipedia link about parental leave in different countries, scroll down to the large table and look under Romania. I don't think this is a real word, I tried doing an online dictionary search and all that was returned was Urban Dictionary. So this says to me: "I'm not a real word!" Is it?


How do you write the short form of "you all"?

The short form is pronounced as "yoll", but what is the actual spelling? Is it "y'all"? Any official mention of the spelling? Example useage: "Where are you- all going". Pronounced as "Where are yoll going". Would it be written as "Where are y'all going"?


What does "pace" mean in this context?

In the Economist this week: > People have, _pace_ vegetarians, evolved to love meat, which contains many > necessary nutrients, and especially protein, in higher concentrations than > plants do I'm used to pace meaning "the speed at which one is moving." Is there another meaning to this word that makes sense in this context, other than perhaps "Slow down, vegetarians! Don't be too hasty to rip into us"


A night without sleeping

How many ways are there of saying that someone didn't sleep all night? In my country, it can be expressed with just an adjective or a noun; what is about English?


What's the informal word for a small challenge?

Example: I challenge you to get her number. If you get it, you earn a beer. It's sort of a friendly bet. It's a short 3-5 letter word. I've heard it but can't recall it. Please help. Something pertaining to: bet, challenge, dare, play, sport, game, toy. May also relate: a clever move, trick, stunt, tactic.


Synonym for not taking personal responsibility

I'm trying to think of a word that suggests a person who takes no personal accountability in their actions or always tries to shift blame on to some factor supposedly outside of their control. Is there such a word?


"Most of which" or "most of whom"?

I am very uncertain about when to use "most of whom," "most of who," or "most of which." Please give concrete examples instead of only rules like, "this is the subject, so you should..."


...again, the proper use of "which" vs. "whom"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “Most of which” or “most of whom”? The following is a sentence from an email I recently sent, not knowing if it was the proper use of the word. > As I mentioned, I have two (2) clients in the OMAHA area _for whom_ I have > been moving freight for about 16 months. My question is whether I should have used "for which" instead of "for whom". I make every effort to use my native language properly, but I am often unsure of the proper use of some of these words.


Where does the phrase “neat but not gaudy” come from?

What is the origin of the phrase _neat but not gaudy_? I’m thinking that it might possibly be from Samuel Wesley or Dorothy Sayers — or, just possibly, from Josephine Tey.


Alternatives for "conducted" with respect to research

Literature review is a big part of my life. I usually use “[Scientist] _conducted_ a research using data from” to state a previous study. Do you have recommendations of other verbs to use? I am tired of keeping using _conduct_ (and I am not sure whether it is correct) and really want to diversify.


Difference between "focus" and "focus on" in "My main focus is Spanish."

This question is originally posted on WordReference forum. My friend suggested me to post here to get more opinions on this question. I don't know if I am allowed to link to other site, so I am going to rephrase the question. **The original sentence is:** My main focus is Spanish. **Someone corrected it with:** My main focus is on Spanish. **Context** : The person is learning multiple languages, but he/she is focusing on learning Spanish. Is there any difference between the two? Thank you in advance. I did search on the site first as well. I found this response but the examples given use "focus" as a verb instead of a noun. Link: http://english.stackexchange.com/a/130363/67529


It's time we 'informed' the Senate

In the movie Star Wars, one of Mace Windu(S.Jackson)'s line reads such that: > I think it is time we informed the Senate that our ability to use the Force > has diminished. Is saying 'inform the Senate' rather than 'informed the Senate' technically wrong?


'betrayal' of expectations

I read a line in my textbook that goes: > Negative effects may arise due to a 'betrayal' of expectations when people > involved fail to understand the situational context. Can the word 'betrayal' and 'expectations' be used together? Does it seem awkward when viewed by a native speaker?


"Little by little I began to have increasing doubts"

Is the sentence > Little by little I began to have increasing doubts grammatically correct? One reason I think it might not be is that if I google _little by little I began to have increasing_ I don't come up with anything except my own quote.


Multiple quantities of an object that has a descriptor and units of measure

My question is probably best illustrated with an example: > Four 2.25 hp electric motors were used to propel the vehicle. Is that correct? I feel like it can't be, but my friend is saying otherwise. I'm also finding contradictory rules on the internet so I'm not sure. I think it should be: > Four 2.25-hp electric motors were used to propel the vehicle. > >> or Four 2.25-hp-electric motors were used to propel the vehicle. ? I know similar questions have been asked but they were simpler than mine. Hopefully someone can help me. Thanks.


about the expression 'on someone's behalf'

I know the expression 'on (someone's) behalf' usually reads or is understood as 'instead of someone' but I'm wondering if it's possible for it to have a benefactive reading, that is, if it can be used to express one has been benefited by somebody else's action. Can anyone help me?


"in" or "on" operating system?

I see both "on Windows" and "in Windows" on the Internet. I'm wondering which way is the correct way? Or maybe they have different meanings?


"Student has course" vs "Student takes course"

Which is more accurate when describing the relationship between _student_ and _course_?               the student has a course      or               the student takes a course


Is it right to use comma before "here"?

> Members of parliament can criticize other members, here. Note the comma after _members_ and before _here_. In this particular case, is it okay? Or should the comma not be there?


what does "neediest" mean?

What does the word "neediest" mean? Is this word regularly used in academic writing? "Tying teacher evaluation and sanctions to test score results can discourage teachers from wanting to work in schools with the **neediest** students, while the large, unpredictable variation in the results and their perceived unfairness can undermine teacher morale."


Is it OK to use hyperopic to refer to farsightedness metaphorically?

I have seen the word myopic used metaphorically to refer to a person who is very short-sighted (can't anticipate the consequences of their actions). Of course myopic is also used in the medical sense to refer to a person who is literally short-sighted. Is hyperopic also commonly used this way to refer to a person who has exceptional planning abilities and can anticipate consequences easily? Are there examples of it being used this way? Dictionaries define it in the medical sense only.


Laws I created that I must follow?

I have created a set of laws I must follow to enforce self-discipline. One law is _I will not steal candy from children_. It sounds sort of weird to say "I broke my own law", and sounds sort of mathematical/unfitting to say "I broke my own rule". Is there a more appropriate synonym for a _self-created law_? Furthermore, what would be an appropriate phrase to describe the set of laws I have created for self-discipline? _A Code of Conduct_? A _doctrine_? The cooler the phrase the better, as it'll make the laws easier to follow.


When should I use "shall" versus "will"?

Which is the correct use of these two words, and in which context should one be used rather than the other?


shall+be+ ing Verb structure

Why does one use shall+be+ing instead of will? What are the functions of be and V+ing? I shall be focusing on the mechanisms that govern individual`s choices at and beyond school-leaving age and trying to explain why some pupils leave while others stay on,..


"I will" or "I shall"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When should I use "shall" versus "will"? I have learnt in school we should use _shall_ with _I_ , _you_ and _we_. But I often see people saying _I will_ , _you will_ or _we will_. Is this correct?


When to use 'will' and when to use 'shall'?

I always get confused in using will and shall. Same way when to use **must** and **should**.


What's the difference?

What is the difference between these two? "I will have someone come." "I shall have someone come." According to my book, the difference is the first one has intentionality while the other doesn't. But shall also has intentionality, e.g. "I shall finish you!" So my thesis is that there is no difference. What do you think?


Using objective pronouns as the subject of a verb, when is it okay?

I just have a little question about using objective pronouns ( _me_ , _him_ , _her_ ) as the subjects of verbs. 1) > They were a peculiar couple, him being a traditionalist and her being more > open-minded. 2) > Their mother had high hopes for her children's futures, him to be a doctor > and her to be a lawyer. (Excuse my awkward wording in these examples, you get the general idea.) Why are these types of usages acceptable? Are they proscribed?


“Could you please repeat?” or “Could you repeat please?”

While teaching my students in a elementary school, I asked them to use the question > Could you repeat (that), please? However, the next day I received a letter from a mother saying the correct form is > Could you please repeat (that)? I teach in a Spanish-speaking city (This is in Peru, Latin America).


Is there a Latin term for the concept of "ad infinitum", but in reverse?

When someone says that a process happens _ad infinitum_ , it tends to imply that the process happens again and again, carrying on into the future. But how do you talk about something that **has been happening** again and again, back into the past, i.e. an infinite regression? Is there a Latin phrase which encapsulates this meaning?


Grammaticality of "a high number of"

Is the phrase "a high number of" considered correct? Or is it only correct to say "a large number of"? Example: > Japan has a high number of active volcanoes.


Make a ... of himself

A quote by Dr. Johnson goes > " _He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man._ " The phrase " _make a beast of himself_ " appears to have the definition of " _to behave like a beast_ ", in the same way as how " _make a ... of himself_ " would function in the idiom " _make a fool of himself_ ". Here is my question: is it appropriate to use the expression "make a ... of himself" be used in all cases to mean " _to behave like a ..._ "? (e.g. He makes a coward of himself.)


Comma usage near title in quotes

I can't seem to find any answer in my high school grammar textbook regarding the use of commas after titles that appear in quotes. Is this question addressed by American style guides? > I recently read the newspaper and the "95 **Theses,"** and I learned so many > things! Here is an alternative syntax: > I recently read the newspaper and the "95 **Theses",** and I learned so many > things! **EDIT:** For the downvoters, the feedback I've gotten suggests that there is no objective answer for the question of which syntax is "correct." Therefore, I've reworded to ask a more objectively answerable question about what popular American style guides recommend about this part of English syntax.


Apostrophe before or after s?

In the sentence: > The author was greatly in love with Annabel Lee and described their love for > each other as greater than anyone elses’. Does the apostrophe go before or after the _s_ in _else_? I'm always confused by the rules of using possession with plurals, so I looked online for a bit about the rules. From what I understand, you add the apostrophe after the s if the s makes the word plural, but before the s if it doesn't. In this case, _elses_ refers to others in love, but MS Word says it's incorrect. Is it though?


What is ungrammatical about "that's them"?

I was reading 3rd short story in Agatha Christie's "Poirot Investigates" when I stumbled on following sentence: > "That's them," I declared in an ungrammatical whisper. What is so ungrammatical about _that's them_? What would be considered grammatically correct instead?


Does this sentence call for an additional "for"?

I'm confronted with two compelling options:   1. > I want to be at least partially responsible for getting them to think differently, or inspiring them to earnestly investigate new topics.   2. > I want to be at least partially responsible for getting them to think differently, or **for** inspiring them to earnestly investigate new topics. Which one should I choose, and why? The first sentence uses fewer words, usually my yardstick for choice in situations like this. But the second sounds better when spoken, so I'm torn.


What is a possible name of a course that teaches parity?

(I know, it sounds weird). So "parity," in Maths, is the fact of being even or odd. Let's say if there was an academic course that teaches you about parity, what should be its (one-word) name? Paritiology? Paritism?


How to use "not that"

I am confuse with the use of 'Not that'. When we say "Not that I like bread, but I don't like to eat more carbohydrate." It means to me that I like bread and I don't like to eat more carbohydrate. Is it correct? Or it means that I don't like bread? Please explain the meanings of these also,   1. Not that he is a bad boy ...   2. Not that rain is good ...   3. Not that I say that he is a bad boy ...


Changing present tense to past tense

I read the quote below in a book and wondered how it would read if I were to change the verbs to simple past. > "I want to find something nice for them when I meet them later today." I can't seem to grasp which of the below sentences would be the correct one. I mean, if they are really correct at all. > Yesterday, I wanted to find something nice for them when I meet them later > in the day. > > Yesterday, I wanted to find something nice for them when I met them later in > the day.


Is it correct to say "the bird is in the tree" or "on the tree"?

In the children's rhyme: > Johnny and July sitting in a tree   >  K I S S I N G   >  First comes love   >  Then comes marriage   >  Then come children in a baby carriage They are said to be sitting **in** a tree. Likewise, when a bird is sitting **on** a branch, we say it's sitting **in** a tree. Is it ever correct to say a bird is **on** a tree?


The meaning of 'fine-grained', 'fine-tuned' , 'fine-grining'

"The Portal provides fine-grained control over the window rendering" what's the meaning of 'fine-grained' here?


Is there a word for a bright spot in the shadow of a lens or lens-like object?

Or for example on the bottom of a pool as light is focused by waves on the surface of the water. It seems awkward to just call it a shadow since it implies being darker than the surroundings.


Should I use a semicolon or a dash to connect two closely related sentences?

When you want to connect two closely related sentences, you can use a semicolon or a dash. (You can also use a dash for other kinds of non- sentential relations). How would you choose whether to use a semicolon or dash?


What do you call some who gives the a bare minimum answer, which is often misleading

What do you call someone intentionally gives a completely true answer that answers a question but does not provide the information the asker is looking for? For example, person _a_ moves to a new school in Nevada, where people ask him where he is from. _a_ answers that she is from Junction City, but fails to mention that it is in Kansas. _a_ knows that they don't know where that is, but assume it is local. What is the name for someone like _a_?


Synonyms for "to place on top of"

Is there a succinct verb for the act of putting something on top of something else? I'm looking for something more vivid than a simple _put_ or _place_. > I **xxx** 'd the letter on the pile of bills.


Better way of saying "this is because"

I am writing the following > Previous work on Topic Detection and Tracking (TDT) has achieved great > success on full length document, but the techniques has yet to be fully > implemented on microblogs. **_This is because_** the sources of TDT are news > articles which already contains news information and structured... I am trying to avoid joining them using comma, as it will turn out to be a very length sentence, at the same time I wish to reduce "this is because" to a shorter version (preferably 1 word). I tried to remove it but it sounded odd and not flowy. Can I get some suggestion please? Thanks


Replacement for the phrase "Online Represence"

I'm writing a CV. I have a section which I've currently named "Online Presence" in which I give details of my online accounts like twitter, linkedin, github, stackexchange etc. But the phrase "Online Presence" seems little awkward and uncomfortable, is there any better phrase to use instead of "Online Presence"? Thank You.


Dropping prepositions such as 'to' and 'for'

Do these sentences make sense grammatically, and if so, is this a formal/colloquial/archaic construction? She gave it him. She gave him it. It was provided her by the state. She was provided it by the state. I explained it him in simple terms. I explained him it in simple terms. They granted it her on specific grounds. They granted her it on specific grounds. Will you sell it me? Will you sell me it?


Why can't we say "informations"?

Why we can't put the word _information_ in the plural form? "Give me all the informations you've got", even if it's wrong, sounds more beautiful to my non- native ear than "give me all the information you've got", and I don't know why. **Edit:** it's not a duplicate question since I know that _information_ is a mass noun, what I am asking is why can't it be in plural like some other mass nouns does, why is it behaving like that while it seems more correct with _s_ at the end.


What does "no love lost" mean and where does it come from?

I have trouble with the idiom "no love lost". I understand that it is used when people are at odds or don't get along, but I don't understand why. Interpreted literally it sounds like there should be plenty of love, but it seems to mean the opposite. Where does this expression come from? And is there a different interpretation that better explains its meaning?


Is "maker" less professional than "manufacturer"?

To me as a non-native, _maker_ sounds much less professional than _manufacturer_ or _supplier_. I.e. an average "piston maker" would probably be much smaller than an average "piston manufacturer" or "piston supplier". Is this actually true? Can I use "piston maker" in a professional context to refer to a company with 5000 employees?


Is this the correct useage of... including; but not only,

Is this the correct useage of, _"every possible accessory and trimming a body could desire to adorn their costumes with, including; but not only, brightly colored ribbons, buttons, needles of brass and threads of fine silk"_


Happiness only real when shared... isn't it?

Yesterday I was rewatching the movie "Into the Wild", and noticed that protagonist writes next phrase: > HAPPINESS ONLY REAL WHEN SHARED and, I'm not native english speaker, but is he missed the `is`? Should it be: > HAPPINESS `IS` ONLY REAL WHEN SHARED or it's ok to skip `is` in that particular case? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/ALqGI.jpg)


What does this mean: To come in a close second or third

In this newspaper article about a swiss pilot it says at the end: > On his travel blog he lists the most amazing moment in his life so far as > having his two daughters. It may be safe to say this one could easily come > in a close second or third. I am not getting the second sentence, what does this mean?


Clarification about the usage of "the"

I know that this may be a basic question but I'm severely confused. How do you decide when or not to use "the". For what I've read, if you are referring to objects within a large class (without any specific object in mind), you don't use "the". For example:   * People who workout often tend to be fitter. But how do you know that you are in such a case? How do I distinguish between a broad class and a not so broad class. It seems sort of idiomatic. It doesn't seem wrong to me if I write:   * The people who workout often tend to be fitter. Is it just a matter of choice or there is a really a strict rule of usage? If so, how do you distinguish between one case and the other?


Green green green green green. E-e-h?

Can this possibly be a correct phrase: > Green green green green green. I got it from a Russian demotivator: ![weird cyrillic thing](http://i.stack.imgur.com/myRMk.jpg) I wonder if there is _any_ possible meaning, or whether it shouldn’t be more like this: > Green green green **s** green green.


I want the exact answer and difference between these two?

have you spoke to her (or) have you speak to her? Which is correct?


Is "The Walking Dead" a personification?

Personification (or anthropomorphism) is attributing human features to non- humans. Technically, a dead human is not a human and we give the attribute of walking to the dead. So, Is "the walking dead" a **personification**? Also, can we say that "the walking dead" is an **antonomasia** (a kind of metonymy) for zombie? Note: It can be a contradiction or oxymoron also in a neutral sense. * * * Furthermore, this phrase can be analyzed for other figures of speech, also within the scope of the comics/tv series "The Walking Dead". There is a major spoiler so I will use the spoiler syntax for the sake of humanity: > In "The Walking Dead", the protagonists find out that they all have the > virus in their body and when they die, the virus turns them into a zombie. > So in this sense, "the walking dead" can be interpreted as both the living > humans and zombies. So can we say that there is a **doublespeak** here? > Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses > the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., > "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing), in which case > it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. And lastly, I think there is circumlocation and allusion. > Circumlocution refers to ambiguous or roundabout figure of speech. Ambiguity > means information that can have multiple meanings. Roundabout speech refers > to using many words to describe something for which a concise (and commonly > known) expression exists. > > Allusion is a figure of speech, in which one refers covertly or indirectly > to an object or circumstance that has occurred or existed in an external > context. It is left to the reader or hearer to make the connection; where > the connection is detailed in depth by the author, it is preferable to call > it "a reference". * * * In summary, what are the figures of speech in the phrase "The Walking Dead"? (regarding to the comics/tv series or not) Do the figures of speech that I mentioned fit?


Is Modificator a word?

Is the word "Modificator" valid - I've never see it before and it's not one I'm familiar with.


Antonym of a musical or creative "influence"

If I were composing music or some other creative media, you might say that my work is "influenced" by this or that person, or that this or that person is an "influence". If I wanted to express that my work is also in direct opposition to another artists' work or style, is there a word that describes this? A sort of "anti-influence", if you will. Thank you in advance!


Why do we say Undisclosed or Non-Disclosure instead of Closed or Closure

According to Wiktionary, disclosure's etymology comes from Latin dis-+clausus, literally away+enclosed. I wonder why do the term closed is not in common use as the term undisclosed. `Not Not True` is simply `True`, and `Not Not False` is Simply `False` (`!!1==1`)


How can I give a project quote politely?

Someone sent me an email, asking for a quote for the project. How can I reply to him in a more polite way? > I can quote you $100 for this project. > > I charge you $100 for this project. > > I can do this with $100. Can you give me more examples (formal/informal)?


"Football" and "Soccer"

I know that the game which is called "football" in Europe is called "soccer" in the U.S. But I wonder to what extent this differentiation is strict. What do people from England call their favorite game in conversations with Americans? Is there a misunderstanding in this case?


Use of article 'the' before author's name

Is is correct to write: 'Author Martin Amis describes...', or should we use the article 'the' in front of 'author'? Thank you very much in advance


Idiom: quoted books

If there is, what idiom is used to refer to a book, which is famous and/or has interesting ideas, so that it's often quoted in speech, books etc. Maybe something like "divided into quotations" ? I'm not sure if there's an equiualent in English, but the following is an example of how it's used in Russian: > «Маленький принц» переведён на 100 языков мира. Притча **разошлась на > цитаты** , самая известная из которых: "Ты в ответе за тех, кого приручил".


How many adjectives can be chained without sounding weird?

In spoken and written language, in colloquial and formal context. Is there a general rule to use in sentences like the following: > "How many broken yellow plastic toys?" > > "All those old yellowish lost scholar books."


"Each person's car" vs. "each persons' car"

Which of the following is correct? >   * Each person's car has four wheels. >   * Each persons' car has four wheels. >


Linguistic name for "general action verbs" and "specific action verbs"

Is there a linguistic or academical name for those verbs which express a general action compared to those which express a specific action? Examples:   * _do_ , _make_ (general) vs. _perform_ , _build_ (specific)   * _have_ (general) vs. _carry_ (specific)   * _get_ (general) vs. _achieve_ , _obtain_ (specific)   * _use_ (general) vs. _apply_ (specific)   * _say_ (general) vs. _whisper_ , _explain_ , _confess_ (specific) I found this, but _boring verbs_ vs. _specifical verbs_ does not sound very academical to me...


Which is the correct passive construction of 'she bore him on the Christmas day'?

I think I understand the difference of meaning between ' _born_ ' and ' _borne_ ', plus I have also checked out a few questions that were asked about the two terms on this forum. So, I hope I am not posting a duplicate question. Since 'born' is an adjective and not a verb form, _'he was born on the Christmas day'_ cannot be considered a passive construction of _'she bore him on the Christmas day'_. And saying _'he was **borne** on the Christmas day by her'_ would sound as though she **_put up with him_** on the Christmas day. Does this simply mean that _'she bore him on the Christmas day'_ has no acceptable passive construction **despite the verb 'bear' being a _transitive verb_?**


service record translation

How do you say "El servicio militar" in English?


Why say "nay" when you could say "no"

I am curious as to why "nay" replaces the simple unequivocal "no" in the context of voting. My research in Merriam-Webster tells me that "nay" means "no" (not the other way around) and the first known use of "nay" appeared in 1400s. Since the use of "no" existed before 1400 and the word remains to be used afterward, why would "nay" become the preferred choice of word when it comes to voting. Any idea?


The use of "to" in some titles

While I'm browsing Reddit, I sometimes find a title which contains "to" in the sentence even though it might be totally unnecessary. What is the difference between : > Yahoo stops all new development on ... and > Yahoo to stop all new development on ... ? The two sentences mean the same, but which one should I use, and which one is grammatically correct ?


What is the oldest variety of English in the Americas?

There are several varieties of the English Language in the Americas, from Alaska to the Falkland Islands. To mention just a few:   * American General and its varieties   * Canadian General    * Bajan    * Falklander   * Newfoundland English    * Guyanese   * Bahamian    * Trinidadian   * Bermudian    * Belizean   * And several other varieties, not to mention dialects, pidgins and creoles. Some varieties - not mentioned above - may have existed and gone extinct. Of course languages change all the time. Barbadian English as it is in the twenty-first century, is not the same as it was when the first English settlers arrived in 1627-1628. Even so, we can consider that Barbadian English was born at that time, even though a language changes and receives influences all the time. Among those that are neither vulnerable nor endangered, and considering the time when the first settlers arrived, what variety of English has been in the Americas longer than any other? In other words, where was it that the English Language first arrived in the Americas and is still spoken in 2014 in a way that allows us to call it a variety of English? (not a dialect or pidgin).


What is the term for groups of numerals within a large number?

I am writing software in which I would like to be able to return the groups of numerals within a large number. For example, given a number _123,456,789_ , my software would return _123_ then _456_ then _789_. I would like to give each of the 3-digit sequences a proper name, but I cannot find what the correct one would be. Would it be _groups_? I thought about _thousands_ , but that seems imprecise. I should clarify that I know what to call each individual group ( _thousands_ , _millions_ , etc.). What I don’t know if there is a general term that applies to all the groups.


the act of using one word to refer to another

we use the word "suits" to refer to policemen. What is the word that describes this action? I had read this word in the book "HHhH", but for the life of me, I can't seem to recall it...


Blessed by your wishes

We are blessed with a baby girl. We got many congratulations, wishes and blessings through mail and SMS. In my reply, I've mentioned > The little angel is blessed by your wishes Is this a right phrase?


Why does swearing 'turn the air blue'?

Why do we say that the air is blue when someone has been swearing a lot?


Phonetic term for switching first two letters in a word

I read a grammar book a few years ago and remember coming accross a term for switching the first two letters in a word. I cannot for the life of me remember what the term is. An example would be the name "Leo" being pronounced as "Elo". I cannot remember if it was specifically involving the letter 'l', but I do know that it is not a spoonerism. I do not remember it being classified as an impediment, more of a mispronunciation in early speech development since it is common in toddlers' speech. Any help would be greatly appreciated — it is really bugging me now.


industrial-grade - meaning

> The future of PHP looks very bright. Leading platform vendors such as IBM, > Oracle, MySQL, Intel, and, most recently, Red Hat have all endorsed it. The > new Collaboration Project initiated by Zend Technologies rallies many > leading companies and community members around new open source initiatives > aimed at taking PHP to the next level by creating an **industrial-grade** , > de facto standard PHP web application development and deployment > environment. The Project’s first two open initiatives are: What does this word mean?


"This is actually true" vs. [sic]

I often find myself in need of a short expression, to emphasize that what I just wrote (not quoted) is actually true. In cases of paradoxes or illogical truths for instance, like The Monty Hall Problem. It is not always possible to explain that something is actually true, nor does it look pretty to constantly add "(This is actually the truth, despite it seeming to be incorrect)" at the end of what might just be a 2-digit number in a small table-cell. Apart from adding an asterix, or footnote, with an explanation at the bottom of the page, is there a [sic]-like alternative? An abbreviation that simply says "This is actually true/the correct value despite looking incorrect/seeming illogical"? * * * Assuming none exist, the only way to get a new phrase or abbreviation into the language/dictionary is to start using it... With that in mind, just for laughs, what would you prefer as a new expression?: cbt - "counterintuitive but true" sya - "surprising yet accurate" tis - "this is so" (I think we'd best avoid "this is true"...) Or perhaps cor for "correct"? Could create some confusion as it is already used as an expression in british, but I kinda like that idea.


What's the error in this sentence?

What's the error in the following sentence? "One must not boast of his own talents." Kindly provide me some answers, Thank you.


Along/down the street

What is the difference between: He was walking **along** the street, and   He was walking **down** the street ?


"However" vs. "on the contrary"

I would like to get some advice on the difference in meaning between the following sentences. >   * It is true that there have been great advances in technology over the > last forty years. especially the use of mobile phones and e-mail > communication are common these days. **However** , machines that translate > from one language to another are still in their early stages. >   * It is true that there have been great advances in the technology over > the last forty years. especially the use of mobile phones and e-mail > communication are common these days. **On the contrary** , machines that > translate from one language to another are still in their early stages. >


What does "never trust your tongue when your heart is bitter" quote mean?

What does the following quote mean? > Never trust your tongue when your heart is bitter.


How do I properly hyphenate "well thought out"?

Is it spelled _well thought-out_ , or _well-thought out_ , or _well thought out_?


"Miss to inform" or "fail to inform"

Do you _miss to inform_ someone or _fail to inform_ them? I am seeing _miss_ appear in places but it just seems awkward.


Is the following use of "imperative" good style?

I wrote the following as part of an article in the making: > Diverse fields such as medicine, sociology, and marketing require the > collection, analysis, and publication of large amounts of personal data. At > some stage during this process it becomes imperative, for the protection of > individual privacy, that such data be sanitized to remove information that > could potentially identify some set of personal data as belonging to a > certain individual. Is "becomes imperative ... that such data be sanitized" good style? Is the above OK, in general?


Reduction in steepness

I seek a word to describe the reduction in steepness of a slope. The context is climbing a hill that is less steep further up. I have rejected "levelled" and "flattened" because they suggest the slope became near to horizontal when in fact it remained steep.


“bio“ VS “autobiography“ for a text field where users fill up their life stories (or histories)

The Oxford English Dictionary states that **_bio_** is an informal form of **_biography_** and > _**biography_** > > An account of someone’s life written by _someone else_. So... Would it be more accurate to use the word **_autobiography_** than the word **_bio_** for a text field where users themselves fill up their life stories/ histories ? Using **_autobiography_** looks pretty odd though..


What does "Without padding one’s end zone" mean?

In the following sentence of _Eat, Drink and Be Healthy_ in New York Times (Feb.1) contributed by columnist Jennifer LaRue Huget, I found the following sentence: You can work up Super Bowl Sunday **without padding your own end zone**. I think the phrase is a pun associated with the football game. As a perfect illiterate on American sports (not only sports but everything), I'm not able to figure out what _do something without padding one's end zone_ means. Can anybody explain it to me? > Like other food-centered celebrations, Super Bowl gatherings can be both fun > and fraught with apprehension for those concerned about their waistlines. > Nobody wants to sit on the sidelines, skipping the traditional snacks. But > who wants to deal with postgame regrets? You can work football-fan food into > your Super Bowl Sunday "without padding your own end zone." As your coach, > I've scouted some game-day favorites:


When to use "cannot" versus "can't"?

When is it best to write "can't" versus writing "cannot"? Are they interchangeable in every situation?


What does "that place is a real bucket shop and they tend to work only with pikers" mean?

I was talking to my attorney, from the esteemed firm of Dewey, Cheetum and Howe, and he made the above remark in response to a financial statement that I had produced earlier. What did Bernie mean?


4 questions about idiomatic way of expressing

Yesterday, a six-year-old girl was found dead in a septic tank of a demolition site. The preliminary analysis given by the police was that this had a sheer accident. Q1: "a six-year-old girl was found dead in" and "the dead body of a six-year- old girl was found in". Which is better? Q2: Is there any difference between "demolition site" and "construction site"? Q3: preliminary analysis, Can I use preliminary investigation or preliminary conclusion instead? Q4: a sheer accident, I don't think it's idiomatic. What about an accident only?


Past tense or present tense to describe something that happened in the past but is still true?

For example: "Last week, I found out that NASA stands for 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration.'" or "Last week, I found out that NASA stood for 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration.'"


Using a word to describe that something can be detailed

I want to find an adjective to describe that something can be detailed. From my google search I found that "Detailable" isn't a word. EDIT: I am actually trying to find an interface name for a class (Programming). The idea is that objects that will implement the "Detailable" interface will be asked for information to show details. Example: > Car is detailable so I can ask which is it's description. PS: Something similar happens with "Commentable".


Understanding the archaic grammatical structure of the Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter 27

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 27, Section 4: > Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; > as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, > the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the > reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the > nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ. Common understanding & practice in most Presbyterian churches indicates that the middle statement in this sentence is to be read as referring solely to the Roman Catholic practice of Eucharistic adoration, and that "the lifting them up" does not prohibit the minister from holding the communion elements up for the congregation to see. Under that common understanding, a possible gloss on the middle statement could be: > as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements-- > the lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration--and the reserving > them for any pretended religious use However, **while the gloss seems reasonable in following with the intent and practice of the authors, I do not know of any grammatical or usage rule that could justify such a gloss**. The structure of the sentence seems to be such that each phrase in the middle statement is to be understood as a separate clause, so "worshipping the elements" and "for adoration" are different cases than "the lifting them up" and "or carrying them about". In that case, does "the lifting them up" actually mean that you physically cannot hold the elements up for the congregation to see?


Sentence structure for grammar: parallel vs. what feels natural

Are the following both grammatically correct, or is one incorrect and why? (Usage context: book, not an essay). Original: > He erases whatever he wills, and fixes. With him is the original record. Friend's suggestion: > He erases and fixes whatever he wills. With him is the original record.


Can I say 'to acknowledge a payment?'

If I issued a payment to a company, and I wanted them to notify me when receiving the payment, could I say ' ** _please acknowledge the payment when receiving it_**?' Is the word ' ** _acknowledge_** ' alright to be used here?


Should I use a colon or semicolon in a list that doesn't end with "and"?

Should I use colon or semicolon in the following? > I liked the atmosphere: the rusty tables, the old wooden walls, the Western- > style counter.


A word to describe a subjective yet natural feeling about something

What is an adjective to describe something that I have an indirectly feeling about how I should do it but am not sure of and have no concrete evidence for its correctness. It's like an intuition. For example, in a situation where there are a few bullies attacking a person. I _feel_ that if I stood up, the situation could change. I just naturally _feel_ that the situation could change but I am not sure if it would change and I have no evidence that I have the efficacy to change. It may not change at all; the person may continue to get bullied. But I kind of have this _feeling_ or instinct that it would be different. It may not be just a like situation like this. It could be like say I _feel_ that adding pepper to my plate of pasta could make it taste better. But it may or may not make it worse. It's like a vague inner voice inside me that tells me that " _maybe I should do this"_. So then, I may write it this way: > _Instinctively_ , adding pepper can make the pasta taste better. But, _instinctively_ here doesn't imply the kind of unsure that I have about the action. Although it does give that "natural" idea, I think it is also important that the word presents my sense of uncertainty and the possibility that it may be wrong due to the statement being a subjective opinion. So, what is a word or phrase better than _instinctively_ to convey these ideas?


Difference between "college" and "university"

I have seen the words _college_ and _university_ sometimes mixed in the same article. But there are lots of sources where only one is used. I've looked up them in various dictionaries, but couldn't figure out the difference in their meaning. So, what is the difference (of meaning) that justifies the above findings regarding their usage?


What's the meaning of "give Caesar his due"?

I read an article, it said: "Let's give Caesar his due". What's the meaning of > give Caesar his due


How to rephrase "cream flavoured cream"?

I saw this on my wafers the other day: "Wafers with **cream** flavoured **cream** ". This sounds horribly recursive to my ear. How can you rephrase it or use a synonym without losing the original meaning?


Can you use "invoke" with "undefined behavior"?

Some constructs in programming languages such as C (and derived) have undefined behavior. The term _undefined behavior_ itself is used by the standard of C. The standard itself often writes as > if ... the behavior is undefined. In StackOverflow, questions with code having undefined behavior are common and a very common response is one of:   * **Undefine behavior**   * Because of **undefine behavior**   * Your code invokes **undefine behavior** and such. This question is regarding the last choice. Is it correct to say a statement, or a piece of code _invokes_ undefined behavior? Note that the undefined behavior is a result of false assumptions during code compilation, optimization and generation and is not deliberately produced. * * * While on the subject, what words can be used instead? Surely a piece of code can _have_ undefined behavior. One might also think of _cause_ or _contain_.


Why do sentences that start with "guess" end with a question mark?

To me, sentences that start with "Guess" are in the imperative mood, thus, should end with a period:   * Guess who's coming to town.   * Guess what we had for dinner last night. Why do a lot of publications put a question mark at the end of these sentences? I've been taught that you put a question mark only if the sentence is in the interrogative "mood". In these cases, we're not asking who's coming to town or what we had for dinner last night - we know who's coming and what we ate. We're telling that second person to guess. * * * If "Guess ___ ?" is correct because it expects an answer just like a regular question, is it acceptable, then, to write:   * Tell me who's coming to town?   * Tell me what I had for dinner last night because I forgot? "Tell __ ?" looks just as unsettling to me as "Guess ___?".


What's the difference between "to and fro" and "back and forth"?

I'll give you an example from " _The Mask of The Red Death_ " by Edgar Allan Poe: > "Its pendulum swung **to and fro** with a dull, heavy, monotonous clang;" How does that differ from: > "Its pendulum swung **back and forth** with a dull, heavy, monotonous > clang;" ? How frequently " _to and fro_ " is used these days?


Alternatives to "Constructive Criticism"

I'm a big fan of constructive criticism, but I'm afraid that the term has become a cliche - or even a buzzword! What are some good synonyms for it?


Choosing a proper article or word for metaphor

I'm **a** breaking wave, because I can't get away from the sea called the world.   I'm **the** breaking wave, because I can't get away from the sea called the world. _Which article is proper for metaphor?_ The breaking wave means the wave that is breaking.   I know "breaker" would be better, but I've chosen "breaking wave" by intent. Context:   There are a lot of people in the world. The world is like the sea and we are like its waves. Because we can't get away from the sea but break in the end and go back to the sea. So I'm just a wave. _And when I'd like to say "I want to get you who is like a star in the sky," which one is proper?_   I want to get the star **called** you.   I want to get the star **named** you.   I want to get the star **of** you.   I want to get the star—you. Context:   It's too hard for me to have you. So I can call you a star in the sky.   I want to get the star though it's impossible.


Where did the slang usages of "cool" come from?

I see and hear two general slang usages of cool - one meaning _great_ (illustrated by **a** and **b** below), and one meaning _acceptable/okay_ (illustrated by **c** and **d** ). The following are Dictionary.com's four (read: two) definitions of the slang _cool_ : > **14.** _Slang_   >  **a.** great; fine; excellent: _a real cool comic._   >  **b.** characterized by great facility; highly skilled or clever: _cool > maneuvers on the parallel bars._   >  **c.** socially adept: _It's not cool to arrive at a party too early._   >  **d.** acceptable; satisfactory; okay: _If you want to stay late, that's > cool._ Why did _cool_ come to mean _great_ or _acceptable_? Also, can anyone find some early usages? The biggest clue I have is this (from Dictionary.com): > Slang use for "fashionable" is 1933, originally Black English, said to have > been popularized in jazz circles by tenor saxophonist Lester Young. Googling _Lester Young 1933 "cool"_ , etc., did not yield me any fruit.


Bunch of girls/Buncha girls

as English isn't my first language, I don't really 'feel' whether bunch of girls/buncha girls is offensive, friendly, etc.? Could you tell me what's the proper meaning of the phrase? I hear it in movies, in different contexts, and it often seems negative, but I'm just not sure.


apply a preoperative checklist

"We're going to practice applying our preoperative checklist with a full team, identifying and fixing small errors" what does "apply a preoperative checklist" mean exactly?


Meaning of "owedst"

> ...Not poppy, nor mandragora,   >  Nor all the drowsy syrups of the world,   >  Shall ever medicine thee to that sweet sleep   >  Which thou **owedst** yesterday. -- Shakespeare, _Othello_ III.iii I really can't find any clear definition of this word, here.   From context, all I can assume is that it means to ingest or consume?


"At startup" vs "on startup"

I wrote this: > ... show **on startup** of the application. My colleague corrects me and says it should be: > ... show **at startup** of the application because _at_ indicates a moment in time. However, when I google it I get more results on _on_. What's correct/better?


"Suggest to go" vs. "suggest going"

I took an English assessment test online and this was my answer: > Someone suggested **to go** for a walk. My answer was wrong and this was the correct sentence: > Someone suggested **going** for a walk. Can someone please explain why my answer was wrong?


Replacing "begin" by "commence"

Are there some specific situations where one cannot replace the verb _begin_ by _commence_? All English knowledge I have at the moment I've acquired on my own, and there are still a lot of questions to clarify.


"Institution" and "facility"

Do you use _institution_ for a university building? > There are three **institutions** in this campus. According to Longman Dictionary, an institution is "a large building where old people, ORPHANs, prisoners, people who are mentally ill etc. live and are taken care of by an official organization." Given this definition, you cannot use this word for the university. I'm not sure which word I should use without using _building_.


What is the difference between “group” and “band”?

What is the difference between _group_ and _band_ when applied to assemblages of musicians who play music together?


Can the word, “art” be used as a verb to mean “create” art?

In the Washington Post (July 27 issue) article titled, “Figuring out what matters in a midlife ‘Is this all there is?’ crisis” the columnist, Carolyn Hax writes as follows: > “Tweak as you need to, of course: Travelers should travel and givers should > give and **artists should art (that’s a verb, right?).** If mere tweaks > don’t produce meaning, then, yes, take these recent deaths as your hint to > reevaluate who you are and what path you want to take. - \- - Your life is > right where you want it - right where your choices took you — and that > better lighting is all you need to see its beauty.” > http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/carolyn-hax-figuring-out-what- > matters-in-a-midlife-is-this-all-there-is- > crisis/2014/07/27/d3cceeb8-0c5c-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html?wpisrc=nl%5fmost She asks “that (art) is a verb, right?” by herself. But both of CED and OED provide definitions of “art(s)” only as a noun. I’ve been told that most of nouns are transferable to verbs by some of respectful users several times in this site. But as the author is asking “’art,’ that’s a verb, right?,” even she doesn’t seem to be very confident of her usage of this specific word as a verb, much less a non-native English speaker like me. Is it quite common to use “art” as a verb in the meaning of “produce / create” art (works) as shown in the above quote?


What is the origin and use of "remember me to her/him"?

Is anybody familiar with the use of remember as in _remember me to her/him_? I think I've see it in 19th century literature. Most likely it's archaic. I believe the speaker is commanding someone to give somebody his regards, or say hello. It seems awkward to hear it now as we only use remember in the imperative to remind someone of something, as in, "remember to walk the dog". Where does this use of remember come from and is it out of use?


Word for "makes progress towards?"

If one has a goal, then one can say that certain activities make progress towards that goal, lead to completion of the goal. Is there a concise word for "is relevant to, makes progress towards [a goal]?" * * * Examples: We can say something that does _not_ make progress is "irrelevant," or "orthogonal." But to say that something "is relevant to" a goal does not convey a strong sense of direct involvement and utility. The ideal level of strength for the word is equivalent to "makes direct progress towards" if not "completes a necessary requirement of." We want to say something like "I want to become a doctor, and going to medical school makes progress towards becoming a doctor. Medical school is a (progressive?) activity." Words like "advance" and "benefit" are close but seem too awkward or general:   * "I want to become a doctor, and going to medical school advances becoming a doctor. Medical school is an (...advanciful? Kidding.) activity."   * "I want to become a dcotor, and going to medical school benefits becoming a doctor. Medical school is a (benenficial?) activity.


Better way to indicate “a large amount of ”

A Wikipedia article tells us that: > A problem is regarded as inherently difficult if solving the problem > requires **a large amount of** resources, whatever the algorithm used for > solving it. What is a more elegant, and perhaps more correct, way of expressing the notion “a large amount of ” in a context like this? **EDIT** after comments: Maybe what bothers me is the the _large amount_ followed by plural _resources_. I like a large amount of butter on my morning toast; and I like having a lot of books around; but I’m not so sure I’d say I like having _a large amount_ of books here. **FINALLY** I changed the sentence to read > A problem is regarded as inherently difficult if **its solution** requires > **significant resources** , whatever the algorithm used.


Why doesn't "campaign" have the meaning of "countryside" in English?

The English word _campaign_ comes from the French word _campagne_ , which has two basic meanings:   1. battle,   2. countryside. It seems that when this word came to English, only the "battle" meaning was kept (and later extended to political battles), while the "countryside" meaning somehow was lost. Is there a term in linguistics to describe such behaviour? Is this common?


Geographical distribution of "shall"

In all of the places that I've ever lived (various parts of the western US), the modal verbs _shall_ and _will_ are almost perfectly synonymous, and _will_ is preferred by an enormous margin. _Shall_ is used largely to give a note of pomposity or archaism to an utterance that would otherwise have _will_. However, I gather that this isn't the case in all parts of the English- speaking world. Does anyone know of a study or reference that shows the distribution of _shall/will_ preferences? Are there any regions that maintain a rigorous semantic or grammatical distinction between them? (Note: this is not a poll. Please don't answer with "Well, I say _this_.")


How to say "some sort of reason"

Is it common to say _There is some sort of reason to support my stance on this_? How do we say _some sort of reason_ in such sentences?


I don't get this joke. Is it some kind of play on "water, too?" ![Two scientists walk into a bar. The first says, "I'll have some H2O." The second says, "I'll have a glass of water too. Why did you say H2O? It's the end of the day and there's no need to talk about work."  The first scientist stares at his drink, angry that his assassination plan has failed.](http://i.stack.imgur.com/g50be.jpg) Transcript: > Two scientists walk into a bar. The first says, "I'll have some H2O." The > second says, "I'll have a glass of water too. Why did you say H2O? It's the > end of the day and there's no need to talk about work." The first scientist > stares at his drink, angry that his assassination plan has failed.


"The other way around" or "the other way round"

I see both phrases _the other way around_ and _the other way round_ very often. Which is correct? Please provide usage examples.


Why do we say "as it were"?

In English we often add "as it were" to indicate that a phrase is not to be taken literally; for example: > He's flown from the nest, as it were. ... would indicate that a boy has left his parent's house, via the "flown from the nest" idiom. But, why does "as it were" clarify that this is an idiom?


"It" vs. "this"

If I am sharing a (specific, identified) status update, which would be the most appropriate way of informing people that I will be sharing it: > I am sharing it. or > I am sharing this. In both cases I'm going to share the `status update` at present.


How do you pronounce numbers written in different bases?

The decimal (base 10) number "2" can also be represented as the binary (base 2) number "10". Let's use binary "10" (equivalent to decimal "2") as an example. I could see a few different ways to go here. Assume that the base doesn't need to be specified, and is understood from the context of the conversation (e.g. two programmers talking about memory addresses would understand that they were using hexadecimal). It could be "ten", since that is what it looks like. One might even argue that ten, as a concept, refers to a one followed by a zero irrespective of the radix. In other words, ten means "a quantity exactly equal to the base it's represented in". On the other hand, you could argue that "ten" refers specifically to the quantity; in other words, "1010" in binary, "10" in decimal, and "12" in octal would all be pronounced "ten," and "10" in binary should be pronounced "two". So how would you pronounce the following numbers? "10" binary ("2" decimal) "10" octal ("8" decimal) "10" hexadecimal ("16" decimal) "1F" hexadecimal ("31" decimal)


Is there a word for scrambling lyrics because the melody is repeated?

I'm a huge fan of the musical Les Miserables. Oftentimes I will find myself absentmindedly singing songs from the musical while I'm doing mindless tasks like cleaning. Since certain melody phrases repeat often in the musical, sometimes I will start a song and then suddenly switch songs, even characters, mid-phrase, without skipping a beat, and often without even realizing it. For example: _Valjean:_ That nothing remains but the cry of my hate? The cries in the dark that nobody hears? Here where I stand at the turning of the years. If there's another way to go/ I missed it twenty long years ago (...morph...) _Javert:_ I am the Law and the Law is not mocked! I'll spit his pity right back in his face! There is nothing on earth that we share/ It is either Valjean or Javert! Does this phenomenon have a name? If not a specific name, is there a good word for it? I'd accept a good, descriptive phrase too. Pretty much the same thing can happen with poetry too, especially if it is particularly rhythmic. So if there is a word or phrase for that, it might work here too. _BTW That particular example is pretty deep. If you know the musical (or even better, the novel), that those two particular songs flow together so easily is brilliant. Kudos to Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schonberg and Herbert Kretzmer._


Is "post-apocalyptically" a valid word?

* I found _apocalyptically_ , but not with _post-_.   * I'm trying to say **in a way that is post-apocalyptic**. Example: Post-apocalyptically-scented outdoors.


Can "to revolve around" mean "to deal with/pertain to"?

... around which the book revolves.      Can I use this expression to say that the book is dealing with a subject, addressing an issue, or talking about something? I'm open to suggestions if there is a better way to put it.


What is the meaning of "I'm a wiener"?

I have scoured out dictionaries searching for the word wiener without success. As you can notice I am not a native speaker. I usually see the this phrase as a demeaning joke on animations when some character is lured to say one's name when actually it turns out as something stupid like "I'm a wiener" or "I. C. Wiener". Can someone say where is the joke on it? Because it sounds to me like "winner", what is not a demeaning word, reather it comes as a comendation.


How does 'to partake of' develop to mean 'be characterized by'?

What's an intuitive derivation behind definition 3, that helps to internalise its meaning: > 3\. **partake of** = Be characterized by (a quality) > > [ODO] How does the etymology (listed in that link and here) lead to the foregoing meaning? I haven't pasted the Etymonline entry from above, because it refers only to the different ' **partake in** ', about which I'm NOT asking here. Moreover, how and why does the (empty preposition) **of** change the meaning from **in** so much?


What word can I say if I want to give approximate number?

What to say if I want to tell approximate number of something. What should I say? E.g. > I have (around/ about/ some) 5 books. Is there a rule for number approximation?


Shorter version of "is going to be"

I've just read question: Alternative to "is going to be" I got similar problem, but in my case I need to describe something that might happen in the future. The sentence is "Project milestone is going to be missed." (So it will be missed if noone prevents it.) How to write it shorter?


Is there a word akin to "hungry" or "thirsty" that implies a need to urinate?

Sometimes my brain (maybe because I'm not a native English speaker) tends to come up with logical extensions to common formats; in this case, more than once I caught myself thinking (not out loud, thankfully) that I was feeling "pissy". Now, the actual meaning of that word is nothing close to what I meant, but I can't help but feel like there's a gap there. Other people seem to have wondered the same but I don't think I can draw anything conclusive from that...


Why "proximate" refers to centesimal?

I mean, when I read "proximate" I think about "proximity".. why does it refers exactly to the 3rd digit in a number?


There is a current trend of using past tense, when meaning present tense.

For example, someone on the phone said, "I was calling to ask for a form," when she meant to say, "I am calling to ask for a form." I hear this consistently, and usually in customer service situations. It is also being used by the under-30 crowd, of which my daughter is one, but as an out of state resident, she also finds it odd, and thinks it may be a coloquialism. What's confusing is the person asking the question is typically unaware of their tense confusion, almost in the same way that someone saying, "like" cannot hear themselves. I'm sure I say similar things, but I try to weed them out, for clarity of communication. Can anyone shed some light on this usage, or have others noticed the trend?


What does 'fooling around' mean to a 1st Grader?

In English, when I say _don't fool around with that_ , am I saying _You are stupid!_ I mean, my son came back from school today with a note from the teacher: > Dear Dad, > > I was fooling around with a paper today and I go my clip moved. I was > suppose to be paying attention to the teacher's lesson. 3 times she told me > to stop fooling around and to put my hands on the table but I didn't. I'm > sorry that I was fooling around in class. > > -Jon. How do I explain this phrase to my son: > Basically your teacher said you are stupid. That it is stupid to get > distracted and play with a paper. While your teacher gives a lesson in front > of class. That is what a stupid person would do. Don't do that again or she > is going to think you really are stupid. English is my second language so, before I tell my kid, _Yea that was stupid to do!_ How do you explain that phrase?


I can't use "me and my family" may I use "with" instead?

May I say "please join me with my family for a reception immediately following the final selection" or is there a better way to phrase the statement?


In the King James Bible, Matthew 24:7 states: > For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there > shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. What does the term 'divers places' mean?


Can I always use "unless" interchangeably with "if not"?

I have been bothered by the question whether 'unless' and 'if not' can be used interchangeably. I think they can have the opposite meaning, but I am not sure. Could you support my opinion with some examples or theory? I was also presented with a sentence: > Unless I had lost the umbrella, I would have go out now. But I know _unless_ is used to refer to the future, anyway, might it be correct?


What does “suck a salt grain off a beach” mean?

In association with my question of the usage of “blood-dimmed (flood /tragedy) in Maureen Dowd’s article in New York Times- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-peeping-president- obama.html?hp \- there was the following statement: > “It was quaint to think we had any privacy left, once Google, Facebook, > Twitter and Instagram braided themselves into our days and nights.   >  As Gene Hackman, playing a disillusioned N.S.A. analyst in the 1998 movie > “Enemy of the State” put it, the agency has been in bed with the > telecommunications industry for decades, and “ **they can suck a salt grain > off a beach**.” Though I surmise “they can suck a salt grain off a beach” figuratively means to obtain private information of people indirectly, not through a direct contact (to the sea - people) I’m not sure of.” What does “sack a salt grain off a beach” mean? Is it an idiomatic expression, or twist of a saying? If it is the twist of, or borrowing from something, what is the original source? Why did Dowd put the phrase in parenthesis (correction: quote)?


"Feel nostalgic for/of/about"

What is the correct preposition to use in this sentence: _for_ , _of_ or _about_ , and why? > I feel nostalgic ___ _ my childhood.


Said In Context: A more appropriate alternative to [sic]?

For a long time, I understood `[sic]` to mean _said in context_ , but I was told that that _said in context_ is really a backronym. Fair enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic#Improper_abbreviation However, I'd like occasionally to be able to say something unusual/unexpected/perverse/incorrect but add some sort of note to indicated that is not my usual choice of word(s), but has been said in the context or the spirit of the preceding communication. Specifically, I'm wanting to say something fairly un-PC, using a deliberately anachronistic and inappropriate term, purely for effect. It will fit within the context of the discussion, but technically, `[sic]` won't excuse me or shield me from the accusation that the words are my usual choice. Usually `[sic]` is used when you are reproducing an error or mistake of someone else, but I'm not quoting anyone - I'm using a term that fits the spirit of the conversation, but nobody has actually uttered the phrase previously. Is there a better mechanism I can use? Or should I technically mis-use `[sic]` on the presumption that most people will understand what I meant? **CONTEXT:** I don't really want to repeat the conversation verbatim, but to give you an idea, the exact usage was: > ...that David Cameron isn't apparently keen on starting wars and sticking-it > to some _fuzzy wuzzies_ It's related to David Cameron's 'multicultural' speech. I'm using _fuzzy wuzzies_ particularly to evoke the image of an old (bigoted) colonial attitude to _johnny foreigner_. This might be a very UK-centric angle, but for those of you who have seen Blackadder IV, consider Stephen Fry's General Melchet or Geoffrey Palmer's General Haig. If I was quoting something that was said by a person or a character, [sic] would fit perfectly. **But since I'm quoting a stereotype or caricature** , the issue is less clear cut. Clearly, _fuzzy wuzzies_ is not a term I would ordinarily use, but it makes sense when said in the context of the conversation. So I'm looking for a means to quickly indicate this... [sic] definitely isn't appropriate but the _said in context_ backronym perhaps is. Perhaps I simply say `...sticking-it to some *fuzzy wuzzies* (said in context)`?


"Past due" or "passed due"

I know that "past due" stamped on a bill is accepted, however I believe it should be "passed due". Does this mean that "past due" is vernacularly correct and "passed due" is grammatically correct?


When and how should I use multiple exclamation marks?

Now, I never do this, but in some few cases I have seen people use multiple exclamation (or question) marks like this: > Hey!!! Is that grammatically correct? (Or just okay). In case it is, _how many_ marks are grammatically allowed/accepted?


Is there a word for the "primary" verb in a clause?

In an answer to another question, I erroneously said: > Each sentence sentence normally be one complete thought, with a noun and a > verb. You should generally not have two verbs per sentence What I was trying to say was that each sentence should have one... "primary verb", but I'm looking for the actual term to describe this. I am sure "primary verb" is not it. As an example, user brilliant commented on that question and gave this example: > As for those who like to place a lot of commas in the sentence and think > that they do the right in acting that way, I would tell them that each > sentence should be one complete thought, with a noun and a verb, and, > therefore, there should be generally only one verb in it. In that sentence, there's a lot of verbs... What is the way to describe the verb "would", as used in "I would tell", and only that verb?


Outlier - meaning

> People are rarely interested in looking at raw data; instead, people > engaging in data analysis will want to manipulate the raw data to better > suit their needs. Examples of common data manipulations include: > >   * Generating totals for a geographic region, such as total European sales >   * Finding **outliers** , such as the top salesperson for 2005 >   * Determining frequencies, such as the number of new accounts opened for > each branch > What does **outlier** mean in this context and what does it mean as a general idea? Thank you.


what's the meaning of "in the understanding of the times" When a power center (state) seeks to grow, consolidate its authority, or modernize ( **in the understanding of the times** ), it is likely to harden its borders, centralize ...


Meaning of "run around doing something"

What does _run around doing something_ mean? For example: > I can't see any reason to run around deleting the recovery partition.


Do 'stay on the list', 'make the list' and 'make the cut' all have the same meaning?

Today’s New York Times reported a flamboyant dinner party hosted by President Obama to welcome President of China, Hu Jintao. According to the article, many outstanding figures of politics, business, sports, entertainment, and other fields were ‘on the list’ for the state dinner. Some ‘made the cut’. Some ‘made the list’. In this context, are ‘make the cut’ and ‘make the list’ exactly the same in meaning? Why don’t you simply say ‘[stay/survive] on the list‘? > Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter made the cut. So did Bill Clinton and his wife, > the secretary of state. The heads of Microsoft, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, > JPMorgan Chase and Walt Disney were on the list. So were the singer Barbra > Streisand, the ice skater Michelle Kwan, the cellist Yo-Yo Ma, the architect > Maya Lin and the fashion designer Vera Wang.   >  But Fred P. Hochberg, the chairman of the Export-Import Bank, did not make > the list for President Obama’s state dinner for President Hu Jintao of > China, even though trade was a major theme of the day.


what is meaning of following quote?

A programmer started to cuss, Because getting to sleep was a fuss. As he lay there in bed, Looping ’round in his head, Was: while(!asleep()) sheep++; I don't know where to put this query so I put it here


Are the phrases “at once” and “in one go” equally acceptable?

You should answer this question _in one go_ ( _at once_ ). Are both forms acceptable?


"What is an idiom?" vs. "What are idioms?"

I often say > What is an idiom? When I read _Longman Pocket Idioms Dictionary Cased_ , I saw the sentence > What are idioms? Are there any differences between the two forms? Which one is preferred?


Word for something made of two parts

I'm searching for a word that has the meaning of something that is made of two different parts. I've looked around on thesaurus and this site for a bit and I can't find anything. Here is the sentence I'm trying to use it in: > This communication has covered the basics of percolation theory and shown > that a 3-dimensional cluster labeling programme is able to describe the > complex three dimensional network between the different sites in the > **[Insert Word Here]** blend. And here is an image showing what such a blend looks like. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/lpOOk.gif) The issue is that it's not just an amalgam I'm trying to describe, but a material with two separate interpenetrating species. What word should I use to describe this?


Is the term 'Occidental' still in common usage - or is it a legacy of a bygone age?

I've heard of the word 'Occidental' or 'The Occident' used to mean the same as Oriental or 'The Orient' but applied to the European continent. This I've seen in historic fiction, such as the works of Patrick O'Brian, and 'The Occidental' - being a pub in Sydney. Apart from that - I've never heard anyone use this term in conversation. Is it still used?


April Fool's day = April (Fool's day) or (April Fool)'s day

Ok, that is a bad example :) I was wondering how should I understand the phrases like April Fool's day. It could be understood in two ways, could it?   * April (Fool's day) - The day of Fool occurring in April.   * (April Fool)'s day - The day of April Fool. How to know which one is the right one?


"Automatically" vs "In an automated manner"

Is there any difference between _automatically_ and _in an automated manner_? For example, _Automatically_ > He's been made redundant, as all of his tasks are now done automatically. _Automated_ > He's been made redundant, as all of his tasks have been automated.


"loving" vs. "love"

> Boy your loving is all I think about 1) Why not a comma after 'boy'? Is this grammar correct, because it looks like two subjects? 2) Why not 'love'? What's the difference in this sentence?


Is there a word for "querulism"?

I find I often need a word such as this. Some people are just relentless querulants and I want to be able to refer to that aspect of them, e.g. _"John's relentless querulism"_. Doesn't seem like that's a real word though... Wikipedia on Querulant Thanks


What does this mean: "Credit card balance within $2000 of card limit"?

I'm trying to create an alert on my credit card so that I get a text message when the total charges on my credit card go over $1000. Let's say my credit card limit is $3000. If I set the alert to send me a text message when my credit card balance is within $2000 of the card limit, is this equivalent to saying that I will get an alert when my card balance is over $1000 in this case? The wording is confusing for me for some reason, and I can't get over it.


Does the word "troll" necessarily have negative connotations?

Does the word "troll" necessarily imply negative connotations? More specifically, can the word "troll"/"trolling" be legitimately used to describe a posting which is clearly made with intent of merely generating laughs on April 1st? Please note that the question is specifically about connotations involving intent - e.g. the assumption is that the posting is otherwise on-topic and not disruptive (e.g. a standalone question on a Stack Exchange site, which would be classified as on-topic AND not disrupting existing questions). * * * More specifically:   * Urban Dictionary defines "Troll" as: > One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message > board **with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument**. This seems to imply a clearly negative intent and thus inapplicable to April First jokes.   * Online Slang Dictionary says: > A person who posts to an internet discussion group or chat room **with the > sole purpose of disrupting it.**   * Wikipedia defines: > In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or > off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion > forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into > an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Again, making the assumption that the posting in question is not "extraneous, or off-topic", this seems MOSTLY to imply negative intent connotations to me. However, recently someone made an argument that, since "aiming to get laughs from people on April 1st" can be classified as "provoking readers into an emotional response", it should fit under definition of a troll. **So, my questions are:**   * Is there a well accepted connotation that "troll" implies **negative** intent, as opposed to including intent to provoke harmless April 1st laughter?   * As a side question, does the wording in Wiki article (** or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion**) also impose a negative intent on "emotional response" part via the use of "of otherwise"?


An idiom for a very sensitive person

Is there an idiom for describing someone who is oversensitive (emotionally, not physically)? I vaguely remember something along the lines of "he is all exposed nerves".


What's the meaning of 'out' when it comes after a verb ?

What's the difference between a verb like _read_ and _read out_ or _shout_ and _shout out_ and so on? How does "out" change the meaning of verbs?


Usage of "Free-to-play"

**What is the correct usage of the term "Free-to-play?"** I would expect it to mean any game that is at least partially free, up to and _including games that are fully free_ such as freeware or abandonware. However, I tend to only see it in relation to the former and never the latter, with "totally-free" not being considered "free-to-play." In fact, the term seems to be applied broadly to games that use micro-transactions, thus making its usage seem more based on how one pays for a game as opposed to how one does not. Is this just degrading slippage of the word's original purpose? Is it just a marketing scam? Is my sample-set just biased?


have gone to or have been to?

I saw the following sentence by a contributor at alt.usage.english. I am puzzled by his usage of 'have gone to'. Why didn't he say 'have been to'? I always think 'have been to' is about experience, whereas 'have gone to a place' means someone is in that place and hasn't returned. But he seems to use 'have gone to' to indicate experience. > The only place I've ever gone to and had no choice on what I was eating > without advanced warning was a family-style Italian restaurant in San > Francisco


Referring to previous words

I'm facing a difficulty about referring to previously mentioned words. It's something that bothers me a lot about the English language. Please consider > Mathematicians can use these theorems to their advantage. versus > Mathematicians can, to their advantage, use these theorems. Which is more correct? The first sounds more natural and most people would probably say it's correct. However, I would think that technically the first is wrong and the second is correct, even though the second is a bit more unnatural. Why? Because in the first, **_their** is referring to the last thing mentioned, namely **these theorems_** , which is absurd. In the second, **their** actually refers to the **mathematicians** , as it should. What do you think? If the first is (also) correct, my question is simply this: Since when can sentences be counted as being correct just because they happen to make sense from the context?


"What about you?" versus "How about you?"

E.g. >   * I'm going straight home after work. How about you? >   * I'm going straight home after work. What about you? > They both seem to work interchangeably, but there feels like a subtle difference and I can't quite pin it down. Similar but a little bit different from "How about" vs. "What about", the same arguments do not apply because we are always referring to "you".


How do I report speech containing "must not"?

What's the form for reporting speech that contains _must not_? I mean: > I can't come to the meeting on Monday => She told me she couldn't come to > the meeting on Monday. > > You must talk to me => She said you had to talk to me. Till now, there's no problem, but what should I use with _must not_? I think that _I can't_ do the following: > You must not talk to me => She said that you didn't have to talk to me. because > Must not <> Have to Am I right?


What are the differences between "shop," "shoppe," and "store"?

What are the differences between _shop_ , _shoppe_ , and _store_?


What does "pass it on" mean?

I love the song _Pass It On_ by _The Coral_ , but I can't understand the meaning of this sentence: > Just find the feeling, pass it on. What does _pass it on_ mean?


To insert or not insert quotation marks, that is the question!

Can the following sentence be correct with and without quotation marks? > Did Mother say we are going to Disney World? I would answer yes, but I have read in the past the word "that" should be inserted if no quotations are to be used. > Did Mother say that we are going to Disney World? I have one more with the same question: > Nan explained the essay "Doughboys" is about World War I. This one I would say needs "that" inserted in order to get rid of dialog quotation marks, but I'm probably wrong---just about the time I think I have some part of grammar figured out and is "absolute" I find it is not absolute at all! Thank you for your assistance.


Words order when asking a question in a complex sentence

I'm having trouble to decide which word order to use in this sentence: > So the question is if I am to modify the programme **in what environment I > should do it**. Is it correct or do I need to change the last part to **in what environment should I do it**?


Is the sentence "X is located in Y" active or passive voice?

It looks passive to me, due to the structure to be + past participle. However, if I take Z as a doer of the verb locate and change it around as in Z locates X, I am very confused with the meaning which I feel different from that in the "passive" format. I need to explain this to my students.


past perfect usage with before

I am reviewing rules for past perfect tenses. I found the sentence below that is mentioned as example.                 You had studied English before you moved to New York.      What is the difference in meaning between this example and a sentence using 2 past simple?                 You studied English before you moved to New York.      Is the tense with 2 past simple correct or is expressing no meaning at all? Another example where I cannot see the difference is the following                 Tony knew Istanbul so well because he had visited the city several times.      How does this differ with                 Tony knew Istanbul so well because he visited the city several times.


Does "price of delayed order" mean same as "delayed order price"?

Do these two phrases have the same meaning? >   1. price of delayed order >   2. delayed order price > I think they are the same, but I'm not sure. Which is more common and less difficult to understand if there is a significant difference?


Do "that" and "it" refer to different things in this sentence?

> He likes going to the library to study. That always makes her happy. What if the last sentence were to be changed to > It always makes her happy. Do these two sentences mean something different? It seems to me that "that" is referring to his attitude, and "it" refers to the act of studying. What about this: > Her boyfriend likes playing with her dogs. That always makes her happy. and > It always makes her happy. Would "that" be reffering to her boyfriend's attitude towards her dogs, while "it" refers to the actual act of playing with them?


Is there a symbol out there capable of denoting a chapter in a citation?

When citing like [Source, ch.number], is there a particular symbol that could or should replace the "ch." abbreviation?


What is the correct usage of "the question of ..."

I am currently writing my thesis, which addresses the question _of how to do X_. However, I am not sure whether the usage of _"the question of ..."_ is correct. I found the following expressions while searching the web:   1. This thesis addresses the question **of how to do X**.   2. This thesis addresses the question **how to do X**.   3. This thesis addresses the question **as to how to do X**. Can someone tell which one is correct (and why)? I also sometimes use the expression _"the question of whether X is true"_. Do the same rules apply? Thank you, Dan


"Belated happy birthday" or "happy belated birthday"?

What's the correct sentence? >   * Belated happy birthday! >   * Happy belated birthday! >


Representative as in for contracts

I am filling a form for staying on-campus on my university. I am trying to figure out what the word representative means in this context. Referring to item 4. http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/zone_files/rooming_accommodation/r18.pdf Dictionary: " **Representative** \- a person or thing that represents another or others." What can I actually fill in here? I actually wrote myself, because no one is representing me. Did I get the wrong idea?


“What about” vs. ”what of”

Example from page 75 of Frederick Schauer’s _Thinking Like a Lawyer_ : > But **what of** mandatory authorities? Are they as “binding” as the > traditional terminology suggests? The answer depends on what is meant by > “binding,” and it turns out that speaking of “binding” authority can be just > as misleading as speaking of “persuasive” authority. What are the similarities and differences between _what about_ and _what of_? I see that the definitions below are worded differently, but I don’t see any intrinsic differences — which I still suspect must exist. > **what about** 1a. does that include (someone) : how about (someone)   >  1b. how does that affect (someone or something) :   >  2\. used to make a suggestion about what could be done   >  3\. used to ask someone to tell you something in response to the thing that > you have just said > > **what of** 1\. _formal_ how does that affect (someone or something)   >  2\. why does (something) matter


Why can't we use the plural in "Mt. Fuji is higher than any other mountains in Japan"?

These are two sentences that I have a question about. >   1. Mt. Fuji is higher than _any other mountains_ in Japan. >   2. Mt. Fuji is higher than _any other mountain_ in Japan. > I know the second sentence is the correct one, but why can't we use the first sentence? The dictionary says "Do you have any other questions?" and "He doesn't have any other shoes to wear." Using _any_ here we use the plural, so why can't we use it with the first sentence that I questioned you about? How can I explain to students who are learning English?


Future Perfect tense

I cannot understand the usage of this tense. For example, what does "I will have done this task" mean? Does it mean the effects of this task will be remaining in the future? On a more general note, please tell me in which situations I can use this tense.


"Connections", "network" or...?

Suppose I know a lot of people in a particular place — let's say, Singapore — and they can help me. How can I express it through a short sentence to let someone know that he has found the right person for spreading his products? Should I say: > I have a good network in Singapore. or > I have good connections in Singapore. or something more applicable?


Is "iterative cycle" a tautology?

If something is iterative, it means it repeats.   A cycle is also something that is repeated. So is "iterative cycle" tautological -- a redundant way of saying "iteration"? For example: > We performed three iterations of the experiment. vs > The experiment had three iterative cycles.