"more leads mean more sales" or "more leads means more sales"?

I was just wondering which one is grammatically correct. > "more leads **mean** more sales" OR > "more leads **means** more sales" Of course, "more leads" is plural, but the sentence implies "Getting more leads means more sales".


Is "because-noun" a new preposition?

There are a handful of articles suggesting that a new preposition has appeared in the form of "because-noun":   * The Atlantic   * Stan Carey   * Grammar Girl Isn't "Because (of)... whatever" a causitive? Causitives are adverbs; in fact they are at very core of "adverbiality." That _happened_ and now this _is_ the result. The only way pre- and post-conditions arise is through a change (read: action) in condition or state. (Temporal consituents are more associated with adverbs, as well.) Prepositional phrases can ornament verbs, but not be inherent to them. "I _am_ an astronaut because science." = "Science is what _made_ me an astronaut." There is no prepositional context here. So I submit that there is actually no new "because-noun" grammatical form in American English, only a mildly-interesting economical shortening, like "Nope, he dead."


Proper etiquette for addressing comittee members

I am writing a formal letter to three committee members, that I would like to address by name. Instinctively, I chose to address them in order of importance/pertinence, but I am also considering ordering them alphabetically. For anonymity's sake, let's say I'm writing to Drs. Bob (important), Karl (more important) and Whale (less important). **Should my header be ordered by importance...** > Dear Drs. Karl, Bob and Whale, **...or alphabetically?** > Dear Drs. Bob, Karl and Whale,


What is actually being doubled when someone has to "double back"?

I have frequently heard this phrase and used it myself when I've gone in a wrong direction either physically or at work metaphorically. However, I wonder why the phrase is _double back_ , since once you realize the mistake that you have made, you only go back the way you came once, not twice or _double_ the distance.


Is is right using expressions like "before her coming here" in place of "before she came here"

I often use expression like these >   * _I came to this place before him getting here_ (rather than using > _before he got here_ ). >   * _We were having a lot of fun before before her getting here_ (instead of > _before she got here_ ). > I did not see a lot of results on the web for expressions like these, so I am wondering whether it is right or not?


"Nowadays" versus "now days"

Recently, I was auto-corrected by a word processor when I typed in "now days" to "nowadays." Why did it do this to me? "Nowadays" looks and sounds silly, incorrect, and made-up to me. Which version is appropriate? Which is most appropriate? Where did the word "nowadays" even come from?


Why do the British refer to things as 'posh'

Why do the British refer to something very smart, or people who are very well- off as being 'posh'?


What is the suffix in indexed math symbols

I've been watching some online courses and I'm having a difficulty understanding what exactly are they saying. The courses are scientific in nature and rather often an indexed symbols appear. The indexed symbols are usually written with a subscript, like this: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/FlsME.png) When refering to those, the instructor pronounced them like you would pronounce "ace of n" and "eyes of c". It seems that the suffix **_s_** is added to the letter. I have completed a non-English education, so this was new to me. What are the rules regarding indexed symbols? Is it simply: a's of n, or i's of c, and more importantly **why**?


"Follow close behind" vs "follow closely behind"?

I just came across something I'd written a while ago that contained the phrase "follows close behind", and my first thought was that it was incorrect and should be "follows close _ly_ behind", i.e. to use an adverb describing _how_ something is following. The Google Ngram for the two phrases seems to disagree with this instinct, though, with only slight differences between BE and AE, and the shorter phrase must've made it past my inner editor back when I first wrote it... maybe because "close" can also be used as an adverb? So can both be used interchangeably? Is there a grammatical reason one should be considered "more correct" than the other, or is it just a case of one particular usage of a phrase having become more commonplace for some reason or other?


Using "decadent" to describe a building or town in neglect or ruin

I have often seen _decadent_ used to refer to a non-physical state, like a person who is spiritually or morally decadent. Could _decadent_ be applied to something physical like a building or a town to describe a state of neglect and ruin? If not, what adjective could best describe this physical state?


Why do the first and last "t" in "taste" sound different?

When I listened to the audio pronunciation of "taste" /teɪst/, I noticed that the first and last "t" sound different: the first "t" sounds like [tʰ] while the second one sounds more like [tsʰ]. Words that end with /t/ such as "it" and "act" also has this [tsʰ] sound. However, words ending with /k/ or /p/ does not have this different sound (e.g. cake and peep). Why is the ending /t/ pronounced differently when aspirated?


What is the meaning of this quote?

> "I'm just sorry that she had to be your fortune cookie - broken, so that you > can learn something you already should have known."


Are the 'beautiful things' of life, the 'beautiful' of life?

The following question set me thinking: Can we use all "nouns" as adjective? What about the opposite? Can adjectives be used as nouns? What are the rules or the stylistic limits to their usage in this context?


Single word for "invisible helper"

What is the word with the meaning "invisible helper"? It's like we don't know that person but he helps us. I am looking for a single word which can substitute it.


Can we use "use unfriendly" as an adjective?

I was wondering according to American English if this is a valid grammatical sentence: > This item is a little use unfriendly. It sounds _ok_ but I was wondering if "use unfriendly" (I mean without the 'r', **not** user-unfriendly) could be used as an adjective this way. P.S. I was wondering if it is grammatical according to British English too.


“As old Buffle used to say”

In Chesteron's play _Magic_ a character often uses a phrase such as “as old Buffle used to say” or variations thereof. Is this, or used it to be, a common phrase? Does it have a specific meaning or is it just a foible of that character (the Duke)? The only connection I seem to find is with a character in Dickens's “Mrs. Lirriper's Legacy”, a Mr Buffle.


Why have some plural pronouns replaced singular pronouns?

While today we use for example the word "you" for second person singular and plural in objective and subjective manner, there were actually words to differentiate this usages like "thou" and "thee", along with many other pronouns and irregular verbs (that can be looked up in this table for example). How come this parts of the language, especially specifying forms basically does not exist in today's language?


"Goose"–"geese" vs. "moose"–"moose"

Why is it that the plural of one _goose_ is _geese_ but the plural of _moose_ is _moose_? Same goes for _house_ and _louse_. The plurals are _houses_ and _lice_ , respectively.


How do I write 'first and second order' properly?

I am writing about first-order and second-order quantities. Should I put one hyphen, as in > "first and second-order", or two, as in > "first- and second-order". Or should I do something else?


How does the word "gas" relate to cheating and deception?

According to _A Collection of College Words & Customs_ by Benjamin Homer Hall, written in 1856 I believe, gas is defined as cheating or deceiving someone. Any ideas why that may be?


Definite article usage from exercise

I'm learning articles and doing some exercises. Here are my problem sentences: > A: What is a "capital city"? > > B: Well, a "capital city" is the political center of a country. My question is about 'the' in the second sentence. I'm don't see here any 'definiteness' of the center. From my point of view it is as indefinite as the country and city words.


Does one use a hyphen in between 'other' and 'hand' when saying "on the other hand"?

When I was typing this sentence "And on the other hand, some user actions don't trigger the same response." my spell checker mentioned that I might put a hyphen between 'other' and 'hand' and use 'other-hand'. So in this sentence is a hyphen placed between 'other' and 'hand'?


What does “they made bones” mean?

Context: an old (70+ years old) Londoner is being interviewed about his past as a lighterman on the River Thames and says the following: > Three big wharves there, they've flattened, all gone. One of them we called > the stinker wharf. _They made bones_. It used to pen and ink when you went > by there. _Webster's Third_ defines “to make bones” as “to show hesitation, uncertainty, or scruple,” but it doesn't seem to fit here. _Partridge Slang_ says that “bone” could mean a marijuana/tobacco cigarette in the US; but it would be odd if an old Londoner used American slang terms.


"Night" and "knight" in speech

In English as Germanic language K is ignored at the beginning of word in speech. _Night_ and _knight_ have to be pronounced similar. Then how to differentiate?


'became' vs. 'become'

The following two sentences seem to have the same general meaning to me: > If I ever _became_ a musician, I would grow my hair > > If I ever _become_ a musician, I will grow my hair I was wondering whether one was more correct than the other.


"When we worked together" vs "when we were working together" or can I use "when" with continous tenses?

In one Russian discussion group devoted to ESL, I was advised that using _when_ with continuous tenses is incorrect in English. To be exact, we were discussing how to translate a phrase about one’s former collegue. So two possible translations were: >   1. When we worked together she was (used to be) nice. >   2. When we were working together she was nice (to me). > I do agree that using simple tenses might be a better choice here. The question is whether the use of continuous tenses is always a mistake — is it?


"As a(n) X", followed by a statement not from the perspective of X

Am I correct that the following is an error, and, if so, of what type? (I'm almost positive I once knew the term to describe this increasingly common construction and that it was considered ungrammatical.) > I believe the sentence, > > _While on tour, the children lived with Georgiana's mother in Philadelphia,_ > > is meant to convey: > > _While **the parents were** on tour, the children lived with Georgiana's > mother in Philadelphia._ > > However, my uncertainty was the catalyst for the question in question. The > sentence is from this section of this Wikipedia article. Is the following sentence an error of the same type, a different type, or not an error at all? > _As a roller coaster lover, that one was surprisingly boring,_ > > which seems to claim the ride is a roller coaster lover. Instead, what was > actually meant was something like: > > _As a roller coaster lover, **I thought** that one was surprisingly boring._ I know that in some acceptable constructions certain words are _understood_. Is that the case in either or both of my examples or in similar ones? I realize this may be a duplicate question, but, if so, I was unable to come up with the appropriate search terms to discover it. (Which also explains my inability to come up with a good title for this question.)


What is the jukebox musical?

What is _jukebox musical_ and its origin?


Correct way to express "'worthy of falling in love for"

Please evaluate this sentence for its correctness. I'm concerned about the use of _of_ in front of _falling_. > However, you're utterly off in your assessment about failing in love for > someone else. I haven't **found anyone worthy of falling for** , and I will > not compromise my feelings to just try.


Quirks and limitations of Past Perfect

I know that English has _two_ past tenses, when the second past ( _Pluperfect_ ) is farther back in time then the other ( _Simple Past_ ). Reading stories in English, I've discovered that many stories are narrated by the author in past, with present tenses used only in quotes to convey what a character utters. And if the author wants to narrate what happened before the normal point of reference, he uses _Pluperfect_. The author adds **had** before _every_ verb ( ** _had** given_). After a series of such verbs, when I start to see normal verbs in the _Past Simple_ ( _gave_ ), I understand that the author has ended the digression in the _double past_ and come back to his or her normal point in time. The following is an example from _The Giver_ (Lois Lowry). I have marked with _[start]_ and _[end]_ the passage when the author digresses in the _double past_. > It was almost December, and Jonas _was beginning_ to be frightened. No. > Wrong word, Jonas _thought_. Frightened meant that deep, sickening feeling > of something terrible about to happen. Frightened was the way **[start]** he > **had felt** a year ago when an unidentified aircraft **had overflown** the > community twice. > > Instantly, obediently, Jonas **had dropped** his bike on its side on the > path behind his family’s dwelling. He **had run** indoors and stayed there, > alone. **[end]** > > _Now_ , thinking about the feeling of fear as he _pedalled_ home along the > river path, he _remembered_ that moment of palpable, stomach-sinking terror > when the aircraft _had streaked_ above. (The last verb _had streaked_ is not the "double past", it tells us what _has just happened_ and has its _consequences_ in the point of reference.) * * * I have two general questions and one optional (*): 1) When an author digresses in the "double past", does he or she lose the possibility to distinguish which event happened before another? I mean, when you narrate in the present tense, you have three points in time (I don't include the future), when you narrate in past, you have 2 points in time. But in the double past, there is _only one_ that you are in. In this case does the author have to rely only on the context and time expressions such as _before_ and _after_? 2) When you change narration from the present to the past tense, _Present Perfect_ and _Past Simple_ assume the same form (as the last verb in the quoted passage). For example if in the present I say: "He **has seen** the plane and now _is_ running away. The same plane **attacked** their village a year ago." When I put it in the past it becomes: "He **had seen** the plane and now _was_ running away. The same plane **had attacked** their village a year ago." As you see, different tenses have assumed the same form. My question: Do I always have to rely on context to distinguish when an event has its consequences in the point of reference, and when it doesn't? 3*) Can you point out some ideas that can enhance my comprehension of the _Past Perfect Tense_?


Long vs. short vowels in English words of Latin origin

Is there any way to determine if a vowel is short or long in English words of Latin origin? I've noticed that _u_ is usually long in Latin words (e.g., _Jupiter_ ) but what about other vowels?


Test for intransitivity of verbs?

Is it true that if any verb is immediately followed by a prepositional phrase, then it has to be an intransitive verb? As a counter example, I need a sentence which: (i) has only **one** verb, and (ii) the verb should be of only **one** word, and should not be intransitive and immediately followed by a prepositional phrase (iii) follows _subject-verb-object_ order strictly (iv) has as few clauses and conjuncts as possible (v) doesn't alter normal sentence construction


Single word for "to fund the totality (of)"

What is a one- or two-word phrase that means "to fund the totality of a program: staff, office space, supplies, and program funding" that is often used in grant applications?


Can I use "which" and "that" together?

> I love everybody, but it is your ignorance that which I cannot stand. Can I say **_that which_** in the statement I made?


Why "buy authentic"?

_Authentic_ means: “of undisputed origin, made or done in a traditional way”. But I’m confused because every product made had some origin from a previous product or idea. The way I see it, _buy authentic_ actually just means _buy real_ but why should people buy real? So, what does it mean to _buy authentic_?


Why is “Sticky palm” a “Fear factor” to the progress of Gens and DNA, and “Sweat and tears” to the progress of Quantum mechanics theory?

This refers to a bit old archive from Financial Times Magazine titled “The ten things everyone should know about science”. The article provides explanations of the 10 key scientific concepts starting from 1. Evolution, 2.Gens and DNA, 3. Big bang, 4. Relativity to 8. Molecules and Chemical reactions, 9. Digital Data, 10. Statistic Significance, with comments on “Why does it matter?” “What’s next (stage)?” and “Fear factor.” It cites:   * Sticky palms to Evolution    * Mild tremors to Genes and DNA   * Queasiness to Big ban   * Palpitations to Relativity   * Sweet and tears to Quantum mechanics   * Knocking knees to Radiation   * Dry mouth to Atom and nuclear reactions   * Chattering teeth to Molecules and chemical reactions   * Dilated pupils to Digital data   * Nervous twitching to Statistical significance as “ _the Fear factors_.” I cannot relate “Sticky palms” to “Evolution,” “Mild tremors” to Genes and DNA, and none of the rest of Fear Factor description to individual scientific theory, even by revving up all my brains to the top gear. Only I could find was that all _"Fear factors_ " are related with bodily symptoms. What on earth does “ _Fear Factor_ ” mean? Fear of “what” is it? Can you give me a hint to link “Sticky palms” to Evolution theory, “Dry mouth” to atom fusion and fission, and so on?


What does "realization" mean in this context?

I read a paper, named _A Hybrid Novelty Score and Its Use in Keystroke Dynamics-Based User Authentication_. It states in section 3 that > For data sets, we used 10 realizations for parameter selection and 20 other > realizations for parameter selection. Does _realization_ in this case mean simulation? The following is the link of this paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320309001502


Over or under half price

If something normally cost £300 and someone is selling exactly the same item for £100, is this: >   1. over half price >   2. under half price > Does it depend on context or is either correct? For example, if I were in marketing, and had this as a deal, which would be the correct choice?


Can I say "speakers were amplifying their laughter"?

Is it correct to use _speakers were amplifying their laughter_? For example: > At the beginning Jack and Jill were just laughing between themselves. But > five minutes later they came up to the counter and began to laugh into the > cashier's microphone. Now all the speakers in that eatery were amplifying > their laughter.


Are there racial overtones for the term thug?

Some of us have seen the Richard Sherman pre-SuperBowl interviews where he accuses the media of racism by using the term "thug" to describe him/his actions. He suggests that it is being used to replace the n-word. Does it?


Is the sentence “The table is included for completeness” correct?

I've used the sentence “The table is included for completeness” several times in university reports and have seen it in reports of other students as well. I am wondering if this sentence is correct though, as I can only find very little occurrences of this sentence in Google (Books). Are there any other, more elegant alternatives to express that I include something (a table, an appendix, an image from a different angle, etc...) that clarifies the content, but the addition is not necessary ( without it the content is understandable).


Need a word for having rewritten something after translation

I have written a book. Well, actually, my mother-in-law told the story of her experiences as a German forced laborer in the Soviet Union after World War 2. This was given in German and recorded onto audio tape a number of years ago by my sister-in-law. My S.I.L. later transcribed the story in German onto twenty or so tightly typewritten foolscap sheets, and a few years ago she gave us a copy of this. My wife and I eventually translated this into very rough English (we both speak German, my wife being a native speaker). It is quite a story and we have determined to self-publish it as a book. So this is what I need: a word (or two) for having put it into a final form for the book. See, the original telling was done pretty much as it occurred to her to tell it, and it tends to get lost in parts, backtrack, go forward, and around the bend at times. The final version is still her story, but it has been reworked into what I hope is a readable and understandable whole, with a beginning, a middle and an end. I've also a spot of research on historical matters pertaining to the story, and because some words she used were Russian, I used Google Translate and the Russian Language SE to get some more information. On the title page, I am giving the title of the book, followed by the subtitle, then the author attribution: by Gertrud Baltutt. Below the author attribution (she is now deceased, btw), I want to indicate that the work is a transcription and a translation of the original tale, and the word I need is for the really hard part, putting it into a coherent form for publication. Here's what I got, so far: > by Gertrud Baltutt > > As told to her daughter Cyberherbalist's Sister-in-Law.   >  Translated by her daughter Mrs. Cyberherbalist   > and XXXXXXed by Cyberherbalist What is that word (or words)? Arranged? Edited? What? A secondary question is this: my mother-in-law did not actually write this book. It's her story, but when it comes down to it, I wrote it, or at least co-authored it. I tried to maintain the flavor of the original German, but is it really her who is the author? Or me? With her being deceased, there's not danger she'll get upset with me about it, so whatever.


How long is a 'wink'?

If I'm off to catch forty winks, how long will I be asleep? I'm interested to know if there is a specific amount of time associated with a 'wink', or if there's no actual amount of time behind it?


Use of "suspicion" as verb

My coworker says things like > I **suspicion** that it happened the other day when nobody was here. I would say > I suspect it happened or > I have a suspicion that it happened. What my coworker says sounds wrong to me. Is it common usage anywhere?


Term for emotion-eater

What is a term for a (fantastical) creature that **consumes feelings and emotions** for nourishment? (Google searches amusingly turn up only discussions about "emotional eating" in the sense of people that over-eat when they're depressed.)


Don't remember vs. can't remember

Could you tell me which is proper in English: > I don't remember. > > I can't remember. And if both are possible and good English, what is the difference?


"Write an update to people"?

In the context of the proper use of a ticket-tracking system for software development, someone said: > Do not write project status updates to a limited subset of people in email. (Instead, send the message from within the ticket-tracking system so that all interested parties can read it.) The phrase _write an update to people_ seems awkward to me, but I'm having trouble figuring out exactly why. I can see all these alternatives as correct: >   * send an update to people >   * write to people >   * update people >   * write an update for people >   * write an update that you send to people > Is there something wrong with this phrase, as my instincts suggest? Perhaps considering the seemingly equivalent _I wrote to people a project status update in email_ could help, as that phrase also makes me uneasy.


What is a word that means 'at face value'?

I found this answer: What does "to take someone at face value" mean? However, it didn't offer a word that conveys this meaning. The word I'm looking for should fit in a sentence, > When Bob asserted that zombies are a real threat, she took his word _[at > face value]_ by virtue of his credentials alone.


Is it correct to say "will call once I get back"?

Is it correct to say "I will call you once I get back"?


Meaning of "dance out"

What does the following phrase mean? > Robert danced his way out the prison. Does it mean that Robert succeeded in leaving the prison?   Or that Robert danced while leaving the prison? A similar phrase is, for example, found here > "Jackson man dances his way out of poverty and violence"


A phrase misheard as 'San Ababis'

I was reading the blog Futility Closet today, and they mentioned a story of a Fillipino father naming his son 'San Ababis', after 'the patron saint of America' - because he heard soldiers repeating those words (and knew San meant Saint) This was posted on Futility Closet with no explanation as to what he could have been mishearing - perhaps I'm just being silly (or the meaning is obvious to American English speakers and not me as a Scot) I searched online for other mentionings of the story, however they also had no explanation. The post is here http://www.futilitycloset.com/2011/05/21/apple-piety-2/


Use of "although" with a modifier

Is it grammatically correct to use "although" in a modifying clause, but without a conjugated verb? Example: > **Although not regarded** as nocturnal, the Black Bear of North America is > active at night in some areas. Or is it necessary to spell out the clause fully? > Although **it is not regarded** as nocturnal, the Black Bear of North > America...


"Lower number" vs. "smaller number"

Is −9 a _smaller_ number than −8? And is −9 a _lower_ number than −8? What is the difference between _lower_ and _smaller_ here?


Isn’t something missing in the sentence, “Best for a mom with years of child rearing ahead to cut her losses now.”?

The latter half of the following sentence of Time magazine’s article, “Playing Favorites” (October 3), which deals with the commonly observed favoritism of parents to one particular child, is puzzling to me: > My father’s hostility toward my baby brother ought to have doomed him in my > mother’s eye too. A child who’s already being ill treated by one parent has > hurdles to overcome just _getting out of childhood in one piece_ , much less > making it to a procreative adulthood. _Best for a mom with years of child > rearing ahead to cut her losses now.”_ I have two questions:   1. I don’t get the idea of “ _one piece_.” Does it mean “one brood” - a group of siblings?   2. Is the last line — “ _Best for a mom with years of child rearing ahead to cut her losses now_ ” — a valid sentence? Isn’t something (verb) missing? My MS Word spelling-checker keeps marking it as a “fragment.”


Sun shines "on" or "upon"?

Which of these two is more correct and why?   1. The sun shines **on** my little tree.   2. The sun shines **upon** my little tree. From what I've read in dictionaries both are acceptable, however I would like to know if there are subtleties that might arise due to, for example, the context.


Is there English counterpart(s) to Japanese old saying, “Present salt to your enemy.”?

We have a popular Japanese saying, “敵に塩を送る” — literally, “present (supply) salt to one's enemy”, meaning ‘play fair and square, not taking advantage of the weak point of your rival.’ It’s different from an act which serves the interest of the enemy by the basic spirit. This proverb came from the historic episode that Uesugi Kenshin (1530–1578), the Middle Ages warlord of Echigo Country which faces to the Japan Sea, therefore is abundant with salt resources kept supplying salt to his rival, actually enemy, Takeda Shingen (1521–1573), the warlord of Kai Country, mountainous country adjacent to Echigo, which lacks in salt essential to human existence during long lasting and consuming wars that lasted eleven years (1553–1564) between them, with 5th fatal campaigns. Takeda Shingen and Uesugi Kenshin actually crossed swords once for all on the sandbar at the confluence of Chikuma River and Sai River, which is famous for the name of the showdown on the Kawanaka-jima sandbar. However, Uesugi never shut off the supply rout of salt to Takeda for the cause of engaging fair play. He firmly believed the war should be won in the battle field, not on the sideline such as supply rout or logistics. With that said, we use the saying, “Present salt to one's enemy” as the metonym of fair play, gentleman-ship and sportsmanship, we call it 武士道 — Bushido — in other words, Samurai Spirit sometimes, though I don't mean every Japanese has observed or observes it. I’m curious to know if there are counterpart English sayings, maxims, or expressions portraying the meaning to the same effect.


"Queueing" or "Queuing"

Which spelling is better, _queueing_ or _queuing_? Both words seem to mean the same (or am I wrong?), but there are two different spellings. My context is: > Queueing Latency vs. > > Queuing Latency If both spellings are applicable, when do I use which one of them?


Origin of the expression "being cagey about something"

What is the origin of the expression "being cagey about something"? Does it have anything to do with "being in a cage", not letting someone out of a cage? I googled for it but didn't get much: > cagey   >  "evasive, reticent," 1909, U.S. colloquial, of unknown origin.   >  Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper


How do you disambiguate phrases like "killing doctors" when you can't use an article?

In singular, indefinite articles help to disambiguate some phrases, like for example: > a killing doctor Would be a doctor who kills people. versus > killing a doctor Would be an act of killing a doctor. But what in cases of plural, when you cannot use an article, like: > killing doctors Here, it's either many doctors who kill people or a certain person/people killing many doctors. Is there a way to disambiguate plural cases like these?


Can I say "Coming!" for "I am coming!", and why?

In some languages we can remove the subject (and sometimes a verb too) from a sentence. In _Toy Story 3_ , the kid says **_"Coming!"_** instead of **_"I am coming!"_** to her mother. My questions are:   * 1.) Can I say _"Coming!"_ instead of _"I am coming!"_ in English?   * 2.) If I can, when can I remove the subject and verb?   * 3.) And would this be considered standard English? (NOTE: The OP is asking about _"ellipsis of subject pronoun + auxiliary"_ , which is a topic that comes up often on grammar and linguistics forums/sites. It is a good question. -- F.E.)


"Translate into" vs. "Translate to"

Does one translate a word or phrase _into_ another language or _to_ another language? For example:   * Translate the following phrase to Spanish.   * Translate the following phrase into Spanish.


A word meaning "the state of obeying a rule"

Is there a word that means "the state of obeying a rule". I'm thinking since it can be said that something 'adheres' to a rule that 'adherent' would fit the bill, but somehow it doesn't sound quite right. For example "It adheres to the rule." -> "It is adherent." or "Does it adhere to the rule." -> "Yes, it is adherent." Is is correct or acceptable to use the word 'adherent' in such a manner?


has changed and is changed

While I was reading a grammar book I came upon this sentence: > '...but it has changed because the pronoun in front of it has changed...'. Why does the author use 'has' rather than 'is'? Note: perhaps this is an elementary question, but I don't know the answer.


Capitalizing "U" in "United States"

Is it true that until the Civil War we did not capitalize the _U_ in _United States_?


Synonym or equal phrase to "merely philosophical"

When something is bound to be of little substance, or the discussion of it surely only giving rise to opinion or sophistry, sometimes the phrase "merely philosophical" is used. In this article I'm composing, which is philosophical in nature, I should like to avoid the word "philosophical", since if preceded by "merely" it might be taken as belittling Philosophy, which is not intended. At the same time I don't want to come on so strong as to claim that the topic is of little substance, only to make clear that any results will not elucidate the topic at hand. I have looked for synonyms but not come up with anything suitable. I'm asking here in the hope that you will, as English is not my first language. **Article description:** After settling on an etymological analysis of an account, I am trying to extract what knowledge the account can be said to convey, for the moment withholding judgment over any assertions of the purpose or intent of the account being recorded, as well as abstaining from addressing the larger context in which the account is presented. Currently the sentence in question reads, "Arguments over the purpose of the account are merely philosophical (in the general sense)." I would like to improve on this. **Note:** It seems that I want to write something along the lines of, "merely philosophical/purely academic/just a scholastic exercise" without offending philosophers, academics, or scholars, which I respect and consider myself a fellow to, and of whose work I have partaken to write the article. In all honesty, I don't think I'm weaseling something in here, though, but simply pointing out that work done by these fellows, however fine, will not affect the topic as it stands; that it must be treated as a stand-alone topic. Perhaps there is no good way of telling anyone which battles to choose, and offending the sensibilities of my peers is inevitable, but I would like to avoid it if I can.


"How about" and politeness

Is it polite to use "how about..." in formal message or it will suit for close relations only? What should I use instead for stranger or boss? UPD: Example: _You have just provided me with your phone number. How about e-mail address?_


Opposite/inverse of duplicate

What is a word that can function as the inverse of a duplicate question on Stack Exchange? I was looking, in the context of this question on meta, for such a word to distinguish the closed duplicate from the one it was closed as a duplicate of. The relationship is not simply an equal one between duplicate and duplicate, but more like the one between original and copy (where I seek the word for the original). I eventually just coined the word _anti-duplicate_ , but a coined word hardly seems a satisfactory solution. Possible words include:   * Any of _original_ , _pattern_ , _model_ , and _example/exemplar_ seem to imply designed similarity. I don't completely understand the nuances of _paradigm_ , but it sounds like it belongs in this category as well.   * _Standard_ , _ideal_ , and _benchmark_ come close, but imply official or objective standards, which no question on SE can be. (Can it?)   * _Archetype/archetypical_ comes close, but the NOAD under the Usage for "model" says, "An archetype is a perfect and unchanging form that existing things or people can approach but never duplicate." Duplicate questions, however, have approached _and duplicated_ the anti-duplicate.   * _Prototype/prototypical_ comes close as well, but under the aforementioned usage entry the NOAD says, "a prototype is an early, usually unrefined version of something that later versions reflect but may depart from." The anti-duplicate, in contrast, _is_ the refined version, at least in theory, and again, the duplicate has been thus marked because it did _not_ depart from the anti-duplicate. While I seek a different word, I note that if any of the above can be shown to be correct, or if no single word can be found, but a phrase can, either of those will do as well.


Do we “hear” our tears?

I was drawn to the expression, “How to make you hear our tears” in the following sentence of the comment written by Sonia Sanchez under the caption, “Remembering Brother Martin” as a part of special article - “One Man, One March, One Speech, One Dream" in Time magazine (August 26 – September 2, 2013 issue): > “How to tell you about this aristocratic word sorcerer with a commoner’s > eye? How to **make you hear our tears** as he welcomed our souls and held > our hearts in his hands?” Though it may sound like a sticker, we see somebody’s tears / tear drops, but we don’t hear tears (albeit it rhymes well) . Is it possible, or even usual to say “hear someone’s tears"? As I checked a dictionary (Merriam-Webster), it defines tear as: 1.noun a. singular: a drop of clear saline fluid secreted by the lachrymal gland and diffused between the eye and eyelids to moisten the parts and facilitate their motion. b. plural : a secretion of profuse tears that overflow the eyelids and dampen the face 2\. a transparent drop of fluid or hardened fluid matter (as resin) 3\. plural : an act of weeping or grieving Does “hear our tears” in the above quote come under the definition 3 of the above?


When was "ladyparts" first used to describe the genitalia of a woman?

When was the word _ladyparts_ first used to describe the genitalia of a woman? I tried to look it up in the British National Corpus but it returned no results.


Name for equivocal similes such as found in hip-hop lyrics?

I've observed a figure of speech used heavily by rappers which uses the basic construction of a simile—a " _this_ like _that_ " comparison—when the similarity in the comparison is purely linguistic. That is, rather than comparing two actually similar entities, a purely equivocal connection is drawn between two entities. An example that comes quickly to mind a phrase from Canon's song "Let 'Em Have It" on his new EP, _Loose Canon_: > Trust me, quote me like I'm State Farm State Farm gives insurance quotes—which is an entirely different kind of quote than intended by "quote me". Normally, this might be considered to be a defective simile. However, I have heard it entirely too many times by too many different talented lyricists to believe that—I think it is a valid figure of speech within this art form. By the deliberate use of "like" in a dissimilar construction, Canon lends a playful feel to his lyrics and makes them more memorable. For lack of a better name, I would be tempted to call it an _equivocal simile_. But is there an established name for this figure of speech? Is it known to exist outside of hip-hop in English usage?


What does "get" really mean in "I get you want to help"?

> I get you want to help. Does _get_ in this context mean "know"? Or "understand"?


"Used to go" vs. "attended" — which one is correct here?

> I attended x institute for almost ten years. Last year I completed an > advanced book entitled _Landmark_. Taking the advice of one of my teachers, > I enrolled at another institute for a teacher training course. > > I used to go x institute for almost ten years. Last year I competed an > advanced book entitled _Landmark_. Taking the advice of one of my teachers, > I enrolled at another institute for a teacher training course. Which version is better?


Meaning of "even as"

> Anjou and Maine both given unto the French!   >  Cold news for me; for I had hope of France,   >  Even as I have of fertile England's soil.   >  (2H6 I.i.236) What does _even as_ mean in this verse? I think it is a marker for some sort of simultaneity, but am not quite sure that it is so.


"fail to convey it"

Does "I fail to convey it" mean "I know but I don't explain it" or does it mean "I know and I try to explain it, but not well enough for people to understand it" or can it mean both? What's another way to say, "I fail to convey it?"


Does 'could' in this context always refer to the past?

"I couldn't understand this." Is that more polite than saying "I can't understand?"


Where did "doggy dog world" come from?

This Ngram shows that people were happily saying "dog eat dog world" until the 1980s, when "doggy dog world" abruptly came into use. ![Ngram image](http://i.stack.imgur.com/6RxBv.png) What might have accounted for this? (It was well before Snoop Dogg's single "Doggy Dogg World"). Did this phrase come into recorded being as genuine wordplay, or as an "eggcorn"?


What does 'knee-jerk reaction' mean?

What does _knee-jerk reaction_ mean? From NYT article: > Another senior Socialist, who declined to be identified, said the party > could not afford knee-jerk reactions.


Zucchini in Australia and courgette in New Zealand! Why?

I can probably understand why the plant is called zucchini in the US and courgette in the UK- could be traced to the proximity of the UK to France but how come it's got two different names in Australasia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zucchini


Usage of a comma for emphasis

It is grammatically acceptable to say the following? > Don't forget, they could be tricking us.


A name for hat collectors?

The Stack Exchange Winter Bash 2013 has me thinking about hats, as my collection is growing. I know that the terms for people who collect specific things are generally obscure, but they do exist. Perhaps the most common of those types of words is "philatelist"— a person who collects stamps. Is there a similar word for a person who collects hats?


the word "partner" in business situations

In business situations, is it acceptable to introduce a business partner as simply "my partner" or is it necessary to specify "my business partner"? I have seen both used and the issue seems to revolve around ambiguity surrounding the increasing use of "partner" to allude to a romantic connection. Does it matter if my partner is of the same or opposite sex?


Raising a letter of credit

What does _raise_ mean in the following sentence? > The Letter of Credit to be **raised** as soon as possible after the Contract > signature. Does it mean collecting the money? Or something else?


Help understanding the word 'topographical'

My girlfriend keeps seeing the word topographical appear in her social work coursework, and asked me what it meant in this context. I'm struggling to help explain clearly, can you help break it down?


Should I use "will" or "would" when I suggest that something will/would come in handy?

> This second part would hopefully come in handy tonight.   >  This second part will hopefully come in handy tonight. Which one is correct and why?


What is the difference between “rooster” vs. “cock” and “hen” vs. “chicken”?

When I was small and started to study English, I had pictures labelled _cock_ , _hen_ and _chicken_. Now when I search the net for pictures for showing to my children, I see the same pictures, but this time they are labelled _rooster_ , _chicken_ and _chick_. Do these changes belong to time, to American vs British usage differences, or to something else? What names should I use when showing pictures to my children?


Etymology of "chookas"

"Chookas" is an Australian (?) word, used in the theatre to wish people luck, much like "break a leg". Wikipedia points to the Behind Ballet blog, which explains: > I have been told that the use of ‘chookas’ to wish a performer good luck is > uniquely Australian. It seems to have come into use during the early days of > J.C. Williamson’s dominance of the theatre scene in Australia. In the early > 1900s chicken was regarded as a treat (even in my experience ‘chicken in the > basket’ was the most expensive dish on a menu). As most shows paid fees > depending on the box-office take, a full house meant that the performers > would be able to afford a chicken meal. The cry ‘chook it is’ was shortened > to ‘chookas’, and eventually used by performers to wish each other a > successful show regardless of the number of people in the auditorium. That smells of a folk etymology to me. Is there any evidence for this?


Defective Passage

Could this small passage be defective in some way: > book   >  KENT SAW Helen at each evening meal, but otherwise only the spotless > kitchen remained as a clue that **_another person shared the house_**. Could it be missing "with him" at the end? So, dropping the word "with" from the end of: > Jeff is looking for a roommate to share the apartment **_WITH_**. would not make a difference?


Online checker for articles

I seem to have dropped most use of articles in my written English, however they seem to fall in correct(?) places in my spoken English. And as there are quite few of special cases when you would not use article at all, I'd love to find a website where I can paste my text and it would show where an article should be. It's not crucial to known which article. I hope that after using such page for a few months it would remedy to a passable degree my use of articles.


Is there a word for motion that a bull makes when it kicks back with his legs before charging? Kind of like at 22s in the following video http://youtu.be/pjM_67aOT3Y?t=22s Even if it's not an English word!


Is Anglophone interchangeable with English speaker?

I found the following answer to the question asking “Language understandable to English speaker without learning” posted in EL&U site: > “Conversational German would be somewhat accessible to a native **English > speaker** , but aside from conversational pleasantries afforded us all by > UG, most **Anglophones** do not understand German.” I’m curious to know whether there is a significant difference of meaning and nuance between English speakers and Anglophones. OED simply defines ‘Anglophone’ as an English-speaking person, while CED defines it as a person who speaks English, especially in countries where other languages are also spoken,-e.g. Kenya and Zimbabwe, and Merriam-Webster defines it as the adjective and noun - consisting of or belonging to an English-speaking population especially in a country where two or more languages are spoken. What is the exact definition of Anglophone? Does it mean only English speaking people of the countries that once were ruled or under the influence of the British Empire including India, Hongkong, Singapore and South Africa? Are English speaking Belgian, French, Dutch, German, Swiss of the countries where other languages are also spoken Anglophone? How about Japanese, Chinese, or Korean English speakers? Is there word, native Anglophone as well as native English speaker?


Comma before "As if"

In which of the following cases would a comma be used before the as if clause? Does this follow the restrictive/non-restrictive rule? >   * "Hmmm," giggled the girl as if hearing the funniest joke she had ever > heard. > >   * He paused for awhile as if he were rearranging his thoughts in his head. > >   * He was holding a jar of bright jelly with pink dots floating through it > as if they were curious astronauts in space. > >


Correct use of  "me too" and "I too"

I would like to say to a boy that he is strange and, fortunately, I am strange too, without repeating. How do I write it with "me too" or "I too"?


How can you describe someone who gives up too easily?

A friend of mine said that he was a cynic. I had told him that he was giving up too easily. In this situation, the worst case outcome was rejection, which logically speaking, was equivalent to not trying in the first place. I want to say, "No, you aren't cynical, you are X," or "No, you aren't a cynic, you are a(n) X." The closest I can come up with is unmotivated or intimidated. **What word describes a person who gives up too easily?**


Was what happened to the pronunciation of the word "church", as compared to the Scots-English "kirk", a general phenomenon in Middle English?

The other day, I was reading a history of the Norman and Angevin kings, and came across the word _kirk_ in an ecclesiastical context, which I had to look up, having no clue of its meaning. The Online Etymology Dictionary gave me this: > **kirk** c.1200, northern England and Scottish dialectal form of _church_ , > from O.N. kirkja "church," from O.E. cirice (see **church** ). I took its advice, and looked up _church_ : > **church** O.E. _cirice_ "church, public place of worship, Christians > collectively," from W.Gmc. * _kirika_ (cf. O.S. _kirika_ , O.N. _kirkja_ , > O.Fris. _zerke_ , M.Du. _kerke_ , O.H.G. _kirihha_ , Ger. Kirche), from Gk. > _kyriake_ (oikia), _kyriakon doma_ "Lord's (house)," from _kyrios_ "ruler, > lord," from PIE base * _keue-_ "to swell" ("swollen," hence "strong, > powerful"). Phonetic spelling from c.1200, established by 16c. One notes that both words, _kirk_ and _church_ , have the same etymological root in the Old English, _cirice_. But the Scots version, and its etymological predecessors, would all seem to be pronounced with a hard 'k'; the softening of the Middle English _church_ seems to be a unique, derived, synapomorphy of the word tree. So my questions are: What is this phenomenon called, exactly? Second, was it a general characteristic of the evolution of Old English to Middle English, this softening of hard consonants?


"Remain a cool kid" vs. "remain as a cool kid"

Which of the following is grammatical? >   * He wants to remain a cool kid for the rest of his life. >   * He wants to remain as a cool kid for the rest of his life. >


" to " VS " until "

Peter is far from a procrastinator. > A. He never leaves today's work undone until tomorrow. > > B. He never leaves today's work undone to tomorrow. **to** VS **until** , which is better ? A or B? Or are there any other ways of saying the same thing?


Conversational Postulate

In two fields that I've worked I've heard the term "Conversational Postulate" used to refer to a yes/no question that is expected to elicit some behaviour in the listener. Questions such as "Can you close the door?" used in place of "Close the door please". I haven't been able to find a reference to the term outside of those fields. Is there a standard categorisation in English for the kinds of words that are yes/no by nature but are pragmatically understood to require some action?


Listing an abbreviation with two different expansions

How should I list an abbreviation that has two different expansions? Eg: LD - Leadership Development, LD - Liquidity Damage. I have quite a few of these and I need to list them in a glossary. Thanks.


What does "dot-bomb" mean?

On The New York Times I read the following sentence: > The bad news here begins with the economy, which stinks. This is the > epicenter of the _dot-bomb_ , the edge of the ailing Pacific Rim and now a > major casualty of tourist malaise. What does _dot-bomb_ mean?


Word to describe a personality which has many interests?

I'm looking for a word, to be honest I'm not sure if such a word even exists, though this would be a word, or a phrase that describes more of a personality. Take this as an example: > Bill works as an electronic engineer. He enjoys cycling, jogging and mostly > any sport. He's teaching himself piano, and loves music. He could speak > about astronomy for hours, same thing goes for airplanes, car tuning, and > weapons. He loves to see artists show off their paintings and sculptures, > since he could never really get use to holding a paint brush. Another thing > he would spend his money on, is traveling to see ancient buildings, from > different cultures all around the world, and the history of that country. I could have added more details, but I think that would be enough to give you the idea. As you can see, this character's personality is quite varied in terms of interests and hobbies, and he enjoys doing and learning a lot of different things. So my question is, what would be the best word to describe such a personality? One who has a lot of interests, hobbies, and loves learning about anything?


Is "He told me not to argue but just agree." grammatically correct?

> He told me not to argue but just agree. I think the sentence above is grammatically correct, but I'm not sure. In fact, I have a hard time choosing between the following sentences: > He told me not to argue and just agree. > > He told me not to argue but to just agree. > > He told me not to argue and to just agree. I seem completely lost and have been playing the guessing game. Someone help me?


is "imperative" correct here

I am writing a piece of software related to meetings. Participants are invited to a meeting using a button which the command "invite" is written to be pressed by the person who wished to do the inviting. Is the word "invite" in this context the imperative form of the verb? If I now look at a list of my own meetings to which I've been invited my status is "invited" with respect to those meetings. What is the form of the verb of my status? I can now "accept" or "decline" using similar buttons. Are these also imperative? Both requestor and requestee can view their meetings. In each case there will be a status for each participant of "invited", "accepted" or "declined". I take it they have the same form as "invited", above and are the same for no matter who is looking.


Term for someone worried about health after reading health information online

Is there a term to describe someone who becomes very worried after reading health information online? They think they have developed those health problems and are always on edge.


Adjacent words with apostrophes to show possession

Is it correct to end adjacent words in `'s` to show possession? For example > "My neighbour's dog's ball is always in my yard", or should it be > "My neighbour dogs ball is always in my yard" or > "My neighbour dog's ball is always in my yard"?


One word for the person who spreads positive vibes and is very spiritual in nature

Can someone help me to describe in just one word a person who is spiritual and kind-hearted and who spreads positive vibes. Any help is appreciated.


"Informed that X is as follows" vs "Informed of X is as follows"

I am making a report to management. Which is the more appropriate expression?   1. Please be informed that the above results are as follows.   2. Please be informed of the above results are as follows.


A gender-neutral, informal alternative to singular 'guy'

When referring to an online comment, I want to say > I agree with this guy. However, it's not gender neutral (See this ELU post.) What other informal alternate word is there? 'User' seems too formal, so does 'person' or 'fellow.'


Where does "hot damn!" come from?

There is the exclamation "hot damn", which one might use, in certain contexts, similar to " All right!", or "Excellent!" (American English, as far as I know.) Google ngrams says it doesn't see it anywhere but it does see "hot dam", which is as often as it is used as an interjection; it also seems to refer naturally to an engineering situation involving dams.   * Where does it come from? Is there any initial provenance for it, or other languages it was possibly borrowed from?   * Is _hot diggity_ an euphemism for it?   * Why _hot_?


What does the phrase "in a cautionary tale of...gravitational pull" mean?

Today’s _New York Times_ (April 12), in an article titled, _“A Condo, High- Profile Residents and a $40,000 Bill,”_ reports that celebrity photographer, Ken Nahoum, and his partner with whom he owns penthouses in Soho, are being sued by the condominium for arrears of common charges and late fees. Reading this article, I was struck by the expression, > In a cautionary tale of the gravitational pull that one owner can have on a > building... which seemed to be simply saying “dishonorably.” This expression sounds pretty euphemistic to me, and I feel like I'm just “scratching itch by all fingers through the sole of a shoe," as a popular Japanese saying goes, in trying to understand the phrase. What is this phrase saying, exactly? Is it a "cool" expression? Can someone rephrase it in simpler English? The complete sentence in question reads (italics mine): > But Mr. Nahoum has not been so roundly admired inside the confines of 95 > Greene. _In a cautionary tale of the gravitational pull_ that one owner can > have on a building, Mr. Nahoum and his companion, Basia Milewicz, are being > sued in State Supreme Court in Manhattan by the condominium, which says they > owe $40,000 in common charges and late fees. Mr. Nahoum and Ms. Milewicz own > roughly one-fifth of the building’s interest, so the arrears have forced the > condo board to raise charges for everyone else, according to Jesse Newhouse, > the board president.


in the sentence "The farmer has herds of cattle on his farm" will cattle be a collective noun?

in the sentence "The farmer has herds of cattle on his farm " , will 'cattle' be a common noun ?


Usage of "figure" and "figure out"

Sometimes I get confused whether to use _figure_ or _figure out_. Example: > Cynthia didn't blame his dad for being so quiet. She just figured (out) some > fathers found it more difficult to communicate with their daughters than > others. I'm not sure which one I should use. Is there a way of knowing when to use the first and when the latter?


From Wikipedia: > The Yorkshire dialect refers to the varieties of English used in the > Northern England historic county of Yorkshire. Those varieties are often > referred to as Broad Yorkshire or **Tyke**. Why is the Yorkshire dialect called 'Tyke'? Can the accent be referred to as _tyke_ as well? ODO's definition of tyke includes a number of negative senses. Is _this_ sense also derogatory?


"Flammable" versus "Combustible"

In _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary_ , Eleventh Edition (2003), the first definition of _combustible_ is "capable of combustion," the first definition of _combustion_ is "an act or instance of burning," the only definition of _flammable_ is "capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly," and the only definition of _flammability_ is "ability to support combustion; _esp_ : a high capacity for combustion." On the strength of these definitions, I would have expected the terms _combustible_ and _flammable_ to be largely or entirely interchangeable. But in the course of an (as yet unsuccessful) online search for historical examples in which people mistakenly caused fires because they misunderstood the term _inflammable_ to mean "not capable of bursting into flames," I came across this passage in "Hazard Connotation of Fire Safety Terms," in _Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54th Annual Meeting- 2010_ (link to .pdf copy of article): > Prior research suggests that people misunderstand the meanings of the words > Combustible and Flammable (Main, Frantz, & Rhoades, 1993). According to the > National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Combustible substances are > those with a flash point of 100 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Substances > classified as Flammable have flash point temperatures between 20 and 100 > degrees Fahrenheit. > > Thus from the standard/regulatory definitions, Flammable presents a greater > fire hazard than Combustible. However, research by Main et al. (1993) > suggests that people are more likely to believe that Combustible connotes > greater hazard than Flammable. The NFPA's definitions specify that Flammable substances can ignite at lower temperatures than Combustible substances can, and thus are a greater fire hazard. My questions are:   1. Do the NFPA's technical definitions of _Flammable substances_ and _Combustible substances_ reflect a fundamental difference in meaning of the everyday words _flammable_ and _combustible_ , or did the NFPA just arbitrarily assign different flash-point levels to the two terms in its standards?    2. Do other English-speaking countries share the NFPA's understanding of _Flammable_ and _Combustible_ , or is this a U.S.-only thing?    3. In the United States, how widespread is public awareness of the distinction between _Flammable_ and _Combustible_?


"Is there a best X?" — why "a" if it's the superlative degree?

Which of the following is grammatical? >   1. Is there a best school? >   2. Is there the best school? > I'm sure that the first one is right. But why?


First use of "judge, jury, and executioner"

I was wondering when the expression "judge, jury, and executioner" was first used. It appears in "A Study in Scarlet" (1887), but I don't know how to look for earlier usage.


Opposite of “turnaround”

The dictionary says that a “turnaround” is “an abrupt or unexpected change, esp. one that results in a more favorable situation”. What would be the word for “an abrupt or unexpected change” which is NOT favourable and worsens the situation?


Meaning of 'Edwardian geek'

I just read that a physicist Paul Dirac was called 'the Edwardian geek' by his biographer [See the quote below from Wiki]. What does this phrase mean (Who was that particular Edward)? > An anecdote recounted in a review of the 2009 biography tells of Werner > Heisenberg and Dirac sailing on a cruise ship to a conference in Japan in > August 1929. "Both still in their twenties, and unmarried, they made an odd > couple. Heisenberg was a ladies' man who constantly flirted and danced, > while Dirac—'an Edwardian geek', as biographer Graham Farmelo puts > it—suffered agonies if forced into any kind of socialising or small talk. > 'Why do you dance?' Dirac asked his companion. 'When there are nice girls, > it is a pleasure,' Heisenberg replied. Dirac pondered this notion, then > blurted out: 'But, Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are > nice?'"


Is past perfect tense a must when reporting 2 things happened at different time in the past?

Is the word "had" necessary in the following text? This is a retrospective study covering the period from 2001 to 2010. Prospectively collected data of 500 consecutive patients who (had) received liver transplantation at our center were reviewed.


Is "Eskimo" a universally offensive term?

I know that "Eskimo" is an offensive term in Canada; they use the term "Inuit".   But I see the term "Eskimo" popping up regularly in news articles that I read; I hardly see the term "Inuit" being used. Why? Ignorance? Apathy? Is the term "Eskimo" offensive only in Canada, or in the rest of the world too?


The activity of being a roadie

I need a word to reflect participating in the job of a roadie. In the same way that you would describe activities as _selling_ , _painting_ , _driving_ , is there such a word as roadieing? (I feel dirty typing it, so I suspect not)


How to cite a poem, with a quote that is on multiple non-contiguous lines?

I have to cite a quote from a poem that is on multiple lines that are not next to eachother. How would I do this? "This is my quote" (line1 - line 2) OR "This is my quote" (line1 .. line2) ?


Police in general as "feds"

There are many slang terms for the police, and one which has recently been in the news in the UK is "the feds", as in > if you see a brother... SALUT! if you see a fed... SHOOT! Cassell's _Dictionary of Slang_ (2005) records this sense as "[1990s+] (UK Black/teen) a policeman". It seems likely that this is a straightforward borrowing from US film and television, where the Feds are agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the UK is not federal and does not have an FBI. The Royal Air Force police are also called "feds", among other nicknames. This usage is in Partridge's _Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English_ , 2005 edition, but not in the 1984 edition, nor is it in the 1990 edition of Partridge's _A dictionary of RAF slang_. In the 2005 dictionary, the RAF usage is dated to 2002, with the note "Adopted from the sense 'a member of the FBI'". As far as I can tell, the nickname is not used elsewhere in the UK armed forces. Are these two independent borrowings, or has there been some additional influence from one to the other? Are there any other similar slang uses of "feds" in the English-speaking world (referring to police or officials who are _not_ associated with the federal government)? _**Update:_** On reflection, I think that they are probably not related. The point is that the urban "fed" is used for any policeman, whereas the RAF "fed" is only for members of the specific force: it's not used within the RAF for police in general. My second question - whether there are other (probably ironic) slang uses of "fed" for non-federal police or officials - is still open.


Meaning of "sweaty pastries"

In the New York Times, > An adjacent lounge, called Collage, looks like a modern airport bistro. It > serves breakfast by day (a continental spread of **sweaty pastries** ), and > drinks and bar food by night. Does _sweaty pastries_ sound correct to you? Could it be a typo for _sweet pastries_?


have you drawn any watches?

In the book _A Song of Ice and Fire_ I came across this sentence, the meaning of which isn't clear to me: > "Have you drawn any watches this past week, Will? Yes,m'lord." What does this sentence mean and what is a watch?


Can a regret be expressed?

I know that _interest, dissatisfaction, condolence, apologies_ can all collocate with _express_ , but I am not sure if _regret_ can. I am thinking about the following sentence in particular: > I would like to **express my regret** for the incident happened yesterday at > my room, which Mark complained to you.


Is there a word for someone who somewhat delights in their illnesses/medications?

For example, a couple of years ago I talked to this woman who had lupus, and she would often tell stories of the all the gnarly surgeries and medications she had to take to control her disease. I rather got the impression at the time she enjoyed the attention it brought her; not necessarily in a totally overbearing way, but more subtle. Similarly, just today at the barber's, I overheard another woman talking to a hairdresser about some disease she had, which required her to take "experimental vaccines" and "all sorts of red and blue pills"; she informed the guy that although she looked outwardly normal, she was felt terrible, and was sick all the time from the medication. She gave an "I'm chugging through it" half-smile as she talked. Note that this isn't _Munchausen's_ , which is the first word to come many people's minds -- neither of them ever gave me the impression they weren't truly sick. It's more they had an enthusiasm for being ill and sharing that news that most people don't have. Is there a good word for this kind of person?


Meaning of "mints"

Context (New York Times), > **MINTS** An organic fudge brownie awaits you in the room, along with a > personalized welcome letter... First, I'm not sure if I'm on the right track or not (I'm wondering if _mints_ here is a shortening for _mint aspects_ [nice/good aspects].?), but these are what I found on the Internet, > Wiktionary : 4.(slang) Very good. > > Urban Dictionary: 1. Nice. 2. Cool If I'm correct, I would like to know how common this word (mint adj.) is used in American English? By the way, is this word used in BE as well? Because I also read this, > Urban Dictionary: 2.Expression used in The North Of England meaning good


What's the proper way to refer to the form of a word that's improperly punctuated?

**Example sentence:** > The Adventure's of Huckleberry Finn * * * **My dilemma:** I would like to convey to the writer of the example sentence that the word _Adventure's_ , in its current **___ ____** form, is grammatically incorrect (as opposed to its should-be plural form). At first I started to use the word _possessive_ to describe the form, but then I started thinking¹ that maybe, in the writer's mind, the word was in fact not written to represent possession but rather as a contraction of the words _Adventure_ and _is_. In the latter case, I believe using the word _contractional_ would be more appropriate than using the word _possessive_ but since I don't know what the writer was (hypothetically) thinking when they wrote the word, I don't know which adjective to choose, if either. I realize that chances are the writer just accidentally added an apostrophe where they shouldn't have, but that's neither here nor there. * * * **My question:** What's the best word to use to describe the current, incorrect form of the word _Adventures_ as described above? Is there an all-encompassing word that would be a better fit than the words _possessive_ , _contractional_ , or a combination thereof? Thanks! _¹ Yes, it hurt. ;)_


Can the word "peace" be pluralised?

Fairly self explanatory question. For those that are interested, the reason I ask is because a coworker just scored 60 points against me with "peaces". Triple letter, and triple word score!


What is the English word to describe the habit of unthinkingly using many meaningless words such as “ah,” “well,” “I mean” in speaking?

I was annoyed to hear a famous economist used the word, “yousuruni (in essence)” incessantly in discussion about Japan’s economic policy - “Abenomix” in recent TV show. The economist shouldn’t have been aware of doing that. We call the habit to repeat the same interjection such as “well,” “I mean,” “in essence,” “so-called” unconsciously in conversation or speech 口癖- kuchiguse ( **'mouth habit'** by literal translation) in Japanese. Actually many people have the habit of using the same ‘filler word’ unconsciously. Masayoshi Ohira (1910 -1980), the 68th Prime Minister of Japan was famous and ridiculed for inserting “ah” and “uh” frequently in his speech and conversation. His nickname was 'Ah, uh PM." He was said to be the PM whose speech is unclear (because of the use of too many "Ah," "uh" and inarticulate interjections) though the meaning is clear in contrast to the 74th Prime Minister, Noboru Takeshita (1924-2000) whose speech was articulate, but meaning was unclear. How do you say such **habit** like we call ‘Kuchiguse’ in English in single word? P.S. Please note that I'm asking the English equivalent to the **habit** of using stuff words like 口癖 ( **mouth habit** ) in a single word, not looking for "filler,""gabbage," or "stuff word." I know them, and I already mentioned 'filler' in the above question.


"A first post" -- makes sense or not?

I once knew a person who titled the first post in his blog, "A first post." It was immediately pointed out to him that correct usage is " _The_ first post." To that he responded: Well, every blog has its first post, and this post is no exception, so this is just _a_ first post (among first posts of all blogs). Neither that person nor the other people were native English speakers. I wonder, does that rationale makes sense? How does "A first post" sound like for a native speaker?


"I would prefer [it] if the meeting [would be/was] postponed"

> Because I am still in New Haven, I would prefer [it] if the meeting [would > be/was] postponed. What is the correct way of saying this? I am curious as to with or without _it_ , and _would be_ versus _was_?


A noun which describes how well understood something is

I have a list of components and I'm putting a paragraph together which describes that these components have a wide range of values for various properties. So far I've got: > Currently we have a series of reporting solutions, from various eras, > written in various languages, deployed throughout the organisation. These > reporting solutions have various levels of documentation, adaptability and > [how-well-people-understand-them]. I need a word for the [how-well-people-understand-them] and I'm drawing a blank!


Shall I answer Yes/No to this question?

I'm filling an application which asks the following question: **You have not attended the X company Selection Process in the last 6 months. *** Yes/No I've not attended any selection process. So, shall I say Yes/No to the question.? Shall I say `Yes` since the statment is correct or shall I say `no` since I've not attended any such process? Other similar statement in the application I find difficult is: **You have declared break in studies/work experience and pending backlogs, if any, during your academics.** Is it Yes/No given that I don't have any backlogs...and I filled everything correctly..? Other question in the applications which might give you a clue are these: **1.You have considered only the Marks/CGPA obtained during the normal duration of the course for calculating Obtained/Total Marks/CGPA.** **2\. You have completed each of the above mentioned academic courses in the stipulated time as specified by your University/Institute and as per X selection guidelines and do not have any extended education.** For above two questions, the answers are unequivocally Yes.


Using Who versus that in a sentence

In this sentence: > We are asking you to invite your congregation that have a passion for > mission to consider volunteering three hours one day a week. Should it read "who" or "that" after "congregation"? I always used "who" but was told that "who" only goes with proper nouns.


Boilt or boiled

Which word should be used here; 'boilt' or 'boiled'? > When the mother came home, the dinner had already been boilt/boiled. I know that prepared/cooked/done are correct options, but I had to underline in my sentence that it was 'boiled'. Should I remove 'the' before mother?


"experienced" vs. "have experienced"? (Simple past vs. Existential sense of perfect)?

Can you tell me which ones of these correct?   1. "Together we experienced our first joy ride." or "Together we have experienced our first joy ride."   2. "Together we learnt to ride bicycle." or "Together we have learnt to ride bicycle." Context: These sentences are going to be a part of a greeting card I am designing for a friend to reminisce about the good times we have spent together. He is still a friend and we are going to spend more good times in future. I have read this beautiful answer at http://english.stackexchange.com/a/63263/18396 but I am unable to resolve my question inspite of reading this. Since "first joy ride" and "learnt to ride bicycle" were in the past, it seems like simple past tense is appropriate. But as per "Existential sense of perfect" in the answer, present perfect seems to be appropriate too.


Usage of the word "Doggedly"

At the end of chapter 16 of Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, the author states: > After that day, a day rarely passed without her drawing the hammer on her > slate, and without Orlick's slouching in and standing **doggedly** before > her, as if **he knew no more than I did what to make of it**. I looked up the definition of "doggedly," and it says: "having or showing tenacity and grim persistence." In the sentence, however, it seems that the character Orlick seems confused, which makes the word "doggedly" seem more like "dogmatically." Why was this word used here?


Which is correct, "ready to give" or "ready to take"?

A company which develops a particular application for business persons has on their website the following: > Ready to _give_ a test drive? Request a Demo Now. In my opinion, the correct sentence should be > Ready to _take_ a test drive? Request a Demo Now. I think the customer would _take_ a test drive, not _give_ one. Which one is the correct sentence? Or are both okay?


do specialst fields have their own colloquial vocabulary not shared by laymen?

I saw the following passage in a PSAT study guide. One of the questions is about the use of the term 'hot spot'. Can we say it's being used colloquially and technically at the same time? The question amounts to whether colloquial language is necessarily a part of laymen's terms. Geologists call these volcanic areas hot spots. Lying deep in the interior of a plate, hot spots or intra-plate volcanoes are sources of magma, the red-hot, molten material within the earth's crust.


Is it redundant to use "currently" and "at the moment" in the same sentence?

For example: > We're currently overbooked at the moment.


What does "swift spirit-bolsterer from the Traveller’s Repose" mean?

I'm reading a short story "Earth calling Taylor" by David Mitchell right now and I have a problem with understanding this part: > Problem is, I pre-announced my promotion to the big league on Christmas day > and the prospect of their consoling words and unspoken Why-doesn’t-this- > surprise-us? is more than I can bear, **even with a swift spirit-bolsterer > from the Traveller’s Repose inside me**. Can you guys help me? What's "spirit-bolster"? What's "Traveller's Repose"? All information I can find about Traveller's Repose on the internet is about a hotel or something in US but I think it's not related here.


What are the arguments behind the "literally"/"figuratively" usage divide? When should one use either word?

I remember reading, some time in grade school, that there was a controversy about proper usage of _figuratively_ and _literally_ when used to denote meaning of a word in its strictest sense -- but I've totally forgotten what those arguments said. Some my questions are: What are those arguments? Are they taken very seriously by pedants? When should I use either word? I remember _figuratively_ being pushed, but I've never really heard it conversation....


Use of “had said” in the “The Archers”

In the BBC radio drama _The Archers_ , the following conversation takes place: > **A:** David, you are not going to say what you saw. You love your family, > right?   >  **David:** What?   >  **A:** Because if you do, then do exactly as what I **had said**. Why past perfect in this conversation? Can’t we simply say one of:   * Do exactly what **I said**.    * Do exactly what I **have said**.


Use of commas in a subordinate clause

I was about to correct a line like "Townville located in east Blaze County has grown rapidly since 2000 and continues to do so." to "Townville, located in east Blaze County, has grown rapidly since 2000 and continues to do so.", but I wasn't certain that I was right. I also didn't know what reference I might use to find out.


"But winter babies are more likely to die before they turn one."?

The question is from the post here. I don't understand what does the last sentence mean here. > The Chillinghams can give birth all year, not just spring and summer like > most U.K. mammals. And the data show that over the past few decades, there’s > been an increase in winter births. Which the researchers correlated to > warmer springs the previous year: plants grow earlier, the cattle have more > access to nutrition and they conceive earlier. > > **But winter babies are more likely to die before they _turn one_.** Here is my question: What does "turn one" mean? How can the "babies" turn to "one" baby?


"at hand" vs "at issue"

We can talk about "the matter at hand" or "the matter at issue" and they seem to mean just about the same thing: something along the lines of "the matter currently under discussion." Is there a difference between these two phrases? I think it's clear that "the issue at hand" is way better than "the issue at issue" but is there a reason for this? Maybe you just want to avoid the confusion of using two meanings of a word so close to each other. Or maybe calling something an issue already implies that it is "at issue," so in that case saying "the issue at issue" would be redundant.


Word for "device that provides constant doses of a liquid/dust/substance"

Think of a sugar dispenser. It provides an equal "dose" of sugar every time you push its button. In my native language, Bulgarian, we have a specific word for this kind of object. The literal "translation" of it would be "dosator"/"dosager". The general word 'dispenser' doesn't capture the fact that the dose is equal each time. So is there a precise word for this? (I needed that kind of word for a metaphor in a class name in a computer program I'm writing)


I see and I hear

Traditional English prescriptive grammar teaches that these two verbs, _to see_ and _to hear_ , when describing their sensory nature, should never be used in the progressive aspect of tenses. Thus > I am seeing you/I was seeing   >  I am hearing you/I was hearing you would be incorrect. But in spoken English, whether it be in the movies or on television, this usage seems to me to become ever more often used. _I am seeing you_ for _I see you now_ _I am hearing you_ for _I hear you now_ When did this usage become so universally accepted? Is it still considered colloquial English? Or is it already considered standard English?


Name for phrase where you just state a noun

What is this type of phrase called? What parts of speech does it employ? Situation: your brother does something silly. You say to him: "You and your crazy antics..." This was brought up cause I wanted to apply it to something besides "you", in this case, someone's company. I said "Oh, your company and its crazy exams..." That seems to work but is a bit stranger.


How to choose tenses in this situation?

> Yesterday, I went to a restaurant, drinking some beer with a friend whom I > had not seen for several years. I found that he had changed very much. He > was lean, now he was very fat...(self-made) I feel strongly unhappy about these sentences. Yes, I met him in the past. But his change is a fact when I telling the story. I am confused about the usage of the tenses.


"Two separate nouns + based" as the attribute?

In scientific writing, it is correct to write something like > The filter-based method is good. But what if I have **two nouns before`-based`**? Something like > The lowpass filter-based method is good. Is it still correct?


Is this mixture of plural and singular legitimate?

> But what is most important for our purposes is that these changes were the > signal for the resumption of historical debate on a grand scale, of the kind > that had been suspended or driven underground during the reign of Louis XIV. > （The French Idea of Revolution ed. by Dale Van Kley: 203) I am interested in the expression "these changes were the signal". Shouldn't every change be a signal, so that there are many signals? Why use the singular form? Because all these changes together form a signal, and one or two just cannot signify that there is a resumption of that debate?


What is the difference between sophisticated and complicated

All, I see these words are used many times literally or verbally. But I really don't know what is the difference between them. Please review one of them which I got from a read. > After an obligatory Hello World–caliber application, we construct a more > sophisticated application that implements a daytime server.


Must an independent clause follow a colon (if it's not a list)?

I wrote this sentence: > The unregulated internet we are accustomed to won out over another vision > for the World Wide Web: a tightly controlled, "government-sponsored > broadband network that would have delivered video from TV stations and other > approved content"—another FCC-regulated medium like radio or television. A TA subtracted a point, explaining: > Unless you are listing two or more items, an independent clause should > follow a colon. I know an independent clause must _precede_ the colon, but I can't find anything to back up the TA's explanation. The rule of thumb, according to a couple of popular grammar sites, is that if the colon can be replaced by the word "namely", it's usually OK. Such seems to be the case in my sentence above. Is my sentence grammatically incorrect?


Should "glamourous" be considered incorrect?

The Wiktionary entry for _glamourous_, for what it's worth, claims that it is "a common British spelling", but many native English speakers dismiss it as incorrect. Some, though, draw a distinction between "glamorous" and "glamourous", saying that the latter is a valid, British spelling. What's your take on this?


What is that feeling one gets when they are about to sneeze?

You know you have a sneeze coming, and you do that, _haah haaah_ , the nose gets this odd feeling but the sneeze doesn't happen. What's this feeling/thing called?


Equivalence at word level

Is there a one-to-one relationship between word and meaning?


Meaning of "dust" when referring to a person

I stumbled upon the following passage while reading Lord Dunsany ( _The Sphinx at Gizeh_ ). > Delilah was younger than she, and Delilah is dust. Time hath loved nothing > but this worthless painted face. Source: http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/22711/ What does _Delilah is dust_ mean in this sentence? Does it mean she is worthless? Considering the change in tense (the sentence starts with _was_ and ends with _is_ ) I am quite confused.


Is this sentence correctly constructed for the meaning one is trying to convey?

Here is the sentence: > Techi's brother Data is Painting Dye's husband, Time Line's best friend. The sentence before that establishes that Time Line is Painting Dye's husband. The meaning trying to be conveyed in this sentence by my friend is that Techi's brother Data is Time Line's best friend, and Time Line being Painting Dye's husband should be re-established. After careful analysis of this sentence, I have been unable to see how this exact wording conveys the meaning. However, my friend doesn't believe that this sentence cannot convey the intended meaning. Does anyone have a way to convince him of that?


Difference between "subsequently" and "consequently"?

When studying and reading course material in "softer" sciences that are descriptive the word "subsequently" appears in a way like "and subsequently" ...what does it mean, disctinct from "consequently" ? Is the difference that "subsequently" doesn't imply a causality and the word "consequently" does? For instance A ⇒ B should read "A and consequently B" and in that case using the word "subsequently" is not false but it's not right since the word subsequently doesn't imply a causality which A ⇒ B does, so when talking about causality the we should use is "consequently"?


What does "jackpot" mean in this passage?

When you say 'jackpot,' would you normally refer to it as   1. something that you should be happy about, or    2. something that you can very highly unlikely obtain? I find this use of 'jackpot' hard to understand in the following. (If 'I' said it with reference to (2), it might very well let Jack down ....) (I'm a non- native speaker. If you would explain it in some plain English, I would very much appreciate it.) > "I went to have chemo yesterday morning, and they did some blood work, and I > have some numbers that aren't good," he said. "They have to be higher for me > to be able to start chemo again." > > "What does it mean?" I said. > > "Nothing good," he said. > > "Does it mean they can't try anymore?" I said. > > "There's this shot can give me," he said. "Sort of a booster shot for my > blood. If it works it can get the numbers high enough for me to have chemo > again." > > "Boy," I said. "Did you ever think we'd be talking about getting a booster > shot for something like _this_?" > > "I know," he said. "And if it works, the good news—the good news—is that I > get to have chemotherapy. That's the payoff." > > " **Some jackpot** ," I said. > > "You know," he said, "it's getting so that I don't even like it when people > say 'What's going on?'. I find myself saying,'Oh, my pulse is down,' or, > 'Well, I need a booster shot.'" ('And You Know You Should Be Glad' by Bob Greene)


Wh-questions: auxiliary verbs or not?

What's the difference between these two questions: > Why they chose football? and > Why did they choose football?


Charge payment "to", "on", or "against" a credit card/an account; charge a credit card/account/a person "with"an amount

Are all of these options acceptable and in current use to denote payment with a credit card? E.g. Please _charge this amount **on_** me/my credit card/my (credit card) account. Please _charge this amount **to_** me/my credit card/my (credit card) account. Please _charge this amount **against_** my credit card/my credit card details (or information). Please _charge me/my credit card/my (credit card) account **with_** this amount. And also: "Thank you for providing us (with) your credit card and for authorizing us... to _charge it **with_** a deposit; _Or_ to _charge a deposit ( **to_** it); _Or_ to _charge a deposit ( **on_** it); _Or_ to charge _a deposit ( **against_** it)." Thank you.


What is the origin of the phrase "another string to your bow"

Specifically - what kind of bow? I assume it refers to an archer's bow, but I guess it could relate to a bow used to play a stringed instrument (like a violin). Also, I've heard it used in the sense of an additional skill, as well as a new achievement - I'm not sure that it makes so much sense in the latter but that probably depends on the origin...


What is the difference between "How precious is it?" and "How much is it precious?"

I would appreciate if you help....


"He is a hero" or "He was a hero"?

Talking to someone who says > What if my son is a hero! would someone respond > It would not surprise me if he **is** Or would they respond > It would not surprise me if he **was**


Term for someone who asks you a "pick one side" question and gives you a hard time on the side you choose

Is there a particular word or phrase for this scenario:   1. Person A poses Person B with a "pick one side" question.   2. Person B answers with he/she honest opinion   3. Person A criticizes Person B for the side he/she chose.   4. Person B defends his/her position while Person A continues to criticize.   5. Person B finally flips the question on Person A.   6. Person A replies that he/she does not have any ties to either side of the argument and walks away from the conversation.   7. Person B is left emotional and confused on the argument that just occurred.  Specifically, is there a philosophy category for this (ex. logical fallacies, ad hominem, etc.)?


Is "agreeance" a proper word?

Many people in my area use the word "agreeance" and I find it irksome. Dictionary.com seems to be in agreement with me (har har): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agreeance > _Main Entry: agreeance   >  Part of Speech: n   >  Definition: the act of agreeing   >  Example: Usage of the site constitutes agreeance with these terms.   >  Usage: considered obsolete and a bastardization of 'agreement'_ Do you use it? Do you think it's acceptable or obsolete?


"In order to...", "To..." or "For..."

What preposition should we use to start a sentence where we first explain a purpose and then a method to achieve it? **Example 1** Purpose = pass the exams Method = study a lot   * In order to pass the exams, you have to study a lot.   * To pass the exams, you have to study a lot.   * *For passing the exams, you have to study a lot. _(incorrect - see accepted answer)_ **Example 2** Purpose = find an object in the database Method = run a SQL query   * In order to find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query.   * To find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query.   * *For finding the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. _(incorrect - see accepted answer)_


Active vs Passive voice in lab reports, and history of scientific usage

I've had some discussions in the past with TA's who would tell my undergrads "Lab reports are written in the passive voice". Aside from whether or not this is correct (let's come back to that in a bit), where does this come from? Some guidelines I've found that insist on the passive voice (e.g., http://guides.lib.purdue.edu/content.php?pid=232776&sid=1925925) claim that this is done to de-emphasize the role of the investigator, and thus provides a tone of objectivity. Such arguments never seem to have attribution. Is this a commonly accepted reason, or simply a rationalization? In effort to prevent this from becoming an opinion-based argument, can anyone point me to a major scientific journal's style sheet or instructions to authors that specifies passive voice for scientific communication? I've published in a number of them, and never came across such an instruction. As to whether passive voice is correct in this context, I'm thinking of telling my students that there has been a historical tendency to use passive voice for scientific communication, but there seem to be recent trends promoting active voice. I'll point them to examples of both (the previous link and http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/scientific-reports/ for the counter- example), and tell them that I'll accept either style (It will alleviate boredom during grading, if nothing else). Does that sound like an acceptable approach?


What word means "the ability to read more than one form of writing"?

If a person can speak and understand two languages, he is _bilingual_. How would you describe a person who can read and write in two languages with very different forms of writing, such as Chinese and English, or Sanskrit and Korean, or what have you?


Use of the possessive apostrophe

Consider a person whose name is "Lehman". In the sentence "I read Lehman's documents." why is it "Lehman's" and not "Lehmans' " ?


What word means 'to submit a post' / 'bring to public notice online'?

I dictionary.com'd the definition of the word 'post' and it has nothing to do which submitting a typed message to the Internet. One of the latter definitions shown on dictionary.com was 'to bring to public notice'. I then tried to look up synonyms of the word 'post' and it just gave synonyms of the word 'pole' and no word which has to do with 'bringing to public notice'. Most websites also use the word 'submit' meaning to 'submit the message' but dictionary.com and most people's definition of this word is 'to give over / yield to the power of another'. I'm creating an app and I need a word each means 'let everyone on the app see this message' and I don't want to use the word 'post'. Is there any other word out there whos main definition is 'to bring to public notice' / 'to bring to public notice online'?


What do you call the latter part of a sentence which spans two pages?

Does the sentence fragment after the simulated pagebreak (the horizontal rule) have a specific term associated with it?      The start of a new paragraph includes an indent as shown here. Following the page-break that occurs hereabouts * * * the next line does not have an indent because it is part of the paragraph previously indented and not the beginning of a new paragraph. In HTML markup the single Paragraph element is split into two distinct Paragraph elements because the page Division is a parent container and each Paragraph may have one parent. A text-indent style is applied to all Paragraph elements by default and must be overridden by a named class applied to each fragment of the given type. I had been using the class name 'continuance' and then shortened that to 'c9e' for 'c' + 9 letters + 'e'. Is there a better (appropriate) name for this?


What does "by taking God at His Word" mean?

The context: > Can we be sure of our salvation? One day a young woman asked for prayer. She > told me that when she accepted Christ as her Savior she had felt so > wonderful, so full of joy. Now she didn’t feel that way and wanted to know > why she had “lost her salvation.” We know that we are not saved by feeling, > but by taking God at His Word.


Present Perfect Vs Present Perfect Continuous and Simple Past/ Past Perfect Vs Past Perfect Continuous

What is the difference in meanings of the following pairs of sentences? It's very confusing to me. >   1. a. I have lived in Paris for 4 years.   >  b. I have been living in Paris for 4 years. > >   2. a. I lived in Paris for 4 years.   >  b. I had lived in Paris for 4 years. > >   3. a. I had lived in Paris for 4 years.   >  b. I had been living in Paris for 4 years. > > Will there be any difference in meanings if I do not write "for 4 years" in each of the above sentences?


Literal antonym to "Outspoken"

I'm working on a humorous project in which one character is called the Outspoken Mime. The adjective "outspoken" means the mime in question is "free, bold, or unreserved in speech." On one side, this describes the mime as gregarious, talkative, and friendly — while visually implying the mime literally _speaks out_ , making the character a walking oxymoron. Is there an antonym to "outspoken" that could imply the opposite double meaning? Something to suggest a different mime is shy or reclusive, while visually appearing to (redundantly) claim they do not talk?


Formatting and ellipses when quoting parts of a list

When quoting a list not in its entirety, but only the points 2–5 of 10, how do I set out the quote? Do I add "..." at the beginning and end of the quote as shown below? > ... > > 2. At all material times, [the Subject Member] was a member of the Union. > > 3. [The Subject Member] regularly worked out, including weight training. > > 4. During the relevant period, on two separate occasions several months > apart,he did not attend the meeting. > > 5. It is the not common for this person to miss work. > > ...


House keeping or house cleaning?

I'm a web professional, recently we wanted to make major changes into our web app and one of our colleagues used the word `house cleaning`. What phrase do you use to say major changes need to be done. Can we use `house keeping`? What is the difference between them?


Is there a politer way of asking: Would you like?

Is there a politer or more formal way of asking: _Would you like … ?_ As when offering something (a glass of wine for instance), to someone of higher category. When extreme etiquette is required.


Are "I will have been going" and "I would have been going" rarely used today?

As far as I know these are tenses that you do not often use. Am I right? > Will have been + verb+ing > > Would have been + verb+ing


Can "somethings" be used as a plural?

> I heard the soft thumps of somethings heavy on cloth. This looks wrong, but changing it to singular makes it work. > I heard the soft thump of something heavy on cloth. I want to keep the operational definition of "something" to emphasize the unknown quality of the items. "Some things" and "several things" sound too vague and passive. I'm also curious at this point about the answer for the answer's sake. Can "somethings" be used as a plural?


Word for "little body"?

Is there any term (a diminutive) in English for "little body"? I suppose that the forms such as "bodylet" and "bodyling" are utterly incorrect. Here is the context: "Graving snow caressing the **little body** dismembered".


Utopia or utopia

Does one write Utopia (with capital) or utopia (without capital)? Or does it not matter which one is chosen? I do not know whether it matters, but I want to use it as follows: > Using a (certain) view is still seen as a sort of ‘utopia’, as it is > supposed to make (it) understandable with just a single glance. (sentence is somewhat simplified) Note: It is a utopia as this would be an unreachable goal. I cannot seem to find a reliable (on-line) source. There does not seem a consensus.