Can "if", "while", "whenever", "when" recurse deeply? How deeply?

I would like a generative BNF-style complete description for English grammar. Some of the more subtle stuff leads to awkward questions of grammaticality (a complete answer to this question, and all related questions, is a publication with a complete description of a comprehensible and comprehensive formal grammar which generates exactly the set of grammatical English sentences) Here are what I believe to be the toplevel rules (hopefully complete), describing the words of type "if", "when", "and", "maybe", in the situations where these apply at the level of complete sentences (it is not necessary to know BNF to answer the question, I'll generate the confusing examples. In the BNF below, vertical lines separate options, brackets enclose optional constructions, CAPS are nonterminals, lowercase stuff in quotes is actual words you speak) SENTENCE: IF STATEMENT [THEN] SENTENCE   | SENTENCE IF STATEMENT   | SENTENCE AND SENTENCE   | WHEN STATEMENT SENTENCE   | MAYBE SENTENCE   | STATEMENT   | QUESTION   | COMMAND   | "" IF: "if"| "only if"| "if only"| "if and only if"| "if and if only"   AND: "and"| "or"| "but" | "else" | "otherwise"   THEN: "then" | "only then" | "then and then only" | "then and only then"   MAYBE: "maybe" | "possibly" | "perhaps" | "yes" | "no"   WHEN: "when" | "while" | "unless" | "until" | "whenever" | "while and when" | "when and while" | "whenever and while" | "when and whenever" | "when or whenever" | "whenever and whenever" | "unless and until" | "until and unless" | "whenever and wherever" | "if and when" | "when and if" | "if and while" | "if and whenever" | "whenever and if"   The distinction between the WHEN and IF class is that IF can take THEN, but WHEN cannot. I will ignore commas for the BNF, place them as required from the generative structure. Also, there is a bit of post-processing required here: the sentence can't end up empty. Anyway, this BNF (assuming you know how to form STATEMENTs, QUESTIONs, and COMMANDs) tells you exactly how to use the IF THEN AND WHEN word at the top level of grammar. I should point out that there will be a redundancy in the description, in that the words in the MAYBE class are adverbs, and will occur inside statements, questions, and so on as adverbs too. ### Counterintuitive productions Nested "if"s start to sound weird, although they are fine by the BNF rules:   * If if John writes Jane reads james falls. Is this production considered grammatical?   * If jane reads if john writes then james falls. This one sounds ok, but it is just a reordering of the previous one   * If, if, if john runs to the store Jane runs to the bank, James eats, linda falls Is this one ok? Stuffing in the "then"s   * If, if, if John runs to the store then jane runs to the bank, then James eats, then Linda falls. Rearranging using different options for expanding if-then,   * If, James eats if Jane runs to the bank, if John runs to the store, then Linda cries. This sounds ok to my ears. Is it ok? There are also counterintuitive productions:   * yes yes maybe possibly no, I will go to the store. Is this grammatical? ### EDIT: In response to comments and downvote I was using unnaturally short statements inside the if's, because the exact nature of the sentences inside is irrelevant. But it seems to psychologically make a difference. Here are more natural sounding versions, with different tenses and more semantic meaningfulness:   * Me: If, only if John helps her will Jane cook, I'm not going to eat. I hate John's cooking. Is this production considered grammatical?   * Me: If jane cooks only if john helps her then I'm not going to eat. I hate John's cooking This one sounds ok, but it is just a reordering of the previous one   * Jane: If, if, only if John helps me will I cook you won't eat then I won't ever invite you to my house again! Is this one ok? Stuffing in the "then"s   * Jane: If, if, only if John helps me will I cook then you won't eat, then I won't ever invite you to my house again! Rearranging using different options for expanding if-then,   * Jane: If, you wont eat if I will cook only if John helps me, then I won't ever invite you to my house again! This sounds ok to my ears. Is it ok? It's just a transformational rearrangement of the previous Jane utterances. There are also counterintuitive productions:   * Me: yes yes maybe possibly no, I don't know whether I will stay for dinner. Is this grammatical?


'The talk was about' vs. 'We were talking about'

I want to point someone about theme of conversation with another person. What sentence is correct? > The talk was about airplanes. or > We were talking about airplanes. I want to make accent on a theme.


How to obtain a list of compound words as nouns?

> **Example:** polar bear I can only detect _polar_ as an adjective and _bear_ as a noun. But _polar bear_ is actually a "noun". How do I obtain a free list of such? > **Another example:** hot dog.


Two translation suggestions: "friend of the people"? "practicioner"?

I need to translate some personal info and the original text includes a phrase (literally) "friend of the people". It's a bit tongue in cheek, intended as a personal touch, since the dossier is mainly about the person's professional experience in creative areas such as advertising and promotion. What phrase would you suggest using here? I don't want it to sound awkward, pompous or political (and the first Google hit when searching for " _friend of the people_ " happens to be a Wikipedia entry on a historical revolutionary figure...). Another word that I'm not sure how to translate is "practicioner" (?), whose meaning is supposed to be: someone valuing practical experience and accomplishments over book knowledge. Someone whose know-how comes from doing real things and who excels at getting things done. It's not for a CV, it's a dossier for publication.


Does "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" always indicate partnership?

My usual understanding is that someone's girlfriend is their (female) partner in an exclusive romantic relationship. Same for boyfriend. Is this correct, or are there instances where girlfriend refers to just a "normal" friend that also happens to be female?


Transportation fee + Lunch money =?

> My son goes out for the day every weekend, so I have to give him > transportation fee and lunch money every time he does so. I'd like to know if the above sentence sounds natural to native speakers. My concerns are:   1. Is there any way to make the expression "transportation fee and lunch money" shorter? I'm wondering if it can be described as "xx for transportation and lunch".   2. Is it awkward if I omit "he does so" and put the period after "time"?


Non-financial costs

I am interviewing someone about the newly proposed bike paths in our city. I want to ask them not only how much the paths will cost financially, but also find out what other costs (such as the removal of parking bays, etc.) may be associated with this project. Is there a nice and clear way of asking this question succinctly?


Why there is "the" before some names but not others

Is there a rule beyond the common "no _the_ with proper nouns and names" for the following problem? > I saw the Empire State Building. > > We went to the White House. > > We saw the Golden Gate Bridge. but > I went to Death Valley National Park. > > I crossed Brooklyn Bridge.


"Green Park" or "The Green Park"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why there is "the" before some names but not others When do you use definite article with names of places? I have gathered from the Wikipedia article that it is correct to say "The Green Park is a park ..." and "... a fireworks celebration held in Green Park". What are the differences between these sentences? Why the use of _the_ in the former situation but not the latter?


How does "each" change "are" to "is"?

> Relevant: 'Each' with plural or singular verb and What should I use between > “triple” vs. “all”? The answers in the linked question don't quite help me. Specifically, what happens with this case: > My three pens are green. > > Each of my three pens are green. > > Each of my three pens is green. Part of the confusion seems to stem from the inclusion of "three": > My pens are green. > > Each of my pens are green. > > Each pen is green. There doesn't seem to be a way to rewrite the last example with "three": > Each three pen is green. The more common application would be: > All three pens are green. But in the event that I want to say, "Each of my three pens are green" which is correct? And, in the event that the correct sentence is "each of my three pens is green" why does prepending "each of" to the beginning of "my three pens are green" change the verb?


Where can I find a good list of MLA citation formats?

I am working on programing a citation generator. It will only make citations in MLA format. Does anyone know where I can find a good MLA citation form resource


How does one correctly use a semicolon?

How does one correctly use a semicolon? It is probably one of the more difficult punctuation marks to master in my opinion.


Correctly using a semicolon?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How does one correctly use a semicolon? I was wondering if the following was the correct usage of a semicolon or if a comma is more apt for this use. > Well, have we got some news for you; there is a way!


Semicolon use in statement-questions?

I have often written sentences in the following form which combines a statement with a question, separated by a semicolon. For example, > I understand you have received payment for my order; will it ship by Monday? Is this use of the semicolon correct, and is the semicolon commonly used in questions?


Am I using the semicolon correctly?

Is this sentence correct? > I've never been to Toronto before; do you get the opportunity to visit > Montreal often?


Is "With friendship truly," a proper valediction?

I want to close a letter with: With friendship truly, My Name For some background; I wrote a letter of recommendations of features to a site, but by my tone it is not extremely clear that I am serious (it's fairly light hearted) and my intentions sincere. I don't want to say "Sincerely, " because I think it could be over looked or misinterpreted, and I don't want to change my writing style because that would be boring. It's a weird valediction because it seems like there might be a comma required as in "With friendship, truly,"


"Unless someone lives under a rock"

Could the expression _unless someone lives under a rock_ be used in a formal setting? If no, what are some alternatives that could be used instead?


To find/get/take one's bearings

Is there any difference between these three expressions?   * _to find one's bearings_   * _to get one's bearings_   * _to take one's bearings_


What to call a person with whom you spend time just because?

What to call a person with whom you spend time not because you like them but because you haven't found anyone better? **EDIT** : I am asking more about a romantic kind of relationship than mere companionship, and about a situation when one person kind of uses another.


Predicate inner components in sentence (object without determiner)

I'm working on a computer program that might output the following sentence: > Analyst Mark Mahaney upgraded rating on Apple to Buy Is that sentence valid in English? (That is, nothing betwen the action `upgraded` and the word `rating`)


A Geordie connection with Hawaii?

I read somewhere the term "Wahini" is a Hawaiian expression for "A beautiful young girl" (confirmed in the Urban Dictionary). Seeing as the islands were first visited by Captain Cook, and he actually perished there in the 1770's, and he was a "Geordie" - one raised in the North East of England around the city of Newcastle, he and his crew would have been familiar with the dialect expression "Wor Hinny" meaning "our girl", or "our lass". I wonder if there is any definite proof out there that the words were adopted and corrupted to the current Hawaiian word...?


Confusing structures with modal verbs

I have skimmed through the part on **modals** of a classic grammar book (Murphy's " _Grammar in Use_ ") and picked up all the structures that look **strange** to me. Could you, please, explain **how often they are used** and how do they sound in the contemporary _British_ and _American English_? [Lately added] This page explains some of the usages: British and Am. English: Differences in usage * * * 1) _I should ..._ / _I shouldn't ..._ to give somebody advice: > --Is it cold? --Yes, **_I** should wear_ a coat. (It is not a misprint! " ** > _I_** " refers here to another person.) > > _**I** shouldn't stay_ up too late. **You** 'll be tired tomorow. 2) _might_ to ask for permission: > I have finished my work - _might_ I go home? 3) _will_ for present habits: > Every morning I _will_ get up early. > > I've tried everything - the car just _won't_ start. 4) Using _should_ after a number of adjectives (strange, odd, funny, typical, interesting etc.): > It's strange that he _should be late_. He's usually on time. > > I was surprised that he _should say_ such a thing. 5) _If_ something _should_ happen ... : > _If_ the situation _should change_ , we'll let you know. > > _If_ Tom _should phone_ , tell him I'll call him back later. 6) Begin the sentences from 5) with _should_ : > _Should_ Tom _phone_ , tell him I'll call him back later. 7) _It's (about) time ..._ : > _It's time_ the children _were_ in bed. > > _It's about time_ he _did_ something instead of just talking. 8) _Needn't_ and _needn't have (done)_ : > Everything will be OK. You _needn't_ worry. > > It didn't rain. I _needn't have taken_ the umbrella. 9) _might as well_ for an alternative: > Buses are very expensive - you _might as well_ get a taxi. **10** ) _oughtn't [to]_ ( _ought not [to]_ ) > You _oughtn't to_ watch scary movies before sleep. > > You _oughtn't_ come to me for news, but here's some anyway. **11** ) _shan't_ ( _shall not_ ) > I'm goint for a walk. I _shan't_ be late. > > He hath promised I shall never want money; and you _shan't_ want money > neither, mother.


use of being in a sentence

What is the grammatical reason for the following use of the word _being_?   * _Thank you for willing to come_ : (wrong, I know)    * _Thank you for being willing to come_ : (right)  But what is the grammatical reason for inserting _being_ here?


What does "patent rocker" mean?

From Steinbeck's _Cannery Row_ , > He sat heavily in the patent rocker that was his and shucked off his wet > tennis shoes. A rocker is a chair. But what is a "patent rocker"?


"The Cry of Jousts of King Richard II" — a problem with translation

I'm trying to translate this text to Polish and everything seems pretty clear to me, apart from the usage of the words "within" and "without". I presume it's some kind of technical vocabulary referring to the subject of jousting. Could someone explain to me what these words mean? Here are three excerpts from the text:   * > At those jousts the noble ladies and damsels will give **the knight who jousts best of those without** a horn garnished with gold, and they will give to **the one who jousts best of those within** a white greyhound with a collar of gold around its neck.   * > And the noble ladies will give a circlet of gold to **the one who jousts best of those without**. And **one within that jousts best** will be given a golden belt.   * > And there will be given in the same field to **whoever jousts best of those without** a noble courser, saddled and bridled. And **whoever jousts best of those within** will be given a fine chaplet well worked with silk.


Are semicolons mandatory in a non-bulleted list after a colon?

Are semicolons required (rather than commas) in a list after a colon when the list is not bulleted? I was told that it was a rule, but I can find no authoritative prescriptive source. Consider the example sentence below. > The following are unclear: whether a change in Rule C is regarded as a > violation; whether it is possible to add conditions to rule D in Category 5 > when submitting a report to the Committee; and whether Rule G and Rule H > satisfy the professional requirements. If there is no potentially confusing internal punctuation in the list elements, and if parallel construction (e.g., whether . . . whether . . . whether) shows clear demarcation, are commas not sufficient?


Word or phrase to refer to self-employed professionals working from home in the UK?

Other than _homeworkers_ (which is vague), _freelancers_ (which is, to my knowledge, US-specific, and non-exclusive to this), what other words do self- employed people working from home describe themselves, that are uniquely highlighting these features of their working condition?


Why are some words not capitalized in titles?

I understand the how, but the why escapes me completely. After a decent amount of searching on the internet I can only find people talking about how to capitalize a title (or more importantly which words to not capitalize). Even the style guides have been mute about why they are asking us to use such a convoluted set of rules. Is there some typographical or grammatical reason for some words to not have intial caps in a title (other than the arbitrary "because that is what is done")?


Morrow vs. Tomorrow

What's the difference between _morrow_ and _tomorrow_? Why are there two similar words for the same meaning? I noticed it in the title of a song of Michael Nyman, "Second Morrow", on Gattaca OST. There is no sign that it was an ancient word.


Can the word 'BFF' be applied to decent adults like Senate members?

The beginning lines of today’s New York Times article titled “As State of the Union Nears, Congress Plays Musical Chairs” provided me with a set of interesting acronym, word, and idiom new to me, such as “BFF,” “play musical chair” and “good hair,” whose meanings I was able to find out by UrbanDictionary. However, UrbanDictionary defines BFF as ‘an abbreviation mostly written on binders or notes _by girls in grade school_ , however, over the last few years, people who use to use the term in grade school have actually started saying ...’ Is it appropriate or natural to apply an acronym (BFF) being used primarily by gradeschool girls to dignitaries like Senators as exampled by the following sentence. In addition, do you use “BFF” in your colloquial conversation? > Mary from Louisiana asked Olympia from Maine because they are BFFs, but had > a backup in Bob from Tennessee in case she was rebuffed. Kirsten from New > York went the Sadie Hawkins route and asked John from South Dakota, and thus > the deal between two members of the Senate with seriously good hair was > sealed.


What is the origin of the phrase "'til the cows come home"?

What is the origin of the term _'til the cows come home_? While discussing this with friends tonight, the group had two possible explanations:   * Cows return to their barn for milking at a given time late each night.   * If a cow runs away or escapes, it doesn't return, unlike horses, which will return to their stable. As such, _'til the cows come home_ is an indefinitely long time. So, which is correct? If anybody can point me to a reputable source explaining the history of this phrase, I'd be interested to know.


When and how did "fail" become a noun?

Does anyone know when and how _fail_ became a noun? I'd love to see one of those charts that shows the date of origin and subsequent growth of this usage.


Why is "lucked out" such a good thing to be?

This still strikes me as odd, even after 12 years in the US. Being _out of luck_ is a bad thing, but _lucked out_ is a good thing, e.g. _we 'lucked out' and were able to get two extra tickets for the show_. Any idea why?


Is there a good substitute for the word "scarper" in American English?

I used _quick, let's scarper before the boss comes back_ to inject some levity into a recent meeting, but got only blank stares for my trouble. When asked to explain _scarper_ to my American chums, all I could think of was _you know, as in "scarper lads, it's the filth"_ , i.e. run away quickly before the police catch you, but _run away quickly_ really doesn't convey the essence of this truly useful word. Is there a good American English equivalent? Note: it is difficult to convey the exact context. Imagine high school kids (not the good ones) deciding to try and evade the deans, or maybe a bunch of dropouts or low-level criminals about to get caught breaking in.


How to parse "once upon a time"?

Native speaker, but I got to wondering what the grammar and semantics of this old phrase are. What would be a direct translation to modern English? I'm not looking for a loose translation; everyone knows what "once upon a time" means. I'm trying to understand the various semantic and grammatical components of the phrase the way they were originally used.


"No more", "no longer", "not anymore"

> You love me no more. > > You no longer love me. > > You don't love me anymore. How are these three sentences different from one another? I use _not anymore_ more often than the others. But once I used _I use your service no more_ and an English guy standing by burst into laughter.


Complement or object?

> I saw him cross the road. Is _cross the road_ the object of _saw_? Or is it the complement of _him_?


What is the meaning of the subclause of 'goes off the deep end'?

If a real-time program **goes off the deep end** , the system can become unresponsive.


"Approach mathematics like/as a creative activity"

Given the sentence: > Teachers in this country have generally been trained either to approach > mathematics **like/as** a creative activity or that they should force > students to memorize rules and principles without truly understanding how to > apply them. Should I use _like_ or _as_?


Word for company that takes bets on illegal events or helps you bet

As I understand _bookmaker_ in English is a person or company that takes bets on events. But I have two questions related to this word:   1. Is there any special word for a person or company that takes bets on illegal events?    2. What are companies that provide help and tell you what to bet on (like brokers) called?


Is it correct to use "for" with "required"?

I am editing a sentence that is of the form: > A has required for B to effect a change. To my ear, this sounds better: > A has required that B effect a change. Am I wrong in my dislike of "has required for?"


"cold cash" vs. "hard cash"

Context (New York Times): > Besides piling into Treasuries, institutional investors are also seeking out > the safety of **cold** , **hard cash** , pouring billions into commercial > bank accounts backed up by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dictionary.com: > **cold cash** : Also, **hard cash** . Actual currency (bills and coins); > money immediately available, paid at the time of a purchase. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary lists **cold cash** as American English, and **hard cash** as British English. Is the OALD correct? Is there a difference between these two terms or not?


Which kind of problems are described as "That's no rocket science"?

In German Language and Usage we just had the question German analog for “That's no rocket science”. As a native German Speaker, I do not know which situations this phrase is used in. I understand it means the problem isn't too difficult. But can I conclude something about the time needed to solve the problem? Can it for example be used when simple and almost boring repeated effort is needed to solve the problem?


Etymology of "cronyism"

_Cronyism_ probably comes from Greek _khronios_ ("long-lasting") which has a sense of "old friend". But how is it connected with today's meaning?


Antecedent of "size 6”" in "Pig traps, Pressure and Level Control Valves, MOV’s, Shutdown valves, Relief valves, manual valves of size 6” and above"

> As a general guidelines EN10204 3.2 certification is applicable to all > process wetted parts which include the Corrosion Inhibitor injection skid, > Lube Oil Pumps, Pig traps, Pressure and Level Control Valves, MOV’s, > Shutdown valves, Relief valves, manual valves of size 6” and above. I am confused about whether the _6” and above_ is applicable to all valves or only the manual valves. What does that phrase qualify?


What's a word I can use to describe "putting a collar on a pet" in a comical way?

I thought of something like "stick a collar on" but "stick" doesn't satisfy me. What are my other options? Anything with some "edge" will do if comical is too hard.


"you" versus "You" as polite form of writing

Is it correct to write "You" with a capital Y as a form of politeness? If yes, should I use that form throughout the entire letter/document, or only at specific places?


Infinitive vs. present participle (time relations)

I was told that one of the following refers to the past and the other to the future. I cannot decide which is which and would appreciate it if someone could explain the difference between these sentences:   1. Did you remember locking the door?   2. Did you remember to lock the door? It would be especially useful if the difference could be shown using these very examples. :)


What is the difference between "so much" and "quite so much"?

I was told that "so much" is more emphatic than "quite so much", but I am not sure. Could you explain the difference between the following pairs of sentences? >   * Don't put so much emphasis on that sentence.   >  Don't put quite so much emphasis on that sentence. > >   * He figured if he had a rubbing of Grace's tombstone in his collection, > maybe it wouldn't feel quite so much like she was gone forever.   >  He figured if he had a rubbing of Grace's tombstone in his collection, > maybe it wouldn't feel so much like she was gone forever. > >


A word that describes the polite phrases we use to begin our letters

How can we refer to the polite phrase used at the beginning of a letter (email in my specific context)? For example, we may start our letter: > Dear Bob, I hope that you're well and had a nice weekend. If we want to make reference to the line > I hope that you're well and had a nice weekend in such a way that we could say: > I often wonder how to begin a letter of bad news, but my [interjection] > stands genuine non the less The term "interjection" doesn't seem like a good fit here. Is there a word that describes the polite phrases we often use to begin our letters?


Describing the absence of equality or competitiveness

Situation: talking about a president of a country. Only the incumbent one is okay. All other candidates are either too inexperienced or are simply stupid. Question: How to describe this situation? 1) At the present moment I don't see anyone equal to him 2) At the present moment I don't see any adequate counterpart for him 3) At the present moment I don't see any right substitute for him 4) At the present moment I don't see any proper replacement for him 5) At the present moment I don't see any prospective successor to him What's the right way?


What does "emdash" mean here?

From a link for rain boots, > Whole sizes **emdash** ; half size buy next size up I am not sure what it means. Wikipedia says _em dash_ is a version of dash, a punctuation mark. It doesn’t make sense in the description of the rain boots. So I wonder what _emdash_ means in the quote?


How to answer “Is this John?” on phone

What is the most appropriate answer (American way)? > Yes, John speaking.   >  Yes, it is him.   >  Yes, it is he.   >  Yes.   >  Yes, speaking. I need to answer calls when interviewers/hiring managers call.


Identifying the class of this word

I'm reading the Wikipedia page on garden-path sentences. One example is: > The government plans to raise taxes were defeated. What class of word is _government_ in this sentence? I read this sentence as having the subject noun "plans". "Government" describes the noun, which would make it an adjective. I thought that the adjective form of "government" was "governmental". The sentence may imply ownership of the plans by the government (as opposed to describing the _type_ of plans, distinct from council plans or building plans). In this case, I would have written it as "the government's plans...". Either way, I'm unsure how to determine whether the given sentence is grammatically correct. Assuming it is, what class of word is _government_? [Slightly separate question: what's the correct term for "the class of word", such as 'adjective', 'noun'? Had issues phrasing my question without knowing this.]


Response-uncountable?

I am an elderly Australian teaching translation from Chinese and Korean to English at an Australian university. A Korean student's translation read: > There have [sic?] been much response to ... When I suggested that he should have written something more like _There has not been much of a response ..._ (though my own translation was _The response has been considerable_ ), my students protested that a model translation prepared by a previous Canadian lecturer read: > There has been considerable response ... I beat a strategic retreat and said I would look into the question. _Considerable_ is a flexible word that can qualify countable and uncountable nouns, so its use does not appear to be decisive. But the Canadian teacher's omission of an article indicates that he thought _response_ could be uncountable; so I am beginning to think that North American differs from British English (which I usually use) in this respect. Perhaps this tells us something about the development of English.


Why is "the ball of the foot" called as it is?

I understand the ball of a foot is where the toes join with the rest of the foot. But I don't think it looks like a ball. Why is it called a "ball"?


Word or phrase for when someone opens their arms wide proposing a hug

What's the correct way to refer to the action of one opening their arms wide to offer a hug? I've been thinking about "hug request", "hug proposal" and "hug offer" but none of these seem quite correct. Context: I believe I've misunderstood a person's physical expression, thinking it was more of a shrug than a (the word/phrase I'm looking for), and I'd like to apologize for that.


Sun/moon dial on a watch

What's the name for the dial on a wristwatch or clock which rotates to display a sun symbol at midday and a moon symbol or or night scene at midnight?


Does "up to [date]" include the end date? What about date ranges ("the week of...")?

> The quiz covers all the material up to the week of the quiz Sept.30 - Oct.6. Does this mean that September 29 is the last date, or that the week Sept.30 - Oct.6 is included in this span?


Is "up to" inclusive or exclusive?

> The study was carried out up to visit 11 under the name of `X1`, whereas all > later visits were carried out under a different name, `X2`. In the above sentence, does V11 belong to X1 or X2? I want the sentence to mean that V11 was included in X1, how should the sentence be then?


The first live processing date is December 29, 2014 for the pay period of December 22, 2014 to December 28, 2014

The question I have is the use of the word "to" in the phrase "to December 28". Does the "to" definitely include December 28th, or is it (as I think it is) ambiguous? The way it reads, I feel it is ambiguous as to whether hours worked and record on December 28th will be included in the live payroll processing date of December 29th. I think a less-ambiguous word choice would be "through" instead of "to".


"Turn on the radio" or "put on the radio"?

Are both of these correct? > "Turn on the radio" > > "Put on the radio"


Is there a standard for speaking "1500" as "one thousand five hundred" versus "fifteen hundred"?

I was asked by a French colleague, and had no clear answer, whether it's more correct to say "One thousand five hundred" or "fifteen hundred" when speaking the number 1500. Putting aside how we say dates, which have their own formula. After some thought, my best answer was I tended to say "fifteen hundred" when dealing with abstract things ("fifteen hundred dollars") that I tend to think of as a unit (when I think of $1500, I think of that sum, not of 1500 individual dollar bills), but "one thousand five hundred" when dealing with countable objects, like "there are one thousand five hundred marbles in the box." I was wondering if there was a standard or guidance documents, possibly for broadcast, that would provide some sort of structured answer to the question.


Word for a time discrepancy in a story

What is the word for the mistake of placing an event or object in the wrong age or decade, such as a film star in a movie about Roman times wearing a robe made of nylon?


What's the formal and informal reply to question "Let's meet XXXX"

My professor wrote an email to me and said "Let's meet Thursday". I do not know how to reply this email formally and politely. In addition, if a friend said "Let's meet XXX" in an informal occasion, how can I respond?


How to use "and" "is" "are" with locations

I am confused with how to use "is" and "are" with locations. Which is correct?               a)Library and lecture room is crowded.     b)Library and Lecture room are crowded.


Single word for "personal vocabulary"

I find that I have a sort of "personal dictionary" of words that I like to use. I use "salient" a lot. I use "hence", "perhaps", "incapable", "fortuitous" frequently. I store a sort of "cache" of words - both common and uncommon - that I use regularly as a part of how I speak. I figure this is the case for everybody - certain friends use some words more than others in regular communication, etc. I'm sure you have your own set of words that you tend to "fall back" on. So the question is - what is the name for this cache? What is the word or phrase for "collection of words or phrases a person commonly uses to communicate"?


Punctuating a Sentence Containing a Question

If a sentence contains a complete question, but ends with a statement, should it be punctuated with a question mark? Example: > Could she go to the store, he wondered


What’s the proper punctation for: “Work”, you ask?

I’m writing a tweet that starts with: > Put on a tie today. “Work,” you ask? But I’m not sure where the punctuation should be. Is the above correct? Or, is it something like: > Put on a tie today. “Work?” you ask. Or something else?


Meaning of "Thanks for your insights"?

What does "Thanks for your insights" mean? And how should I use this sentence?


Is the suffix "-ette" used for referring to a female?

I recently came across the word **scooterette** in an Indian newspaper. I wondered if this is an Indian coinage; a quick search on Google showed me it's almost purely Indian. I could not find a reliable dictionary reference, but this article says these scooterettes are scooters manufactured specifically for women. What is the reason this suffix "-ette" is used to refer to a female? Are there other nouns which become feminine by this addition? Or is this just some neologist's portmanteau of **scooter** and **dudette**?


Meaning of "What else is new"

I sent an email to my colleague for any questions he had, he could feel free to ask me. This is the reply from him: > Will do, just got sidetracked for a bit here… what else is new. =) Should I understand "What else is new" as a question or something else? It happens to seem an informal way of saying something but I couldn't really understand the informal meaning. I know what it says literally though. TheFreeDictionary.com defines it: > Inf. This isn't new. It has happened before; Not this again. But personally, I couldn't fit its definition in my colleague's sentence.


"Warm" is to "warmth" as "cool" is to what?

Is there a word for "coolness" that corresponds to _warmth_?


Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile run"

Why are year, pound and mile in the singular form in the phrases below?   * five-year-old children    * 20 pound note   * 10 mile run Is that because they're acting as adjectives, which are always invariable in English? Is it incorrect to say...   * five-years-old children?   * 20 pounds note?   * 10 miles run?


Plural for decimals?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  0.25 mile or 0.25 miles? When writing out a quantity and then a noun what is the correct form for decimals?               1 day     2 days     .5 days?      It seems that if you were to say "half day" then the singular is reasonable but if you were to day "point five days" that also seems correct.


Which one is the correct (or more commonly used) form: "3-month retreat" or "3-months retreat"? How about "3-day" vs. "3-days" and "3-week" vs. "3-weeks" in the same context? (This is retreat as in meditation retreat and for U.S. English.)


Why is the singular of "year" used in phrases like "72-year-old" and "20-year jail sentence"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" > 72-year-old Giselle Gilbert was taken to hospital.   >  He was given a 20-year jail sentence. Why is the singular of _year_ used in these sentences?


What is wrong with " He participated in two-miles race "?

What is the Grammatical mistakes in " He participated in **_two-miles_** race " ?


Is "They all had 15 minutes waits" grammatically correct?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" I was reading an article that used the phrase "15 minutes waits" and it sounded odd to me. I've always said "15 minute waits". Which is grammatically correct? Or are they both acceptable? Google seems to indicate that "minute waits" (157k) is much more common than "minutes waits" (11.3k). It also occurs to me that perhaps the former is only valid when 15-minute is hyphenated. i.e. "They all had 15-minute waits." EDIT: To be clear, the context of the original sentence was that every one of them had a 15-minute wait. Is it **ever** correct to say "They all had 15 minutes waits"?


Are the apostrophe placements correct in every example? • two weeks' vacation • four days' personal time • three months' sabbatical time • ten nights' accommodations • three hours' sleep • eight months' pregnancy • eight months pregnant • five minutes' time • a penny's worth • two pennies' worth • a nickel's worth • two nickels' worth • a dollar's worth • five dollars' worth • two seconds' time • five years' probation Thank you kindly.


"Forty foot" or "forty feet"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" Is it correct to say > "This is a forty foot drop" or > "That is a forty foot telescope" Shouldn't it be "forty feet"? And what if it is > "This is a thirty nine foot drop" instead? Are both correct? Does it depend on the context? How does it work?


the world('s) population speak/speaks

Which one is correct: 1- 4.23% of the world (world's) population SPEAKS Arabic. 2- 4.23% of the world (world's) population SPEAK Arabic.


Is it hour or hours when used in a phrase?

I recently joined a company as a trainee and we have to skype our priorities or task that we are gonna do on that day. For example, people write priorities like this: **1\. HTML/CSS training - [0.5 hours].** **2\. PHP training - [9 hours].** Now I do know about quasi possessive but this doesn't sound like a quasi possessive. I wanna know whether it should be 9 hour or 9 hours? Maybe it might be 9 hours because it's more than 1 but writing 0.5 hours seems a bit confusing. Please let me know what's the correct usage. Thank you.


Why is the singular of “week” used in “two-week business trip”?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" According to Google, it is correct to say "two-week business trip" instead of "two-weeks business trip". So "week" word should be used in singular form which looks strange for me as non-native speaker. Is there any special rule for this kind of phrases?


1.99 dollar or 1.99 dollars?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Are these plural or singular?   >  Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile? I want to write price of some thing in my site. As I know (maybe I am wrong) for things more than one we have to use "s". Related to 1.99 which is correct? What is the correct pronunciation?


Is 1.0 singular or plural?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile? I'm working on a website that displays distance to various locations to the nearest 1/10 mile. One of the developers (a non-native speaker) asked me an interesting question: If the distance is 1.0 mile(s), is that singular or plural? Clearly, anything other that 1.0 is plural, but is it: > 1.0 miles away or > 1.0 mile away The first option sounds more correct to my ear, but the voice of my elementary school language arts tells me that the latter option is correct. Edit: Added the word 'away' to the example. It doesn't change the question, but might provide clarity for the answer. Also, regarding numbers between 0 and 1, after more thought, I'm not sure that the answer is as clear as I originally thought. See http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57224.html.


I have seen people say both 0.25 mile and 0.25 miles. Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile?


rent for three months

I'm drafting a lease which requires tenants to pay rent for the first three months when they sign the lease. Which one of the following is correct? Thanks. three month rent   three month's rent   three months' rent


Should "forty-year" in this context be hyphenated?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" > Mr. Willow’s more than forty-year experience in the industry persuaded me to > apply. Or is the following a better way of saying it? > Mr. Willow's more than forty years of experience in the industry persuaded > me to apply. Are they both correct, or should the hyphen in the first example be removed?


What is the difference between: "two-day" and "two days"

I would like to know which would be the correct form: >   * a major two-day auction >   * a major two days auction > The duration of the auction is two days. Which form is the right one to use?


Pluralization rule is different when we say, 10 pound note and 10 pounds?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" We usually say "10 pounds", but for a single bill we say "10 Pound note" and not "10 pound(s) note". And when we have a lot of notes we say again "10 Pound notes". Why this disparity?


One and a half minute/minutes

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run"   >  Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile? When talking about "one and a half" of any object, do we use the subsequent noun in plural or just singular? I'm aware that "A minute and a half" is also correct but I'm looking for the specific "One and a half"-construction here. So for example, which of the below phrases is correct? > You're one and a half **minutes** late! or > You're one and a half **minute** late! Is there any difference when using the phrase as an adjective like so: "One- and-a-half-minute recipe"?


"30 year" vs. "30 years"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" Reading a report online, I read something like this. > during his 30-year rule. Is it 30 year or 30 years?


Two step method or two steps method

It seems like a particular dance is called "Two-step". It gave me some doubts about how to spell step in the description of a method I use. If my method has two steps, should it be called a two step method or a two steps method?


Should "two weeks vacation" be "two weeks' vacation" (possessive)?

I've always understood that the phrase "two weeks" usually turns to "two weeks'" when used as a modifier -- as in "I'm giving my two weeks' notice" or "I get two weeks' vacation" ("two weeks' holiday" for Brits) -- with an apostrophe on the word "weeks", indicating that the vacation belongs to the weeks. One way to explain this is the phrase "two weeks of vacation" being contracted to "two weeks' vacation" -- the vacation is _of_ the weeks, i.e. possessed by it. But I've seen a lot of people omit the apostrophe in casual writing, and thinking about it, it seems plausible that the noun "vacation" would be plainly modified by the adjectival phrase "two weeks"... but on the other hand, shouldn't adjectival phrases be hypenated, viz. "two-weeks vacation"? But then that seems wrong too; the hyphenate should be singular, "two-week vacation" (like "two-tone shoes") because preceding adjectives are not declined for number. Why is the singular of “week” used in “two-week business trip”? touches on this (and references a good Wikipedia page on noun adjuncts) but doesn't explain why the plural must be possessive in this case. Explanation on when the possessive should be used instead of an attributive noun suggests that "two weeks" might be adverbial rather than adjectival, and thus resist being used attributively. But that still doesn't quite explain this particular muddle of pluralization, possession, and attribution...


Variable that depends on another variable

In a software system, we allow users to define variables. The variables can be related to one another using mathematical formulas (for example, A = B + 1). If a change of value of a variable A affects variable B, we would call B a "dependent variable". How should we call the variable A - that is, a variable that is affected by a change of another variable?


What terms should be used to mean the different states of attendance of volunteers in a clinical study?

In a clinical trail with several visits, it is common to see volunteers not attending their visits at some time point for different reasons. I have these different situations, and I would like to know whether a certain term or phrase should be fittingly used in each case, the different conditions I have are:   1. The participant didn't come, because he was not needed to come, he did come before and he is no more needed to attend.    2. The participant didn't come, but he was needed to come, though he couldn't make it to come for whatever reason.   3. The participant did attend, but the objective of his attendance was not fulfilled. For instance, the sample needed could not be collected or lost after collection. In effect the objective of his attendance was not completely achieved.  I know that there is a term for the second situation which is `drop-out', but how to use it with the correct punctuation? is it: He was _dropped out_ from the study at visit 10. He _dropped out_ from the study at visit 10. He was a study _drop-out_ at visit 10.


Is it correct to say (Name of University) Academic Community welcome guests and participants to the first youth congress of ~?

I saw a tarp with this text: (Name of University) Academic Community Welcome to the First Youth Congress~~~~ June 15 - 17, 2013 (Name of University) Social Hall Theme: "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" I did not mention the name of the university for the obvious reason.. My concern is the word welcome. I think it should be welcomes because the community is taken as one but when I pointed that out they said welcome is correct.. I'm confused..


Why is "Rosen Plevneliev" pronounced with a /z/?

As I have told you in my previous question, I have heard the CBS news about the Bulgarian president visiting the US here. I don't know why, but the way the reporter has pronounced his name makes me smile. I know that that isn't an issue since we speak different languages, but I was wondering why she pronounced it that way. His name is _Rosen Plevneliev_. In Bulgarian there are duplicate consonants like _s_ in _sauce_ and _z_ in _zebra_. In Bulgarian we pronounce it with clear _s_ sound while this reporter has used the _z_ sound. My question is: What is the rule in English that makes her pronounces it that way.


How should I parse a sentence that’s broken up with a dash?

What is the correct "parsing" of this sentence: > Futuristic but not out of time — like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone > trying to imagine what 2013 would be like. I came to two interpretations of the above sentence and would like to know whether either is correct:   1. [Futuristic] but not [out of time — like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone trying to imagine what 2013 would be like.] And so it is saying the device _does not_ look like an artifact from the. . . .   2. [Futuristic but not out of time] — [like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone trying to imagine what 2013 would be like.] Therefore, the device _does_ look like an artifact. . . . The full paragraph the sentence is taken from (to provide additional context) > The design of Glass is actually really beautiful. Elegant, sophisticated. > They look human and a little bit alien all at once. **Futuristic but not out > of time — like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone trying to imagine what > 2013 would be like**. This is Apple-level design. No, in some ways it’s > beyond what Apple has been doing recently. It’s daring, inventive, playful, > and yet somehow still ultimately simple. The materials feel good in your > hand and on your head, solid but surprisingly light. Comfortable. If Google > keeps this up, soon we’ll be saying things like "this is Google-level > design."


Unisex slang for "man"

In slang, one can use the generic "man", to describe his conversant. For instance: > Man, it's sure hot here this season How can I express that for a woman I'm talking with?


What's the difference between a gerund and a participle?

What is the difference between a gerund and a participle?


Does "ducking" have anything to do with a canard?

Wiktionary has a passage explaining (no citation) an origin to the use of the word canard as a means of diverting aggression from vulnerability: > Specifically, the term Canard refers to a tactic used by a parent duck to > deceptively draw a predator away from its offspring or nest by quacking and > feigning a broken wing For canard, Dictionary.com offers "from French: a duck, hoax, from Old French _caner_ to quack, of imitative origin". The passage on 'duck' (as a verb) is less explanatory and offers only the definition, however the Online Etymology Dictionary reads: > "to plunge into" (trans.), c.1300; to suddenly go under water (intrans.), > mid-14c., from presumed O.E. *ducan "to duck," found only in derivative duce > (n.) "duck" (but there are cognate words in other Germanic languages, cf. > O.H.G. tuhhan "to dip," Ger. tauchen "to dive," O.Fris. duka, M.Du. duken > "to dip, dive," Du. duiken), from P.Gmc. *dukjan. Sense of "bend, stoop > quickly" is first recorded in English 1520s. Related: Ducked; ducking. The > noun is attested from 1550s in the sense of "quick stoop;" meaning "a > plunge, dip" is from 1843 So when it comes to 'ducking the truth' or posing a canard in an argument (or resorting to trickery, deception, lying), are these two words only related by coincidence or did something give rise to their linked usage?


Superlatives with "the"

What is the rule regarding using _the_ with superlatives? For example: >   1. John is _the_ fastest among his friends. >   2. John is fastest among his friends. > Both appear to be correct. I have seen both formats in a variety of places.


Is there a word for the desire to care for an injured or vulnerable person or animal?

Specifically, I'm looking for a word or phrase that captures the feeling of wanting someone to need you to care for them, and feeling guilty that the desire implies that you want the other person to be hurt or vulnerable.


When to drop the 'e' when ending in -able?

I've seen a thread that generally asks about Creating words with “-able” suffix But I don't think it answers my point, though they _are_ admittedly dangerously close topics. When do you drop the _'e'_ when forming words suffixed with - _able_. My Spell checker likes _Unforgivable_ but dislikes _Forgivable_. Dropping the ' _e_ ' in the first case, and adding it in the second makes my spell checker happy. How do you determine when one is ok? Note that this is different from the linked question, where neither with or without the ' _e_ ' is accepted. (Having checked the OED it seems there is one accepted spelling of _Forgivable_ but two of _Unforgiv(e)able_ )


A word for something that is both useful and beautiful

Is there a word to describe an object that excels in form and function? I am trying to avoid very general words like _great_ , _superb_ or _excellent_.


Use of “would” in the specific situation

> A man asked a question to his friend, “Why was it the best time for Bilal to > be in his home?” > > His friend replied, “It **would** be the best time for Bilal to be in his > home because his uncle visited him at that time.” In what sense is the modal verb _would_ being used above? Can we replace the _would_ used there with this instead: > It might have been the best time. . . .. What job does _would_ do in the quoted dialogue above?


Synonym for "Passion driven"?

What's a word for using one's motivation to accomplish something? I tried _passion driven_ but it doesn't seem to fit. The sentence is: > Motivation fosters the dedication needed to **____**.   >  or   >  Motivation fosters dedication needed to [be good at what you do] If the question I've asked doesn't make sense, just complete the sentence that describes the importance of having motivation in a career.


What is it called when people wrongly anticipate something and their actions eventually make it happen?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What word means “to speak something into existence”? This is probably something that economists would quickly recognize. It often happens that people would wrongly speculate something; for example, a sudden rise in gold prices, and as a result of that speculation, the buyers will rush to buy gold in a bid to escape the anticipated rise in price whereas the sellers will hold it back looking forward to the price rise. The sudden demand for gold, on one hand, and the shortage of supply on the other, will eventually bring about the rise in its price. I was recently reading about this phenomenon on some website and the author, stating that the trend applies to a variety of economic activities including foreign exchange, had called it something using a term which I now wish I had made note of. Economics apart, I believe this is something that can happen anywhere where anticipation and speculation are involved. I request you to please share if you know what this phenomenon is called.


What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

I sometimes see square brackets used while quoting. My assumption is that they are replacing a pronoun with what the object of the pronoun, but I never know for sure because I don't usually get to see what the original quote looks like before the modification. What are these called and what are the rules of use?


Bracketed Capital Letter

What does the bracketed capital letter indicate in the revised version below? Is it essential, per the rules of proper punctuation, to do so? Are the ellipsis points (i.e., the spacing of the dots) spot on in that sentence to indicate the omission of one or more sentences? Original quotation "It need hardly be said that shortness is a merit in words. There are often reasons why shortness is not possible; much less often there are occasions when length, not shortness, is desirable. But it is a general truth that the short words are not only handier to use, but more possible in effect; extra syllables reduce, not increase, vigor." Revised quotation "It need hardly be said that shortness is a merit in words. . . . [S]hort words are not only handier to use, but more possible in effect; extra syllables reduce, not increase, vigor." Thank you.


What do brackets in a quote mean?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? What do brackets around a word or words in a quote mean? This may seem silly, but I've never figured this out. Bad fictional examples: > "That's what all this is about it is [terrible]" It's also used at the beginning of a quote sometimes like: > "[Albert Einstein] was genuinely a genius."


Symbol, punctuation, or abbreviation that indicates a "paraphrase"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? This question is born of practical necessity - one that I encountered while quoting a reference in "another" Stack Exchange property's "comment field". Due to space limitations, I had wanted to "paraphrase" the following line.. > This is why Git will only let you checkout another branch if everything is > checked in – there are no uncommitted modified files. with > This is why all changes must be committed before switching branches. This _did_ allow my post fit nicely - into the properly dignified amount of allowed characters - but left me with only two spaces to spare. With those two, I reluctantly surrounded my mini-edit in `( )` (parenthesis). This is _fine, and all..._ but as the change was _mid-quote_ , and _mid-paragraph_ , there was no obvious way to clarify that this parenthetical portion was NOT as the credited author had intended - but was instead MY little handiwork. A quick _glance about_ found a dearth of good suggestions on how best to propery attribute - or even indicate - occurances of such paraphrasing, short of some kind of annotated bibliography, etc. What is the correct way to do this (syntactically, via a symbol, or with punctuation, etc.), especially in the context of modern / informal / electronic communications?


Lowercase Letter in Brackets

Please look at the following sentence with the bracketed lowercase letter. “Doctor Rogers' thesis states that ‘[p]atients often display psychosomatic symptoms.’ ” Is the author decapitalizing the word "patients" that may have appeared in the original, and he or she is denoting this via use of the brackets around the letter "p"? In your opinion, did the original appear like this (see below) with the unnecessary capitalization of the word "patients"? “Doctor Rogers' thesis states that ‘Patients often display psychosomatic symptoms.’ ” Thank you.


What punctuation mark should I use?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?   >  What do brackets in a quote mean? When I add information beside a word in a Bible verse, what bracket should I use? Parentheses or square brackets?


Why are some words put in [...] rather than without them?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? I have come across articles, interviews, quotes etc., where a singular word in put in the box bracket. Here is a quote by Bertrand Russel > I regard [religion] as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold > misery to the human race. If we follow rules of regular brackets, the sentence should be grammatically correct without the bracket. But that does not seem the case here. Does the box bracket follow rules different from those of regular brackets? Either way, how does one know when to use such brackets?


Does 'tense' fit into Lexicology?

I am trying to assess errors regarding lexicology in an English-as-a-second- language-learner's spoken English. Does the use of tense fall into the 'Lexicology', Phonology, Syntax or Discourse? I need something in the lexicology area to focus on!


Usage of contractions like "it's" and "that's" in textbooks

Is it considered bad style to use ~~abbreviations~~ contractions like "it's" and "that's" (instead of spelling them out as "it is" and "that is") in a textbook or academic publication?


Are contractions like "didn't" forbidden in written English?

> **Possible duplicate of:**   >  Using contracted forms (“don't”, “let's”) in a formal text   >  Usage of contractions like "it's" and "that's" in textbooks   >  Should contractions be avoided in formal emails? In Germany, our English teachers always taught us that contractions like "didn't", "he's", "won't" and so on are perfectly valid to use also in written English. The only difference to writing the long version, consisting of two words, was that it would only count as one word. However, in Singapore, where I currently am for an exchange year, if you use these contractions in a test, they will be marked as a mistake. The teacher says it is not allowed to use them in written English. So my question is: Are the German or the Singaporean teachers right? Is there any official rule on this? How is this marked in other countries' schools?


pronunciation for consecutive /d/ and /ð/

> Mr. Barnett has slamm **ed the** figure as outrageous. (Aussie ABC News) /d/ and /ð/ are made at different places, we don’t drop any one of them when pronouncing, like the news anchor, do we?


Term for one brother–sister pair marrying another?

While translating a book on the aboriginal people of northwest India, I came across a tradition of marriages, where one brother–sister pair were married to another brother–sister pair, as well as many similar traditions. They have a word for this kind of marriages in my native language, so I was wondering whether English has such a word, too. Does it?


"Smooths" versus "Smoothes"

I am interested in the rapid rise (since about 1993) in frequency of the spelling _smoothes_ as against _smooths_. An Ngram Viewer graph tracking the frequency of usage of the two words from 1800 to 2005 shows remarkably stable levels of usage for both _smooths_ and _smoothes_ for about 150 years (1844 to 1993); but then it shows _smoothes_ beginning a sharp ascent and _smooths_ declining significantly. Ngram shows the two frequency lines crossing in 2002. Simple Google searches for the two words yield about 2.82 million matches for _smooths_ and about 4.59 million matches for _smoothes_. In seeking possible causes for the shift, I've looked at a number of dictionaries. In the case of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary series, the Tenth Edition (1994) begins its entry for the verb smooth as follows: > **smooth** _vb_ **smoothed; smoothing; smooths** _also_ **smoothes** ... No previous dictionary in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate series, dating back to the First Edition in 1898, makes any mention of either _smooths_ or _smoothes_. The Eleventh Collegiate (2003) follows the Tenth's wording. In contrast, at least three editions of the American Heritage Dictionary—the First Edition edition (1973), the Third Edition (1992), and the Fourth Edition (2000)—give the related forms of the verb _smooth_ as " **smoothed, smoothing, smoothes** ," as does the Encarta World English Dictionary (1999). A Q&A page at Microsoft Support (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290943) reads as follows: > **23\. What is the grammar dictionary based on?** > > It is based on the _Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English_ and the > _American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_ , third edition. I checked the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, New Edition (1987), and found that it doesn't provide a spelling for the third-person singular form of the verb _smooth_. It thus appears that for many years, on the sole authority of the American Heritage Dictionary, Word treated _smoothes_ as a correct spelling and marked _smooths_ as incorrect. According to Wikipedia's article on Microsoft Word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word), Word 95 (released in 1995) introduced "red-squiggle underlined spell-checking." (Oddly, my most recent version of Word—Word for Mac 2011—treats both _smoothes_ and _smooths_ as typos; however, all previous versions that I can remember, going back at least 10 years, favored _smoothes_.) The Oxford Universal Dictionary Third Edition (1944) has an entry for **smooth(e** , suggesting that it and the OED are constants during the period in question and thus probably had little effect on the shift in overall spelling preference. Meanwhile, Garner's Modern American Usage (2003) views _smoothe_ and _smoothes_ as simple typos, "doubtless on the analogy of _soothe_." From this very limited array of references, I see only two potentially significant factors that changed between, say, 1980 and 2005: the explicit inclusion in 1994 by Merriam-Webster's of _smoothes_ as an acceptable alternative to _smooths_ ; and the adoption (probably at some point in the 1990s) by Microsoft Word of the American Heritage/Encarta preference for _smoothes_ over _smooths_. A further detail of possible interest is that Ngram shows the frequency of _smoothe_ as declining slightly but steadily between 1985 and 2005, including the period when the frequency of _smoothes_ rocketed upward. The Tenth and Eleventh Collegiates omit any mention of _smoothe_ , and Word has always marked it as a typo. Is the shift toward _smoothes_ and away from _smooths_ an instance in which a computer program is primarily responsible for a fundamental change in an English spelling preference, or are other factors that I haven't identified just as important? Do any readers here have an especially old version of Word that they can use to examine its spelling checker's handling of _smooths_ vs. _smoothes_? And does anyone know how (or why) the American Heritage Dictionary came up with its preference for _smoothes_ back in 1969, when its First Edition debuted? **Note: I have edited my original question to include references to a 1973 copy of the American Heritage Dictionary, First Edition, and to a Q &A page in Microsoft Help identifying the sources that several versions of its grammar dictionary relied on.** **Further note [22-11-13]: I finally obtained a relevant copy of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and found that it did not corroborate the American Heritage Dictionary's preference for _smoothes_ over _smooths_. I have added that detail to my question.**


What does poking with a stick mean?

Please see the context from this blog of Joel Spolsky: > Since you have to poke at Windows Calculator with a stick, it doesn't have > to be as fast as Excel. What does he mean by **poking with a stick** ? Does it mean it is not used often or something ?


Is this the structure of verb + object + adverbial phrase?

In ‘point new Gryffindors in the right direction ‘, is this the structure of verb + indirect object + direct object, or verb + object + adverbial phrase? As a Korean, I’m easier to accept the former according to my language habit. So I’m confused which one is right? > Nearly Headless Nick was always happy to **point new Gryffindors in the > right direction** , but Peeves the Poltergeist was worth two locked doors > and a trick staircase if you met him when you were late for class. (from > Harry Potter book 1)


Is "rightsayer" a word?

Is "rightsayer" a word that describes someone that believes themselves to always be right?


Why can I say,'Why do you like her so much?' but not, 'Why do you like her very much?'

Why can I say,'Why do you like her **so much**?' but not, 'Why do you like her **very much**?' My answer is: 'Why' is evaluative and forces you to make (or consider) a comparison. Very cannot be used in comparative constructs. A friend of mine raised the point: That 'very' seems to work in the negative form. For example: "Why don't you like her very much?"


Changing case within quoted text

I'm familiar with the convention that square brackets may be used within quoted text to indicate _word[s]_ that aren't actually present _[in that exact form]_ in the original. It's often necessary where the original uses a pronoun, but you want your citation to identify the context-specific proper noun, for example. My question here includes the closely related usage whereby the square brackets indicate _optional [additional] text_. I'm familiar with this convention in the context of programming syntax, where **dir** [Drive:][Path][FileName] means that any or all of the elements **Drive, Path, Filename** can be omitted. But I was a bit confused by a recent ELU answer using square brackets to indicate that a lowercase letter in the original text had been changed to uppercase... > [D]uctility is a solid material's ability to deform under tensile stress My natural inclination was to see the [D] as indicating an optional letter (i.e. - the word could be written as either **ductile** or **uctile** ). So what I want to know is: > Is the _square brackets = case change_ convention [still] valid, and if so > is it under threat from the [later?] _square brackets = optional material_ > convention?


Changing subject and verb positions in statements and questions

We always change subject and verb positions in whenever we want to ask a question such as "What is your name?". But when it comes to statements like the following, which form is correct? >   1. I don't understand what **are you** talking about. >   2. I don't understand what **you are** talking about. > Another example >   1. Do you know what time **is it**? >   2. Do you know what time **it is**? > Another example >   1. Do you care how **do I feel** about this? >   2. Do you care how **I feel** about this? >


"A question in a question"

I've got two questions for you. Number one: I've always been confused about what I call "a question in a question" (maybe there is a technical term for that but I don't know it). What I mean is... which one of these two sentences is correct? 1) Can I ask you where **are you** from? or 2) Can I ask you where **you are** from? Then I have a second question which is quite similar to the first one: should I say a) I would like to ask you where **you are** from or b) I would like to ask you where **are you** from Thanks for your help.


"If you know what X is" or "if you know what is X"

Recently I encountered the phrase "If you know what is QQ then(...)". The writer wasn't a native English speaker(neither me). First, I thought it should be "If you know what QQ is ...". But then, I thought about the phrase: "If you know what is right..." I think the latter implies that you already know _what "true" is_ and you should find/select an object. Or is it related to the fact that "true" is an adjective? Or is it just wrong? So, I'm very confused. Can you help me? I tried to search for it, however searching for "what is" in search engines is really difficult! The nearest questions are this one and this one, but I don't think it's a duplicate. Thank you in advance.


"What's" in indirect questions

Lets consider the following: > The book doesn't explain, "What's the wisdom behind education?" Changing this to an indirect question becomes the following: > The book doesn't explain what the wisdom behind education is. Now, I found many instances on Google where structures like this weren't really converted to indirect questions. For example: > The book doesn't explain what's the wisdom behind education. > > "[She] doesn't say what's really on her mind." Edit: And consider the following: > What's the logic behind it. > > (a) I wonder what's the logic behind it vs. (b)I wonder what the logic > behind it is. (a) sounds better but why? And are these constructions acceptable?


Why is there no inversion in "Who do you think you are"?

Look at these 2 sentences   1. Who do you think is the richest man ?   2. Who do you think you are ? Try omit "do you think" and we can see the conflict. Because people often ask "Who are you". But with "do you think", it has no inversion I see they are the same structure, but why is there no inversion (subject and verb) in the second sentence ?


''I don't know what" + direct object

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Changing subject and verb positions in statements and questions   >  Why do we put the verb to be at the end of these questions? Is the expression > I don't know what is an amplifier. incorrect? If so, is the correct version > I don't know what an amplifier is. and why is the first variant wrong?


Embedded question

I need to explain why this sentence is correct. My explanation didn't seem to satisfy the student. The correct sentence is > I've never eaten this before. Do you know what is in it? Specifically, it is the "do you know what is in it?" part that is confusing the student. Leave out the 'Do you know..' and it is a straight question, ie "What is in it?" Can anyone grammatically explain why the sentence is correct when we add the "do you know.."?


Why do we put the verb to be at the end of these questions?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Changing subject and verb positions in statements and questions Look at the following questions - can anyone give a simple grammatical explanation as to why we put the verb to be at the end of these questions: Can you tell me where the hospital **is**? Do you know where the children **are**? Do you know what the answer **is**? This is confusing to learners as they are used to seeing the verb to be in questions at the beginning such as: **Is** the hospital near here? **Are** the children in school?


Origin of the expression "Good governor."

In Season 3, episode 2 of the sitcom Modern Family, Phil uses the expression "Good governor" to express his incredulity when he realizes that his wife has an obsession about proving she is always right. I presume this is a variation on "good grief" and similar exclamations but wonder if anyone is aware of the origin of the use of the word "governor." Is it a Britishism that has entered US English, from the informal use of "governor" ("guv'nor) to talk about a person in a position of authority?


Adjective + to infinitive vs. gerund

I recall being taught that normally after adjectives we use the "to infinitive": It's easy to say. It's hard to do. But how do the following examples fall into this rule? "It was great talking to you." "It's been nice meeting you." I've been tutoring students in English as a second language, and I'm failing to find a "simple" justification for the two types of sentences (as, obviously, I am myself struggling to understand). Very many thanks! Mel.


Verb for the action analogous to embezzlement, with goods rather than money/assets

I am looking for a verb analogous to "embezzle", but concerning goods rather than money. "Theft" is of course valid, but it's too broad - embezzle carries the connotation of stealing _from your employer_ , or from assets that you had legitimate access to. (In case it matters: in this case, the character is stealing weapons from an armoury that he is supposedly supervising, and selling them privately.)


What is the word that actors use to describe the process of getting familiar with a script?

I'm looking for a word that theatre people use to describe the initial stages of reading through a script. It's something like _chewing the script_ or _singing the script_.


Which meaning of "impose" is "imposing" based on? From Wikionary, "imposing" means "Magnificent and impressive because of appearance, size, stateliness or dignity." "impose" means > (transitive) To establish or apply by authority. > > (intransitive) to be an inconvenience > > to enforce: compel to behave in a certain way > > To practice a trick or deception. > > To lay on, as the hands, in the religious rites of confirmation and > ordination. > > To arrange in proper order on a table of stone or metal and lock up in a > chase for printing; said of columns or pages of type, forms, etc.


The right usage of the verb "elaborate"

I'm writing a paper, please can you tell me which sentence is the right? >   1. The Pseudo-code is outlined in Fig 2 and we _elaborate_ it in the > following section. > >   2. The Pseudo-code is outlined in Fig 2 and we _elaborate on_ it in the > following section. > >


Where did the term "at-large" originate from?

I was listening to the radio and something caught my attention. The news jounalist made the comment, "The suspect is still at-large." It got me thinking... First, I can only assume that the proper spelling is "at-large" instead of "at large" because using the adjective term "large" as a noun doesn't make any sence in this context (at least in my head). Naturally I try googling it only to find further confusion in context of a suspect. **So, how did this term come to mean "Out and about", or "Free", or some other word(s) that would describe some suspect not in custody?**


What is an office that keeps records of marriages and divorces called?

What is an office that keeps records of marriages and divorces called in English? I guess Civil registry is the general term, but what's the specific word for the above mentioned office?


Does the word "former" as in "former employee" shed negative light on the subject?

Does writing, > Former technologist at Foobar, Inc. and Hello, World Ltd. have a deprecating tone to it? Say, as opposed to, > Previously a technologist at Foobar, Inc. and Hello, World Ltd. That is, is _former_ a word reserved for describing something (a state or position) once held but then revoked? It seems more _often_ used in such a light, but I'm not sure whether it's _meant_ that way.


Most appropriate term for round and x-marker on a (scientific) chart?

In a research paper, I'd like to refer to some specific markers on a chart. One marker looks like an x, and the other one is small circle. What would be proper terms? Circular marker and x-marker?


Can a person happen? Is "Zodanga happened" correct?

I was watching movie _John Carter_ where there was some dialogue like this: > — What happened here?   >  — Zodanga happened. Here Zodanga was a bad guy in the movie. I don't understand how **a guy** can **happen** at some place, like it was said in that conversation? We generally use _happened_ like this: > — What happened to you?   >  — Oh! I have been suffering from a head ache _or_   >      met an accident _or_   >      I haven't been sleeping lately, but we never say "Silvia happened to me" (as if Silvia was a bad person here).


Colon usage after an imperative sentence in survey instructions

Consider a survey question that asks a question and then gives instruction about how to respond. For example, > Is this a sample survey question? Check all that apply: > > __ yes > > __ no Is it best practice to end " _Check all that apply_ " with a colon because a list of options follows, or a period because the sentence giving instructions is finished?


Is "grounds" ever used for things other than coffee?

I've never seen the word _grounds_ (meaning _sediment/dregs_ ; definition 12 only) used to describe anything other than coffee; are there any other usages of _grounds_ of that meaning, or has it become a coffee-word? > **12\. grounds,** dregs or sediment: _coffee grounds._


What does “his A and C” mean?

From Steinbeck's _Cannery Row_ , > The nice bouncer at the Bear Flag threw out a drunk, but threw him too hard > and too far and broke his back. Alfred had to go over to Salinas three times > before it was cleared up and that didn’t make Alfred feel very well. > Ordinarily he was too good a bouncer to hurt anyone. **His A and C was a > miracle of rhythm and grace.**


Letters after a number, such as 1st

Is there a name for letters that follow a number, such as the "st" in 1st or "nd" in 2nd?


Offers home delivery vs home delivers

In which of these 2 sentences is the verb "Home deliver" used correctly, in compliance with the rest of the sentence? ABC **offers home delivery** of pharmaceuticals, compounded medications, and wellness diets to pet owners. VS ABC **home delivers** pharmaceuticals, compounded medications, and wellness diets to pet owners.


What is the proper name for "AM" and "PM"?

I know that AM/PM is for ante/post meridiem, but what is it actually called? Meridian indicator? 12 hour indicator? Something way more clever?


Why do you survive 'by the skin of your teeth'?

If someone does something 'by the skin of their teeth', it means they just barely managed to do it. What is this idiom supposed to be referring to exactly, and how did it originate?


Indefinite article in the "An [adjective] [number] [plural noun]" construction

I wasn't sure how best to phrase the title of this question. I'm interested in constructions of the following form: > **An estimated 50 people** died in the bombing. 'An estimated' could be substituted with adverbs like 'approximately' or 'about', so it seems that prepending the indefinite article to certain words produces an adverb. My question is why the indefinite article should function in this way. For one thing, the use of 'a[n]' when the following noun is generally plural seems odd. There are quite a few words that fit this pattern:   * An additional ...   * An approximate ...   * An estimated ...   * An extra ...   * A good ...   * A huge ...   * A mere ...   * A possible ...   * A record ...   * A scant ...   * A whopping ...


Why do we need an indefinite article in the sentence "The price is **an incredible 50,000 dollars**"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  ‘A[n] * [number] [plural]’ Construction Why do we need an indefinite article in the sentence "The price is **an incredible 50,000 dollars** "? "An" is singular, "dollars" is plural.


"an estimated 75 000 lives"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  'A[n] * [number] [plural]' Construction > Since the Crash Test Dummies, Vince and Larry, were introduced to the > American public in 1985, safely belt usage has increased from 21% to 70%, > saving an estimated 75 000 lives. Why is there the article before "estimated" while after it there is the plural form?


Word for discrimination based on handedness

Is there a specific word such as racism or sexism that describes discrimination based solely on handedness?


Why do some people refer to jars as "glass jars"? Aren't all jars made of glass?

A jar is defined as "a glass container with a lid" (MacMillan). At one time, people differentiated between glass and earthenware jars but to my mind, there are only glass jars these days. Is there a need to refer to a jar as a "glass jar"? Isn't it sufficient to simply call it a jar?


the first case ... is the court's decision

As I have said many times, I'm translating some wordy document, and here is another sentence that need shedding some light on: Thus the first case cited by the Court in Schwinn for the proposition that "restraints upon alienation . . . are beyond the power of the manufacturer to impose upon its vendees and . . . are violations of 1 of the Sherman Act," was this Court's seminal decision holding a series of resale-price-maintenance agreements per se illegal (Source:https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/433/433.US.36.76-15.html, at the paragraph 48, line 4-5, please check it out for the context) Is it just me or this sentence is really saying that "the first case" is a "seminal decision"? if so, what does "case" mean here? (I mean, how can a "case" be a "decision"). And if not, please tell me the main structure of the whole sentence, and which are the subordinate clauses. Thank you.


Meaning of "true, with an asterisk"

How would one explain the following headline news in plain English? > Romney's attack on clean energy: true, **with an asterisk**


What to call the executor of an action?

I can't find the right word to describe the object that performs an activity/action.   * _Doer_   * _Executor_   * _Performer_   * _Actor_ The term is to be used in an application where you may choose an "object" (from a list), and then retrieve its activities. So what should I call the "object"? Context: The "object" may be anyone or anything which is to do certain activities. Think of a worklog where you'd like to log activities that has been done. Given the object type, you'd might have a different set of activities to log. Object (1. line support member) Activities { Create ticket, Assign ticket, Notify customer, Close ticket} Object (Purchasing employee) Activities { Receive order, Confirm Order, Ship Order}


Fullscreen or full screen

Can 'Fullscreen' and 'Full Screen' be used interchangeably? As in > Funny pictures in fullscreen   >  Funny pictures in full screen The context is a website, with full screen images in a fullscreen website.


Why is “wavelength” one word when “wave height” isn't? As another example, _wave speed_ is two words. But _wavelength_ is only one word. What is the reason for this? In Swedish and other contructs, both words are only one word:   * _våglängd_ (wavelength)   * _våghöjd_ (wave height)


"Arrival of Nightfall"

Does it make sense to say that something waited until the "arrival of nightfall"? It sounds a little awkward (maybe because nightfall _occurs_ rather than _arrives_?). Perhaps there is a better way to say it...


Mixing use of K for thousands and MM for millions

Traditionally, M is used as the symbol for thousands and MM for millions in the business world, particularly in accounting. However, there has been a growing tendency to use K as the symbol for thousands instead of M. Would it be considered acceptable to use K for thousands and MM for millions, effectively mixing symbols? For example, in a document that requires the use of symbols because of limited space in a table, I see "500K-1MM" to stand for "500,000-1,000,000". This document is written for a general professional audience. My thoughts are: If K and MM are used, it's bad style because the symbols are being mixed up. But if M and MM are used, non-experts might not even be aware that M is a symbol for thousands and get confused. It seems like that the safest choice to ensure comprehension is to use K and MM, but something about mixing the symbols just doesn't seem right to me. Thanks!


To be worse than nothing

Here is paragraph which I quoted from a book. The words "penny a liner", "mendicant", "scullion", and "cut-throat", were epithets so intentionally inexpressive and equivocal, as **to be worse than nothing** when applied to the author of the very worst stanzas ever penned by one of the human race. I can't understand the meaning of 'to be worse than nothing'. I don't know how things are gonna worse than naught(zero). or is it possible?


"Point to" and "point at"

I'm having trouble putting the difference in meaning between "point to" and "point at" into words and my Longman dictionary isn't helping, I'm afraid. I'm not a native speaker, but I feel there is a definite difference; however the only thing I can say is that 'point at' feels more aggressive whereas 'point to' feels more casual. Can anyone help?


What did the word "arcade" mean before video games?

I was browsing a document on the history of Leicestershire in the UK. About halfway down the page, in the "Leicester in the 19th Century" section, it said: > Silver Arcade was built in 1899. What does the word Arcade refer to here? Thanks! evamvid


What is the meaning of the sentence, "we should not roam about in the hot sun"?

I would like to know the meaning of "we should not roam about in the hot sun".


Which is correct "increasingly easy" or "increasingly easier"

I was wondering which of the following is correct `increasingly easy` or `increasingly easier`. I had a notion that `increasingly easier` is correct since we are comparing with the past. However, this and many other says differently. Googling with quotes gives these many listings: "increasingly easy" = 154000 "increasingly easier" = 71,300 Are both of them correct??


Deadly protests ousted vs. deadly protests WHICH ousted

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/putin-warns-ukraine-gas-supplies-urges- talks-155039695.html > Ukraine has been in crisis since months of deadly protests **ousted** an > unpopular pro-Kremlin president in February and set the nation of 46 million > on a westward course that prompted Putin to obtain the authority to use > force against the ex-Soviet state. I don't understand the reasons why a relative pronoun such as _which_ or _that_ was not used. My brain naturally wants to add one, otherwise it's difficult to tie the two parts of the sentence together. Don't you think that adding one would make the sentence sound much more clearer? > Ukraine has been in crisis since months of deadly protests **which ousted** > an unpopular pro-Kremlin president in February and set the nation of 46 > million on a westward course that prompted Putin to obtain the authority to > use force against the ex-Soviet state.


What is a 'Swivel Servant'?

English is not my first language. I googled and googled, but this was one thing I was not able to find. Can someone give me a definition of this?


Single word for 'How you are found'

I'm building a search engine for businesses and I'm wondering if there is a single word for 'how you're found'. The context is that I need a word to describe a group of properties that determine when the business will show in the search results. The best I came up with is 'Exposure' but my girlfriend thinks its too abstracted. Any help would be super!


"easy to seal tight" or "easy to tighly seal"?

I am talking about valves, and there is this specific valve which is cheap (not expensive), compact (not too big), easy to maintain (the valve is easy to clean and rarely ever needs to be repaired) and easy to 'seal tight' (meaning, it is easy to tighly seal the valve). The sentence which I wrote was 'These valves are cheap, compact, easy to maintain and seal tight.' My teacher highlighted this sentence saying something was wrong with the sentence structure and that 'easy to seal tight' is incorrect. Is it true that it is incorrect? If yes, how should I rephrase it so that the sentence structure is correct?


Does the game shown in the following picture have a particular name? (I ask because a similar game does not exist in my country and I would like know its rules.) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/dBlY4.png)


What is the origin of "acorn"?

I am from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, and this popped into my head today. Is the word _acorn_ (the nut of an oak tree) in any way related to the Dutch word for squirrel, _eekhoorn_ , the animal that collects acorns for food? Looking at _eekhoorn_ , one will have a hard time finding any logical meaning to the naming of this animal. There's _eek_ , which is not a Dutch word, and _hoorn_ which means _horn_. So it doesn't make much sense. But the pronunciation even in Dutch/Flemish is remarkably equal to the English _acorn_. Since many words have migrated country borders (like the NL _bolwerk_ and EN _bulwark_ ), I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same with _acorn_ / _eekhoorn_ , except for the fact that _eekhoorn_ is the actual animal that consumes the acorns. That would make it pretty unique, I think. By the way, _acorn_ in Dutch is _eikel_ , having different connotations which I won't explain here.


British pronunciation of "plait"

Having only seen this word in writing, I assumed it's pronounced "plate". howjsay (whose author is british) suggests the pronunciation that rhymes with "flat", but also offers the "plate" one. This thread, however, has several people who perceive the "plate" pronunciation to be completely wrong. So how would most people say this in the UK? Is it "plat", and would people in the UK consider the "plate" pronunciation wrong? Does it vary by location within the UK?


Am I using "namesake" correctly?

I am writing an essay about (among other things) Gutenberg's printing press and Project Gutenberg. I want to say something along the lines of "Gutenberg's press was so popular that current things are named after him." I tried the following. Am I using _namesake_ correctly? > As evidenced ahead, Gutenberg’s invention was so popular that he is still a > popular namesake. I want to keep _namesake_ in there because I think it sounds cool.


When did the term "Jay" come to mean an "unintelligent person"?

While I was reading an article about the etymology of _jaywalking_, I stumbled upon this phrase: > “Jay” used to be a generic term for someone who was an idiot, dull, rube, > unsophisticated, poor, or simpleton. When did people used to use the term _Jay_ as _unintelligent person_ (or idiot)?


Punctuation of sentence ending with the word "period" for emphasis

I really enjoyed _The Dark Knight Rises_ and want to send a grammatically correct tweet about it. Unfortunately correct punctuation of the following eludes me: > In other news The Dark Knight Rises was better than The Dark Knight. Not > just a good super hero or action movie just a great movie, period. What is the correct punctuation before the word "period?" Am I correct in using a comma or should an ellipsis or emdash be used instead?


Difference between “combination of ” and “combination between”

I have read both two uses:   1. The _combinations of_ a, b and c, taken two at a time, are ab, bc, ac.   2. We can not help but noticing a harmonious _combination between_ classic and contemporary. Are both uses interchangeable? Perhaps substitute _combinations among_ for _combinations of_ in the first sentence? Any idea is appreciated.


Finding the extraposed subject in "It is plain to see that you don't like dogs."

> _It is plain to see that you don't like dogs._ Here, what does _it_ refer to? _To see that you don't like dogs_ or _that you don't like dogs_? If it refers to the former, then the sentence means: > _To see that you don't like dogs is plain._ If the latter, then it means: > _That you don't like dogs is plain to see._ Since both do make sense at least semantically, I wonder what would be the better syntactic analysis of the sentence. Or whether either would be an equally possible analysis. Also, would your answer change if (1) _plain_ was replaced with _easy_ in the original sentence? (2) _to see_ was replaced with _seeing_ in the original sentence?


Telling the time

In Ireland we say:               "Twenty-five to ten" (9:35) (21:35)     "Twenty to ten" (9:40) (21:40)     "A quarter to ten" (9:45) (21:45)     "Ten to ten" (9:50) (21:50)     "Five to ten" (9:55) (21:55)     "Ten o'clock" or just "Ten". For example, "I'll see you at ten so!" (10:00) (22:00)     "Ten past ten" (10:10) (22:10)     "A quarter past ten" (10:15) (22:15)     "Half ten" and sometimes "Half past ten" (10:30) (22:30)      You can also drop the hour value, if it is obvious, for example:               "Is it half past yet?" (you can't say "Is it half yet?")     "It's a quarter to, I must go!"      When being exact:               "It's a minute past nine" (9:01) (21:01)     "It's thirteen minutes to ten" (9:47) (21:47)      a.m and p.m. are not used. Instead to differentiate between 9:35 and 21:35 you would say:               "I'll see you at twenty-five to ten tomorrow evening so."     "I'll pick you up at twenty-five to ten in the morning."      This is very consistent for all age groups and all parts of Ireland as fas as I know. How do you tell the time and mention which dialect you speak in your answer? How much of the Irish way of telling the time would sound alien or even confusing to you?


Is there a word that means near-daily?

I am trying to write a document that describes the frequency with which we perform a task. It is usually done daily, however I don't want to be tied to having to do it daily. Is there a more professional word I can use to mean _near-daily_?


A term to describe "thinking something bad is good"

Let's say someone has an idea that he/she thinks is really good, but in reality it is actually not a very good idea. How can I describe this kind of mentality?


Capital letter after ellipsis

I was talking to a friend of mine over Skype, and I typed this: > Ok... Now I want more pork pie. I'd like to know, should there be a capital letter after the ellipsis `…`? Should it be written the way I typed it: > Ok... Now I want more pork pie. Or should it be a lowercase `N`: > Ok... now I want more pork pie. Do ellipses break a sentence so that a new one must be started after them (hence the capital N), or do they behave similarly to commas and dashes in that they serve as a "pause", with a lowercase N?


correct way of cooking

What is correct Sometimes I cook for myself or Sometimes I cook myself. This sounds like cooking self, which is not true. I've heard ( most of times ) people use second phrase. Which of the two is correct ?.


I'm 25 (years old)

When you say "I'm 25" to mean that you're 25 years old, would you consider "25" a noun or an adjective?


What are the pieces used to fill in a template called?

If I have a template (say a generic letter) that is filled in with various pieces of data (say, the name of the addressee), what is a general term for those pieces of data? For example:               Dear {firstname},     This is just a friendly reminder that the book {booktitle} will be due on {duedate}.     Thank you.      What would I refer to `{firstname}`, `{booktitle}` and `{duedate}` as?


What are the technical symbols used in the margin of a page called?

I research Latin texts which discuss a peculiar medieval practice: the addition of minute graphic symbols into the margins of the page, for example in order to indicate passages of interest, flaws in argumentation or for some other technical purpose. The Latin-users had a very clear technical terminology for such signs: they called them _notae_ (sg. _nota_ ) and the verb that they used to talk about this addition was _adnotare_ (plus there was a whole range of words that could be formed from these two). Modern English does not seem to have a term that would have the same technical meaning and I have a constant problem with both native and non-native English speakers when I am trying to write or speak about these _notae_. I have tried the English word markup (and its derivates), but this did not find favour with my audience. Translation as signs or marks is too vague and broad to be helpful. I cannot use the Latin word _nota_ indefinitely, especially since I cannot make a verb out of it that would make sense in English. **What would you call this 'thing'?** An example of the technical signs in question: http://daten.digitale- sammlungen.de/bsb00054504/image_69 (PX- and PO-shaped symbols in the right margin)


"What a good news" vs. "such a good news"

I have just got a great news. I don't know what to say: > Such a good news. or > What a good news. The context should be formal (I am talking about hiring).


What is a "small minority"?

I can see this being argued either way. 1% is a small minority because 1% is a small number. 49% is a small minority because, albeit a minority, it is only barely.


Sa'ad : Correct spelling in English and French

We are considering naming our child the Arabic name Sa'ad (سعد). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saad The Arabic spelling has an ع which I am not sure how to spell. I have seen it spelled as Saad which has the potential to be mispronounced. The wikipedia lists it as Sa'ad, where the apostrophe separates both syllables. I currently favor this spelling. My question is: Is there a spelling other than Sa'ad which is more descriptive of how to pronounce the name properly?