What is a word for someone who loves to experience? A philomath is someone who loves to learn. Wanderlust describes a strong desire to travel. In that vein, is there a word for someone who seeks to experience things: boat rides, a circus performance, ice cream cones at the beach, attending a concert. In this context, a gift of experience would be preferred to an object or possession - for example, tickets to a baseball game rather than a baseball jersey.


What does “Somebody is too much in one’s head” mean in contrast to “Somebody is in over one’s head”?

There was the article titled “Thunder Road” in New York Times’ (January 11) that began with the following sentence > “I have learned two things covering politics. One, first impressions are > often right. John Edwards is slick. Hillary Clinton is expedient. W. was in > over his head. Barack Obama is **too much in his head**. Chris Christie can > be a bully.” > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-thunder- > road.html?hp&rref=opinion What does “Someone is too much in his head” imply in contrast to “Somebody is in over one’s head”? Does it mean he is smart, but lacks the power to fulfill his promises and plans? We call a person who is intelectual but lacks action and power to execute “Atamadekkachi -頭でっかち – man with a too big head’ in Japanese. Is someone ‘being too much in his head’ equivalent to “Atamadekkachi"?


Phrase or idiom for funnelling efforts in wrong direction

What one phrase or idiom describes situations (see examples below), in which people funnel their efforts in the wrong direction? > A boy wants to have a cup of coffee, so he buys a notebook in a stationery > store and starts writing 100 times on each page "A cup of coffee", hoping > that he is going to get a cup of coffee in this way. However, he never > bothers to go to the kitchen and see if he can simply prepare coffee for > himself in the kitchen... * * * > A band is going to have a concert tomorrow, but they are not ready yet – > they still need to rehearse more. So, instead of rehearsing they simply try > to re-arrange the chairs on which they are sitting, hoping that the proper > arrangement of chairs will ensure their perfect performance on the next day. * * * > A girl wants to learn how to swim. So she reads tons of books about swimming > – how to build swimming pools, biographies of famous swimmers – yet she > never even tries swimming by herself...


How should I understand "archaeocyte" in this sentence?

Consider the following sentence: > The fossil consists of a complete skull of an archaeocyte, an extinct group > of ancestors of modern cetaceans. ~~Does it mean "the fossil consists of a complete skull; the fossil consists of an archaeocyte; and the fossil consists of an extinct group of ancestors of modern cetaceans"?~~ **Added:**   What does the sentence mean and how should I understand "archaeocyte" here? In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "archaeo-" means "ancient" and "-cyte" means "cell". It seems that it doesn't make sense if "archaeocyte" means "an ancient cell" in this sentence. The sentence is from an article in ETS's _The Official Guide to the TOEFL Test_ (third edition).


The name of "Scientific American" — two adjectives without a substantive?

Does the name _Scientific American_ consist of two adjectives? What is the substantive?


The 39 steps movie script

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTK8c69c1fE#t=38m27s Hi. Would somebody be able to tell what the daughter is saying around "we've been all to church and the sermon lasted for oooo " (oooo part) I searched for the script but all the scripts I found are different from the actual movie dialogue.


Why is there no plural indefinite article?

_The_ takes either a singular or a plural subject. _A/an_ only takes the singular. When we pluralize a noun preceded by an indefinite article, we simply drop the article (sometimes replacing it with _some_ ). Why is this? * * * **3 years later:** Whilst on a separate goose-chase, I came across Greg Carlson's 1977 paper A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural, which addresses this issue in refreshing detail. It does not answer my question etymologically, but it substantiates the premise that the so-called null determiner is ambiguous: > ABSTRACT. It is argued that the English ‘bare plural’ (an NP with plural > head that lacks a determiner), in spite of its apparently diverse > possibilities of interpretation, is optimally represented in the grammar as > a unified phenomenon. The chief distinction to be dealt with is that between > the ‘generic’ use of the bare plural (as in ‘ _Dogs_ bark’) and its > existential or ‘indefinite plural’ use (as in ‘He threw _oranges_ at > Alice’). ‘Ihe difference between these uses is not to be accounted for by an > ambiguity in the NP itself, but rather by explicating how the context of the > sentence acts on the bare plural to give rise to this distinction. A brief > analysis is sketched in which bare plurals are treated in all instances as > proper names of kinds of things. A subsidiary argument is that the null > determiner is not to be regarded as the plural of the indefinite article > _a_. The primary distinction is summed up in these examples: _Weeds grow_ refers to **all** weeds, or weeds in general. It is not equivalent to _Some weeds grow_. _Weeds grow in my garden_ refers to some weeds, and is equivalent to _Some weeds grow in my garden_. I understand that context is often sufficient to determine the scope of the noun without a plural indefinite article1 \- but that applies to the singular indefinite article _a/an_ as well. In fact, it seems that _a/an_ is even more redundant, since both _Dog barks_ and _Dog barks in my garden_ are equally indefinite, not generic. * * * 1Carlson 2001 is further germane analysis. In here, he gives examples of sentences for which context is not sufficient to determine the scope of the null determiner. For instance, _I only excluded old ladies_ can mean I excluded _all_ old ladies (generic), or that all those whom I excluded happen to have been old ladies (indefinite - some old ladies may have gotten in after all).


Is it grammatically correct to say "Many more happy returns of the day "?

Many people greet me " **Many more** happy returns of the day" on my birthday.   I thought it is grammatically wrong. Can we use "many" and "more" at a time in a sentence. I thought that it is correct to greet "Many happy returns of the day".   Are the given below sentences grammatically correct?   1) **Many more** happy returns of the day.   2) **Many many** happy returns of the day.


what is the meaning of "total of" followed by three categories

If I said "a total of 100 quality engineers and inspectors," does this imply the number of engineers and inspectors add up to 100? If not, how would I phrase the sentence to mean the number of engineers and inspectors add up to 100.


What is “post patent expiration”?

> GMCR paid high prices to avoid having to compete with licensees post patent > expiration. Is _post_ a verb here, or is it a part of _post patent expiration_? What does it mean?


One word to describe increase in number of items?

I am looking for a single verb to describe when the size of a list is increased by adding more items to it. Like: > The list ... as more items was added to it. My first thought was that there should exist a simple, single word for it. Words like _expanded_ or _got bigger_ didn't seem correct. (This question actually came to my mind while coding. I wanted to name a function that added items to a list and thus make it bigger. I couldn't thought of a single verb for it.)


Is it correct to say "You are a path shower"

First of all, I am not a native English speaker and not very good in English too. I had a technical problem in my software project and thus took help of somebody. She helped me to find the right way to resolve my issue. Can I say her, "You are a path shower" to show my appreciation to her ? * * * **UPDATE:** She always guides me when I am in trouble. Considering this, what more can I say her.


What’s the difference between “cite” and “cite to”?

From page 69 of Frederick Shauer’s _Thinking Like a Lawyer_ : > A New York state court may **cite to** a case decided in Vermont . . . The > courts are not even required to **cite to** these “authorities,” let alone > follow them. Why does this use _cite to_? Why isn’t it simply cite? What are the similarites and differences?


Which does “substantive'” mean?

From pages 63–64 of Fredirick Schauer’s _Thinking Like a Lawyer_ : > I eat spinach because it is good for me. Judge Cardozo decided the way he > did ... because he thought that outcome fairer and more efficient than what > had previously been the law. These reasons ... are **substantive** reasons. > Sometimes these are called “first-order reasons.” > > ... Like parents, those in authority often rely on their official or formal > role to provide the content-independent reasons for subjects to follow their > commands or instructions. Sergeants and teachers, for example, may initially > try to induce their subordinates or students to understand and > internalize—to take on as their own—the **substantive** reasons for doing > something. I'm struggling to figure out the right meaning of _substantive_. I’m vacillating between definitions 1, 2, and 3 (but not 4). I did try definition 3, but definitions 1 and 2 sound equally right when I substitute them into the sentences. Which is it? Also, please explain your thought processes or steps of deduction so that I can have a higher chance of doing so in the future and need not ask here.


Why is there no "autumntime" or "falltime"?

Why is "autumntime" (or "falltime") not a word?   * wintertime => sure   * springtime => fine   * summertime => lovely But apparently autumn/fall has no equivalent. Why?


Converge and "Verb Confusion"

MS Word has been complaining of a grammatical _Word Confusion_ error when I use _converge_. Here's my sentence: > Managers had converged the thousands of ideas into a handful of big ideas. If I drop _the_ from the sentence Word does not find any error. Also, if I exchange _converged_ for _combined_ Word is happy. However, I guess what I would like to say with _converge_ is a mix of _merged_ and _combined_. Is that my confusion or is there a better word?


Why can't I understand this sentence?

My friend gave me this sentence and said there is nothing wrong with it. I can't for the love of me understand what it means. And can't help but to think there is a more eloquent way of phrasing it. Can anyone help? > I just don't want to wonder what job I could've had, if I hadn't been > focusing solely on the business during my job search. Here's the context: the writer (my friend) has the option of taking an average job, and focusing on developing their entrepreneurial spirit through exploring business ventures. Or to take a great job but perhaps would get too consumed in it (time wise) to have any energy to explore the entrepreneurial side. My friend is trying to express a want to obtain a better job, even if the focus is on developing the business side. Otherwise he would wonder at a later piont if he could have gotten a better job. He is trying to explain this to a third party in an email that was read to me. And this sentence caused me great confusion and a heated debate ensued.


OED Appeals: Antedatings of "headhunter"

The OED has made a public appeal for help in tracing the history of some English words, including: > ## headhunter > > noun _earlier than 1960_ > > The tribal practice of decapitating enemies and preserving their heads gave > us the first sense of _headhunter_ around 1800. Nowadays we’re more likely > to think of the less gruesome recruitment practice of targeting highly > skilled or experienced personnel. The evidence suggests that this sense > emerged in the United States, where our first example of _headhunter_ , in > 1960, comes from: > >> ![headhunter](http://i.stack.imgur.com/WA4fT.jpg) >> >> 1960 Harold Wentworth & Stuart Berg Flexner _Dictionary of American Slang_ 248/2 > > The executive type of headhunter was surely active prior to the word > appearing in this slang dictionary. Can you find any earlier examples?


Which is correct here: "who has" or "with"?

Which of these sentences is correct? > I'm a musician with an unhealthy addiction. OR > I'm a musician who has an unhealthy addiction. Or are they both correct? Any help would be really appreciated!


Word for when a date is changed in retelling to a 'more significant' date

I am looking for a word or phrase to describe when a date (or other factual information, but especially dates) is changed in later retelling so that it aligns with some other date that is considered 'special' (specific to the real event, or just in general). I'm not speaking of rounding errors here; reporting $1,976,450.00 as $2 million is not the same thing as reporting something that happened on January 2nd as "New Year's day" For instance: "William Shakespeare is believed to have died on April 23, 1616, exactly 52 years to the day of his birth." (from some textbook, not sure exactly which) Disproportionately many real-world historical events seem to have happened on Leap Day, New Year's day, Spring/Fall Equinox, Winter/Summer Solstace, Christmas or other holidays.


Article for "opossum"

Did I see "a opossum" or "an opossum"? It's pronounced "possum" (at least insofar as my experience) but looks really awkward written "a opossum". That is all.


Why some blade is called "beaver blade"

I've met the name "beaver blade" used in veterinarian article. Could you please explain why the blade is called "beaver blade": is it related to an animal, or something else? How does it related to the shape of the blade? UPD I am not sure it is brand related issue, look at this non medical picture - ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/IL4ET.png) For those thinking it is branding/off-topic look at this link and picture of BEAVER KNIFE Thanks.


How to use "supposed to", in particular while writing official letter to ask for leave

How do we use _supposed to_? In particular, should I use this while writing an official letter to ask for leave?


What is a long syllable?

I have to write a 24-line poem in Dactylic Hexameter. I looked up what _dactyl_ meant, and I got this answer on wiki: > ...a dactyl is a long syllable followed by two short syllables... What is the difference between a long syllable and a short one?


Should I use "will" or "would" here?

> I doubt they **will** exchange the 20 inch monitor. OR > I doubt they **would** exchange the 20 inch monitor. Which is correct, and why?


placement of 'unfortunately'

What is the best placement of the word _unfortunately in the following sentence_ -   1) "...though you must, unfortunately, be online for this feature to work."   2) "...though you must be online for this feature to work, unfortunately." Also are the commas correctly used?


Forming valid one word sentences

I remember my English teacher saying that there are only two valid ways to make a one-word sentence:   * A question:  > Why? Where?   * A command: > Go! Stop! Is this correct?


Ways to write "2000 year old"

Which of the following are correct and which are wrong?   * The 2000-year-old computer   * The 2000 year-old computer   * The 2000 year old computer   * The 2000-years-old computer   * The 2000 years-old computer   * The 2000 years old computer In a documentary, BBC4 used the title _The 2000 year-old computer_ , which I believe to be wrong. Am I right?


"Change in scope" versus "Change of scope" versus "Change to (the) scope"

> Any changes **in** scope will be addressed during this meeting. or > Any changes **of** scope will be addressed during this meeting. or > Any changes **to** (the) scope will be addressed during this meeting. Proposition madness! I believe that I can make a case for each choice, but what does the board think? My intuition is that if one chooses the "to" preposition then I would have to include "the" before "scope," whereas "the" could be omitted from the first two options. Thoughts?


The dark dot in your eye

I think every single one of us has experienced a dark dot in his/her sight when looking at a white surface such as a white ceiling, there's something in our eye that with a little focus we can see it, and when we move our eyes around, that thing floats around quickly in your sight. It's like a substance on eye's surface, I want to know what is it called. Hope I'm clear enough.


Adjective to denote old-style theater

I'm looking for some words to denote pre-modernistic old-fashioned theater tradition with wigs, bombastic style of expression and so on. This kind of theater we can still observe at the provinces. In Russian, for this purpose we use expressions which can be translated as _naphthalene/cardboard performance_ , so I'm looking for some words like that.


Word or phrase that refers to the person who is the "focus" in a video?

In the case of, for example, birthday and weeding recordings, how do you call the people who are the main focus of the video (e.g. bride, groom and birthday boy/girl)? Example: > All the [...] of the videos shared something in common.


Are there any differences between later, latter and last?

Can I say a later bus? Or should I say a latter bus? For example I was in a hurry to catch a ... bus to the city centre.


STALE is to STEAL as 89475 is to

What means these question on "okcupid.com"? this is a profile question.


Adjective form of "adjective"

What is the adjective form of the word _adjective_? I wanted to say something like _adjectivial_ but that's not a word.


What does it mean to "squeal on someone"

What does it mean? > He can't squeal on him.


Is misplaced emphasis a form of mispronunciation?

I was speaking with someone today and he brought up the TV show "South Park", and he emphasized the "Park" whereas most people (and the show itself, I believe) emphasize the word "South". This got me thinking: is putting the emphasis on the wrong word considered a form of mispronouncing a phrase? I realize that the "correct" way to say a word or phrase is pretty subjective (especially considering dialects), but I guess the question can be limited to consider different emphasis within one dialect.


"I need something to practice on", what type of word is 'on'?

In the sentence "I need something to practice on", what type of word is _on_? It seems like an adverb, because it appears to be modiying the verb _practice_ , but that just doesn't seem right to me for some reason.


Did Milton really invent cooking?

I read in Mark Forsyth's _Etymologicon_ that Milton coined loads of words. That was great, until the list got to "cooking". I find it incredible that nobody stuck "ing" on the end of "cook" before _Paradise Lost_. The online etymology dictionary didn't have anything useful to say on the subject. Does anyone have a good source explaining the origin of this word, or the sense in which Milton coined it?


Put on a very impressive display

I found this phrase in a translation studies textbook, > Veeraphol Nakonluang-Promotion put on a very impressive display to knock out > defending champion Joichiro Tatsuyoshi of Japan to become the new World > Boxing Council (WBC) bantamweight champion in Japan yesterday. I know the meaning of the phrase. But I wonder...   Is this a fixed phrase?   Are there any good (perhaps better) alternatives?


Document "from" or "of" year 1988

If I refer to a document that was written in 1988, which is correct? > The document of 1988 mentions the birth of a legend. or > The document from 1988 mentions the birth of a legend.


What conjunction to use in a question sentence, if use any at all?

Consider these sentences for example. > Did anyone check they're working? > > Did anyone check that they're working? > > Did anyone check if they're working? What conjunction is right to use here or no conjunctions can be used? And why?


'2-3' or 'two to three' proper use

In the following sentence is the use of '2-3' appropriate for a PowerPoint presentation or should it be 'two to three'? > Research shows that a deaf child tends to produce signs 2-3 months earlier > than hearing children’s first spoken words. Is there a difference in the meanings between these two methods of statement?   Why is one preferred over the other, if it is?


One word for "hiding an obvious fact"

Is there one word for "hiding an **_obvious_** fact". For e.g. > I will not be **__** about the fact that this task is difficult. Some words that come to my mind are "deny" or "pretend", but they don't necessarily imply that there is something _obvious_ about the thing being denied. For e.g. > I will not deny the fact that this task is difficult (doesn't imply that the > task is _obviously_ difficult) Another example - > She kept mum about her affair with him, but it was obvious to everyone. > > She was **__** about her affair with him.


How to define a numbering system clearly and succintly

I'm attempting to write a definition of an ordering scheme, and can't find the correct wording. The ordering should allow for different types of numbering systems, such as: Item1, Item1a, Item2, Item3, Item4a, Item4b, etc. Item01, Item02, Item03, etc Item0100a, Item0101, etc I don't believe this is called numeric sequencing, b/c letter suffixes are allowed. Can anyone help with the proper phrasing of this? I'd like to write something like "Lists are sequenced numerically, with an optional letter suffix". However, that seems so wordy and awkward. Any help would be appreciated


A valid adjective to convey classification of the context "An element on which a transaction occurs or can occur"

> **Context** > > Elements such as Items/Inventory, Assets, Services are elements on which > business transactions **occur or can be be conducted upon** , with scope of > the transaction extending to both internal and external spheres. > > Where transactions can be such as the following, buying, selling, > transferring, issuing, receiving, returning, exchanging, producing and > disposing. * * * Although there exist other verbs/nouns from which adjectives are derived i.e.   * drink --> drinkable   * trade --> tradable I'am unable to come up with any to convey 'an entity that can be acted upon' sans implicit inference of a financial nature or of a type of action as specified above. Although the contrived adjectives such as 'Transactionable', 'Transactable' (as stated by the user Dan Bron) might convey context, it is not listed as such.


Extra vs Extraneous

I always thought "extra" is nothing but an abbreviation for "extraneous". However a friend of mine pointed out that the two are listed differently in the dictionaries, and have slightly different meanings. Is this accurate? What are the origins of these terms?


Illogical comparative

I have a little problem of understanding how to pick the preposition of "at" ,"of" or "in" in Illogical comparative : e.g. > The climate **in** the north is colder than that **of** the south. Why do we us "of" the south instead of "in" the south.   I am thinking it should be > The climate **in** the north is colder than the climate **in** the south. So why "of" ?


What is the meaning of "Startup guy"?

I read the expression _Startup guy_ very frequently, especially in public profiles like the one at https://twitter.com/alexisohanian What does this mean?


Right verb for 'pass'

I've a function that takes one or more arguments and I want to say the way to pass parameters. For instance: you can pass (maybe give?) a number and a string to that function. What is the right verb to say what I want to say? Thanks in advance! Wilk


A comma before that

I have come across the following sentence in Advanced Grammar in Use by Martin Hewings (Unit 100 Inversion (2)) > So dangerous did weather conditions become, that all mountain roads were > closed. I'm wondering whether the comma is not a mistake here. A similar sentence without inversion would read > Weather conditions were so dangerous that all mountain roads were closed. What say you?


Learn about their business or learn their business? Comma usage in a list of verbs

Tribal Fusion is an online advertising provider that helps brands **learn about** , reach and better engage their audiences. OR Tribal Fusion is an online advertising provider that helps brands **learn** , reach and better engage their audiences.


What is the correct spelling of the Arabic name سعد in English?

I need help in how to spell the Arabic name (سعد). I previously asked the question Sa'ad : Correct spelling in English and French; however, it got closed. I added a youtube video describing how it is pronounced, so experts can listen and try to describe how it would be spelled. Based on the FAQ, Spelling and punctuation are acceptable questions.


Apostrophe usage

I'm having a disagrement with the correct use of the apostrophe in the following sentence. > It is your responsibility to declare your fuel purchase at the checkout and > not the **stores**. I think that there should be an apostrophe before the second s in stores. As it is the store's responsiblity. However it is being claimed that the apostrophe is not used if it's afterwards.


Cleaner alternative for "sucks".

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Formal alternative for "suck" Since the word "sucks" does not have an origin that would make it a good word to use in many contexts, I want to know whether there is a cleaner alternative. I tried searching the thesaurus, but couldn't find any. Is there a cleaner alternative that can be used in all the contexts that "sucks" is used?


Word for a "waypoint" but along a time dimension?

I want to be able to say 'After the process has begun, there are these _time waypoints_ of 10 seconds, 30 seconds and 70 seconds from the start where I want this action to be performed.' I suppose I could say **milestones** , or **times**. But I was rather hoping for something better than this. I can't use the term **events** because in the context I'm in that's already a reserved word. There was another question I found already that was sort of like this, but I couldn't find the answer I wanted and it is now closed. Yet another question concerned a word for a time period, or interval, but I want a word for a marker from an absolute point in time (zero) rather than a relative distance.


Is “If not impossibly so” a popular phrase used in daily conversation?

I came across an expression, “If not impossibly so” in the review of movie, “Magic Mike” under the title of “The body politic” in New York Times (June 28). The phrase appears in the following sentence: > “The hard-working Mr. Tatum is scarcely non-Hollywood. – He’s pretty, _if > not impossibly so,_ with the looks of the heartthrob next door and the > wrestler’s neck, jug-handle ears and smiles that help bring him down to > earth. Unlike Matt Damon, though, Mr. Tatum hasn’t yet played smart on > screen.” I understand ‘If not impossibly so,’ is a phrase to show the author’s reservation from making a conclusive remark, but I feel somewhat redundant and circumlocutory in this double-negative construction. What does “If not impossibly so” exactly mean? What is the added value of using this phrase? Is this a phrase used in your daily conversation?


The use of the word 'surname' seems in decline

Should we use the term 'surname' or 'last name' to refer to a person's family name? If my name is How Gin-Tong and a form asks me for my 'last name', how am I meant to respond?


Is there a word for a class of circular shapes?

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but I'm wondering if there is a word for a class of circular shapes? Thinking about this hierarchically:               * Shape       * Polygon         * Square         * Rectangle       * ???????         * Circle         * Oval      **EDIT:** Ok, so mathematically I'm not sure there is a correct answer to my question that's any better than the one Mehper so eloquently explained (round shape). Let's break down what we have so far: In the blue corner: Noldorin               * Ellipsoid       * Ellipse         * Circle       * Oval      In the red corner: pretty much everyone else               * Oval       * Ellipse      Now, my question for the red team is: where does a circle fit in? From what I understand a circle can't be an oval, but a circle _is_ an ellipse. Those two facts make the following untrue:               * Oval       * Ellipse         * Circle      I'll stick with ellipsoid for now until I hear some better explanation. Also note this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsoid#Egg_shape An egg shape, which is an oval (not an ellipse) is comprised of two ellipses. This seems to make an oval a sub-class of an ellipse. Kindly correct me if I've made any mistakes.


Are there any examples of cross-language redundancy (e.g. "kielbasa sausage")?

I am amused by expressions that combine the same word in two different languages, for example:   * Kielbasa sausage: _kielbasa_ is Polish for sausage.   * ~~Chorizo sausage: _chorizo_ is Spanish for sausage.~~   * Queso cheese: _queso_ is Spanish for cheese.   * Carne asada steak: _carne asada_ is Spanish for _grilled meat_ , therefore you could just say _grilled steak_ instead. This phenomenon is not limited to English. In Spanish you often find not only redundancy but also contradiction:   * _bluyín_ : transliteration of blue jeans. A pair of blue jeans is called _un bluyín_.      * _bluyín azul_ : blue _blue jeans_ .     * _bluyín negro_ : black _blue jeans_ (black jeans).     * _bluyín blanco_ : white _blue jeans_ (white jeans).   * _bistec_ : transliteration of beef steak.     * _bistec de res_ : beef _beef steak_.     * _bistec de cerdo_ : pork _beef steak_ (pork chop).     * and my favorite, _bistec de pollo_ : chicken _beef steak_. Do you have any other examples that include at least one English word?


A common word that describes the first level relation. First level relation: Parent for an unmarried. Spouse for a married


Which antecedent does "them" refer to in this sentence?

> **_He knew people as only people of great sensitivity are able to know > them_** , as somebody who is alone and sees people almost prophetically, > from one flash of a face. > > (Jana Cerna, Milena Jesenska; from Jasenska's obituary of Kafka in _Kafka's > Milena,_ 1993) What does the phrase "He knew... know them" mean? I think that the "them" in the excerpt above is referring to "beautiful people" and the "such persons" in the longer excerpt below. But I'm still not sure how to fully interpret it. > He was too clear-sighted and too wise to be able to live; he was too weak to > fight, he had that weakness of noble, **_beautiful people_** who are not > able to do battle against the fear of misunderstandings, unkindness, or > intellectual lies. **_Such persons_** know beforehand that they are > powerless and go down in defeat in such a way that they shame the victor. He > knew people as only people of great sensitivity are able to know **_them_** > , as somebody who is alone and sees people almost prophetically, from one > flash of a face. He was himself a deep and extraordinary world.


Is "alien" offensive?

I understand that alien is used as a synonym of foreigner, as well as a synonym of extraterrestrial. I suspect that people from other planets wouldn't mind being called aliens. But is it wrong (offensive or somehow inappropriate) to call a person (from Earth!) visiting an English speaking country an alien?


Will lead to obtain / Will lead to the obtaining of?

I am not a native english speaker and I wonder whether the two following expression are valid:               It will lead to obtain [something].     It will lead to the obtaining of [something].      If both are valid, are they completely equivalent? If not what is the subtlety?


What does “stuff one's nose into another's orifices” mean?

According to Maureen Dowd's article in New York Times (May 20) under the headline, “Remember to forget,” the European Court of Justice ruled last week that Google and other search engines can be forced to remove search results about ordinary citizens linking to news articles, websites, court records and other documents if the information is deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” - even if it is truthful. She wrote; > Jaron Lanier, the author of “Who Owns the Future?” and a man known as “the > father of virtual reality,” vehemently agrees (the ruling). He thinks the > ruling rebuts Big Data’s “infantile desire for immediate gratification" > where you get to know everyone else’s secrets even as you seek to keep your > own. In order for others to be free, that means **you don’t get to stuff > your nose into all their orifices all the time**. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/opinion/dowd-remember-to- > forget.html?hp&rref=opinion I was unable to find out the meaning of the phrase “stuff one’s nose into (all) one’s orifices” in either of CED and OED, nor on Google search. What does it mean? Is it an idiom? Is “you don’t get to stuff ...” the same in meaning as “you don’t have to stuff ...”?


"It is time now" or "It is now time"?

> It is time **now** or > It is **now** time Which of these expressions is grammatically correct?


If a letter isn't pronounced but affects pronunciation of other letters, is it still 'silent'?

The 'e' in _paste_ isn't pronounced on its own, but changes the pronunciation of the 'a'. In that case, is the 'e' still referred to as silent?


One word for “someone who learns from others' mistakes"

Please give me one word for "someone who learns from others' mistakes". The word has escaped me for a while now. I've tried _observant_ but it's still not cutting it for me.


"Protagonist in" or "protagonist of"?

If I were to write an intro for a protagonist in say, a game, would I say he/she is the "protagonist _of_ [title]" or the "protagonist _in_ [title]"? Or does it matter?


What do you call this (these) writing "fallacies"

I just read this answer on Chinses.Stackexchange, and I see some obvious logical "leaps of faith" that I would like to know their most accurate and concise labels. > Many thought it is difficult to learn Mandarin Chinese. It is not quite > true! It takes efforts and time to learn it well, but what doesn't? It seems the author likes to set a premise for an argument, but then abandons the thread and leaves the reader hanging or to fill in the blanks. Simultaneously the opening statement is not addressed at all. A statement such as (made up by me) " _Many who struggled with Spanish in high school are able to enjoy and master Mandarin_ " > In our opinion, Chinese is one of the most interesting languages to learn in > the world! Chinese is a picture language, which means ancient Chinese people > draw different pictures as Chinese characters out of everything they saw in > the environment! Again, I see _Chinese is one of the most interesting languages in the world to learn_ as dangling a carrot in front of the reader and then pulling a Volkswagen Rabbit out of the hat without an explanation to it. What are the correct terms for these dangling logical propositions? Or at worst, what mental grammar model do these structures violate? I can't for the life of me label them at all.


Do you think these sentences are acceptable?

I'm a graduate student who studies linguistics in South Korea. Now, I'm writing a final term paper about 'Sluicing' which is a kind of an ellipsis structure in English. However, I lack in English intuition to determine whether the following sentences are acceptable to English native speakers. So, I want you to share your opinion with me. Please choose which one is acceptable! ① They were firing, but at what was unclear.   ② They were firing, but what at was unclear.   ③ They were firing, but at what they were firing was unclear.   ④ They were firing, but what they were firing at was unclear.   ⑤ They were firing, but it was unclear at what.   ⑥ They were firing, but it was unclear what at.   ⑦ They were firing, but it was unclear at what they were firing.   ⑧ They were firing, but it was unclear what they were firing at.


What does "transparently converted" mean?

> The result is _transparently converted_ to another data type. What does "transparently" mean in this context?


Comparative and Superlative for little?

What is the comparative and superlative for little?


Meaning of "get a serious reaming"

As a non-native reader, I stumbled upon the meaning of "get a serious reaming" and it seemed to be an idiomatic expression for being punished. At least the first Google matches seem to suggest this. Is this the whole truth, or does this idiom implicate something important besides it?


Interpretation of a message

Please help resolve a disputed text message and its meaning. The question is whether the sender of the message stated that he had left the garage door open when leaving the house. > I ve left the house and notice she's gone out and left the garage door open. The possible answers would be either   * Yes,    * No,    * or ambiguous. (big dispute between myself and a friend).


Is it correct to say “I myself”?

I thought it was incorrect to say _I myself_ as in: > **I myself** don’t like this idea. However, last night I was watching the second Harry Potter movie, and one of the characters said: > In case you ever need to defend yourselves as I myself have done on > countless occasions. I think there might be a difference between the two, but I wonder whether the first one is correct or even whether the second might be wrong.


Meaning of "snake in the grass"

I have tried to find this but failed, so I want to ask here. What is the meaning of _snake in the grass_?


Origin of the phrase "tell me when"

Growing up in my family, we would often use the phrase "tell me when" when serving each other food, pouring drinks, etc. For example, my mother would begin pouring me a glass of milk and say "tell me when"--I would then say "when" to indicate that she should stop pouring. When I got married, my wife was familiar with the phrase, and I had always assumed this was a common phrase. However, I don't remember using it much (if at all) outside of home. Is the usage of this phrase common? What are its origins?


permanence or maintenance

What form is the most correct? This justifies the permanence of the candidate in the current institution or This justifies the maintenance of the candidate in the current institution Is there any suitable alternative?


Is "unpeeling an orange" grammatically correct?

I found this unsourced reference. Which made me wonder if it is correct or not? Could this be considered an "auto-antonym" like ravel and unravel?


"I thought I'd never see you again" vs. "I never thought I'd see you again"

Why are those two sentences seemingly used in an interchangeable way? Example: A daughter is kidnapped. She's reunited with her father. Her father says "I never thought I'd see you again." Now, to me, these sentences mean two very different things:               I thought I'd never see you again. - It occurred to me that I may never look upon you again.          I never thought I'd see you again. - It never occurred to me to think about seeing you.      Am I wrong in my assumptions on these phrases? If not, why are they used in such an interchangeable manner all the time?


Why don't years have commas?

For example, if one asks "what's two thousand plus two thousand", one could write it like this: > 2,000 + 2,000 But when one writes the date: > January 2, 2000 So why do we put commas when writing numbers in a numerical equation but not with years?


Using the prepositions "on"/"off" as transitive verbs

Is it correct to say 'on it' or 'off it', where 'it' may refer to something like a light switch?


Upvote vs. Vote up

On StackExchange sites I usually use _upvote_. Elsewhere - _vote up_. What is the better variant - _upvote_ or _vote up_? Is it context-specific?


A non-clinical name for the ball on the outside of the ankle (the malleolus)?

The bony prominence on either side of the ankle are called the inner and outer malleolus. That term is however too technical to be used in the story I'm writing. Does the English language have any other terms for them?


Pronunciation of "Nevada"

People in the state of Nevada insist that it should be pronounced /nəˈvædə/ (with the vowel of TRAP)—this "issue" always comes up during campaigns—while much of the country typically pronounces it /nəˈvɑːdə/ (with the vowel of PALM). Is one correct over the other or are they both equal?


"Advice I wish I'd had ears to hear" — is this phrase in common use? Origins?

Productivity writer Merlin Mann often uses the phrase "ears to hear" on his podcast. An example from his writing: > "a discursive mishmash of advice I wish I'd had the ears to hear in the year > or five after graduating from college" Clearly, this means "advice I wish I'd been ready enough, or open minded enough to listen to". Is this a common idiom? I've not come across it elsewhere. Does it have any particular origins? I wonder whether it's related to this Bible verse: > "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."


Single/other term for "regular customer"?

Is there an English single term for a _regular customer_ who, because of always buying from the same seller, acquires a discount from the seller and might also treat their relationship as a friend. In our language ( _Filipino_ ), the seller call the regular customer as _"suki"_. _Patron_ sounds like a supporter and _habitué_ doesn't have the connotation of friendship. Is there a another term for it in English?


Substituting "do" after modals

Occasionally I hear native English speakers, typically those from outside the U.S., say things like: > Are you going to the concert this weekend?   >  Yeah, I might do. That is, rather than saying _I might go_ or just _I might_ , substituting _do_ for the verb when it'd otherwise be repeated or omitted after a modal. What's this called, how standard is it, and is it newer or older than the other forms? I just don't know how to search for something like this.


Connotations of "all the rage"

According to usingenglish.com "all the rage" means the following: > If something's all the rage, it is very popular or fashionable at the > moment. I understand this primary meaning. However, I was told that this idiom also implies popularity of _something_ short-term that will soon decline, leaving no tangible results. Is it so? Are there any other shades of meaning of this idiom?


What does "barefoot notes" mean?

Can someone please help me understand what "barefoot notes" means?


Difference between "close" and "near"

What is the difference between the adjectives _close_ and _near_? Are they totally synonymous? Is there some nuance that I'm missing? As a native speaker of Spanish, I can't see any difference, since both are translated to _cercano_.


Does the phrase "will ever be" include the past?

A colleague of mine told me that "Right now you are the oldest you have ever been and the youngest you will ever be." I don't believe this is the case. In my mind, the idea that he is trying to articulate is "will ever be, henceforth." When I hear "will ever be" I think that it includes the past, but I don't know which tense "will ever be" is in, technically. His use of the word 'will' makes it seem like he's talking about the future, but he also uses the word 'ever' which means 'at any time'. There must be some sort of complex interaction between these two words, I just can't figure it out. My best guess is that while he definitely states that the evaluation should include future dates, he doesn't carefully exclude the past, leaving this open to whether you think that 'will' or 'ever' is the more important word.


Short word that means "someone who takes notes"

I have _stenographer_ , _secretary_ and _recorder_ already (but they don't seem to be precise enough) and I'm hoping to find a shorter word if possible please. Some context, I'm a software engineer and the naming of entities within a program needs some precision. Since I was coding a simple example for a more non technical user I wanted a shorted and more precise word.


Comma after conjunction

Is it necessary that comma should come after every conjunction? For example > She ate apple and, banana in breakfast .


What does ‘Red meat rhetoric’ exactly mean?

I see quite often the expression _'Red meat rhetoric’_ these days in journals, for example > Obama’s _red meat rhetoric_ –CNN Conservative Media July 7. > > Mitt Romney delivers _red meat rhetoric_ to CPAC Crowd. - National Journal > Feb. 11. > > Tim Pawlenty needed _red meat rhetoric_ – I forgot the source. I checked the definition of this expression on both Cambridge Dictionary online and Merriam-Webster com. Neither of them registers it. I checked Google Ngram. It shows growing rise of the usage of ‘Red meat,’ notably coming into 1980s, but no ‘Red meat rhetoric' registration. I found two posts defining the word in Word Reference Com. Language Forum, which say;   * This is rather like the contrast between an aggressively carnivorous creature, an eater of red meat - perhaps a hyena; and a more gentle and judicious creature, a muncher of leaves and fruit - perhaps an orangutan   * Red meat" rhetoric is rhetoric that you can "chew on". "Chew on" = "think about". As opposed to rhetoric that you can "swallow whole," predigested. I don’t know either the above definitions are right or not, but they feel very loose. Can you provide me with a more concise and exact meaning of _Red meat rhetoric_?


Etymology of "Frenchified"

What is the etymology of the term _Frenchified_? In _The Gangs of New York_ (2002) Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting says > Careful, Tweedy. The Mort's **Frenchified** to William 'Boss' Tweed who has just decided to stay in his company on the account of some floozies. By looking it up or even merely from the context I can tell that he is referring to the great certainty of the temptress being affected by a form of venereal disease. This being said, I was not able to find why syphilis and the likes would be attributed to the French or be French in origin.


What should be a term of an item in Knowledge Base structure?

I am designing a Knowledge base system for automotive terms and issues.. I have to define reference term in my database for each element in web admin panel(CMS) And I am a bit lost with finding a proper generic term for an item which consists of the Knowledge Base usually. So the question is what a generic Knowledge Base consisting of? (Is that correct question?) Is it an article? A topic? An item? A subject? Firstly I thought to use "item" but to me an Item is something real.. something you can touch.. So I though a term "article" would be more close.. But article is kind of mmm... too article.. hehe :) I don't how to correctly describe what I don't like about it. So my best bet would be probably on "Topic" Then all elements would be referenced as "Topic Image", "Topic Title", "Topic Description" Does that make sense? **EDIT:** The purpose of the question is not how to name my functions or IDs in my program design, but more about a proper term usage and their correct meaning for each particular case.. So I believe this question is more about english grammar and terminology rather than UX or programming. In this topic I am trying to learn the usage of these terms. And in future apply this knowledge in different areas such as conversations, writings, and programming. My apology if it looks too confusing at first.


Where can I find an online website that allows ME to diagram MY sentences?

In other words, I want to fill in a form with the parts of speech and have it appear as a diagrammed sentence?


What's the meaning of "dummy up"?

What does "dummy up" mean here? > The cops wouldn't tell me who the owner was, but we're a military town, so I > took a chance. Called my insurance (USAA) and as luck would have it, that > was the other guy's insurance too!...Got my mechanic to **dummy up** a $50 > statement, just to submit it to USAA and have it on the douche's record. > That's what he gets for being a lying asshole.


"Appear" instead of "look" in compounds (good appearing, cheesy appearing, etc.)

As far as your English variety goes, is it OK to substitute "appearing" for "looking" in compounds without altering the meaning? > ... _for a business to want **good appearing** , well dressed, healthy > workers_... source > > _Passersby then began to comment on the **nice appearing** patterns_... > source > > _It is **good appearing** , not far too bouncing_... source


Why hasn't the pronunciation of w been shortened?

"Double u" is a rather long pronunciation for a letter. Why do we not yet have a shortened pronunciation yet? Is the letter simply too young, or are there other reasons?


Changing passive voice to active voice or vice versa

1. Bingo is played in Britain.   2. Lots of houses were destroyed.   3. French is spoken in Nigeria.   4. The bus driver was hurt.


What do you call a member of a staff at a university?

A faculty may consist of professors; then, what does a staff consist of? For example, I want to know which noun can refer to a member of the staff in this cs.toronto.edu staff list, with job titles like   * Administrative & Financial Assistant   * Administrative & Financial Assistant - AI   * Administrative HR Assistant   * Financial Assistant   * Financial Officer   * Graduate Assistant   * Graduate Program Administrator   * Graduate Program Assistant   * Technical Staff - CDF Supervisor   * Technical Staff - CSLab   * Undergraduate Assistant and many more.


Young and inexperienced, I thought the task (seemed) easy

this one is from "The Element of Style." Young and inexperienced, I thought the task easy. I think it should be "young and inexperienced, I thought the task seemed easy." What are your thoughts?


'in search for/of true love?'

I need to update my fb status: > in search **for** true love or > in search **of** true love Which one is grammatically correct ?


What to call someone who is easily overwhelmed by new impressions and situations?

One word for the above question. No matter what new situation, person or experience is encountered this person feels overwhelmed by sensory overload perhaps. He isn't scared though, just can't deal with so many new impressions at the same time. It overloads the brain.


Word for excessive use of adjectives or a long stream of adjectives

I was tasked with analyzing an article, and I encountered within the text a long sentence with a stream of adjectives, e.g. > Gove and all the other know-nothing know-it-alls happily continue to peddle > their **sneering, condescending, dismissive, misanthropic, elitist, made-up > twaddle**. Is there an appellation for such an occurrence? In addition, is there a specific word for excessive use of adjectives? I know circumlocution may be appropriate for the second question, but I was hoping there was a word specific to adjectives or adverbs.


Is he "a hero" or "hero"?

> Edward Snowden's leak of classified government documents has provoked mixed > reactions: is Snowden **hero** or traitor, patriot or coward? So is _hero_ here used as an adjective? If not why is there no article?


Is it acceptable to capitalize class names and attributes when referencing my programming code in a message?

In programming we often create reusable data structures that contain attributes to store information. For example, if writing a piece of software that has to do with cars we may have a `Car` class that has various attributes like `color`, `make`, `year`, etc. If I am writing about my software is it acceptable to capitalize these class and attribute names? e.g. `Should the Color attribute in the Car class contain pink?` `What does Make mean?`


Verb for increasing the vertical dimension of a space?

The highway department is currently enlarging a tunnel, not to _widen_ it but to... what? Is there a single verb that means to increase the vertical dimension of something? (For purposes of this question it does not matter whether they're doing that by modifying the floor or the ceiling.) _Raise_ is not correct because raising doesn't change size, only elevation. One can talk about raising the ceiling (which is how they are enlarging the tunnel), but that's not a single word. _Heighten_ (suggested in an answer) seems questionable, e.g. from thefreedictionary.com "to make high or higher; raise". If I were looking for an adjective this wouldn't be a problem; "tall" would suit. But it doesn't have a corresponding verbal form, and dictionary entries aren't giving me hints.


Can "daisy chain" be a verb?

I edited this question and used "daisy chain" as a verb. I'm wondering if that title is technically grammatically correct.


Does 'get involved' have negative connotations?

When you use the phrase 'get involved', do you expect an object for it should be negative? I've seen some examples using it since now. Their objects were mostly negative. Examples: > get involved in a bribery affair   >  get involved in a quarrel   >  get involved in an accident


"Never mind" in AmE and BrE

Reading some forum pages about the meaning of this phrase, I realized that there's a difference in usage of it, between American and British English. What's the difference in meaning of "never mind" in American English and British English?


Etymology of reduplicative compound "nitty-gritty"

I've always been curious about that one and I've come across many contending theories for the etymology of _nitty-gritty_. English is quite fond of these _reduplicative compounds_. I'd like to know whether some consensus has been achieved in this area.


Is the meme, "all your base are belong to us" correct for any time period?

Surely many people have heard, “all your base are belong to us”. It is a popular internet meme from 2000. The _Wikipedia_ page calls it “broken English”, but it seems as if some translations of _The Bible_ use the same construction, as evident in this question: > Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are > passed away; behold, all things are become new. — _II Corinthians 5:17_ If “all things are become new” is correct, then could “all your base are belong to us” also be correct? Do both of these follow the same form? And, is it possible that they were both written under the direction of God Almighty?


What's the difference between "Weltanschauung" and "worldview"?

On an academic legal blog I visit, from time to time I see people using the word _Weltanschauung_ where I feel _worldview_ would have sufficed. It all seems a bit ostentatious to me, as I'm pretty sure that _Weltanschauung_ had a precise academic usage before it became (fairly) common lingo. If in fact there is a difference between the two words, can someone demonstrate that difference to me, and illustrate with a couple of sentences when one word would be a better choice than the other?


"Toe the Party Line" or "Tow the Party Line"?

When I have seen this expression written, it is usually as "tow the line" as if the subject were a tugboat. I have always thought that "toe the line" made more sense as a fighting expression, where the fighter puts his toe on the line to indicate he is up to scratch and ready to fight. What is the origin of this phrase?


Meaning of "it's the tie to go along with X's tux"

I found this when learning underscore.js (a programming framework). The introduction says: > It's the tie to go along with jQuery's tux. Does it mean that it is to be used along with jQuery or is it a replacement to jQuery? (jQuery is another programming framework.)


Meta Information in Conversations

The following is from the 12th chapter of Psalms in the King James Bible: > 5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I > arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at > him. 6 _The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace > of earth, purified seven times._ 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt > preserve them from this generation for ever. The anaphor "them" in verse 7 can be associated to either the antecedent "words" of verse 6, or the "poor" and "needy" of verse 5. It's clear in other translations that the proper coreference is "them" and the "poor and needy," however verse six causes a disruption in the English language and introduces a new antecedent, "the words." Verse six reads more like a side-note on verse 5 (specifically, the promise to arise and protect), a deviation from the direct message. Is there a name for these types of meta-statements that may show up from time to time in discussions. If so, what types of rules govern their usage? I am trying to find out if it's possible to objectively demonstrate the correct antecedent when something like this takes place.


"Shnide"? "Schneid"? Which is it and what's this term's origin?

"Getting off the shnide." (Obviously I'm not sure of the spelling.) It's an expression I hear almost exclusively in sports commentary to indicate a team has finally won a game after a protracted drought at the beginning of the season. (Example: "The Detroit Lions started the season oh-and-six, but finally got off the schneid by beating Green Bay.") It has been popularized by Chris Berman at ESPN. He didn't invent the term (I don't think) and he is primarily where I hear it from.   * How _do_ you spell it?   * What is its origin? (I'm guessing Yiddish based on the "shn" combination, but I don't really know)


Can a person be (at the?) state-of-the-art [on/in/of] something?

I'm writing a recommendation for a fellow IT expert, and I want to say that this person loves to investigate the state-of-the-art technology, always checks out the most recent things on the market the minute they are released, and is always on top of what's happening in the technology world. What's the concise way of saying it?


Exact definition of "vehemently"

My work mates and I are arguing about this term since none of us can comprehend its exact definition. Can I use the expression "I have been struggling vehemently to get this email sent since last month!" with validity?


Understanding etymology of 'misgiving'

From etymonline: > misgiving (n.) > > c.1600, "feeling of mistrust or sudden apprehension," from misgive "cause to > feel doubt" (1510s), usually said of one's heart or mind, from mis- (1) + > give in its Middle English sense of "suggest." How does "mis+suggest" imply "feeling of mistrust or sudden apprehension," and "cause to feel doubt"?


Consecutive infinitives

Is there a rule governing when it is acceptable to position two infinitives in a row? E.g.: The witness plans to refuse to testify.


"Compete with" or "compete against"

Is it correct to say _compete with_ or _compete against_? I think _compete against_ is the proper way, but _compete with_ is extremely popular these days. Here's an example: It should be > Apple MacOS **competes against** Windows 7... but I have seen the other way.


When referring to a specific war (or other named event), should the word "war" be capitalized when it appears alone?

> The Cold War instilled a fear of nuclear war in the public; additionally, > the [war] was responsible for an extreme anti-Communist sentiment that > lingers to this day. Should the bracketed instance of "war" be capitalized? _Can_ it be capitalized, possibly as an abbreviation of the war's full name?


Does the letter C serve any unique purpose?

Does the letter 'C' make any sound that cannot be made by other letters? "Cat" could be spelled "Kat," "Cinder" could be spelled "Sinder," and "Watch" could be spelled "Watsh." * * * **Edit:** An excerpt from a comment by Kosmonaut: > There is no difference between ["ch" and "tch"]; both are /tʃ/. Thus, > "witch" and "which" are pronounced exactly the same: [wɪtʃ]. (Actually some > Southern American dialects pronounce "which" as [ʍɪtʃ], but that is only a > difference in the "w" sound, not the /tʃ/.)


Should an article be used for the word “war”?

I’ve been reading much about the US _poverty war_ recently. Some people say: > He declared **the** war on poverty fifty years ago. But others say: > He declared war on poverty fifty years ago. Should one use an article before the word _war_? It is really hard for an English learner to master the usage of articles. For me, it is weird to leave a _countable_ noun with no article, an example being _war_.


Adjective for a thing done without regard to the situation

A police officer pulls over a driver whose vehicle has gone past the speed limit. The driver explains -- sweating and grimacing -- that he is racing to the hospital to be treated for an unbearable sudden pain. But the officer writes the driver a speeding ticket anyway. After all, the driver has broken the law, and his pain is another matter entirely. * * * In the scenario above, the officer has ignored the _context_ around the driver's misdemeanor. Instead, he has acted **___ __ ___ _**. Later that night, facing an astronomical medical bill, and a hefty fine for his traffic violation, the driver laments the **___ __ ___ _** nature of the law. * * * I'm looking for a word that could fill in those two blanks. That is, a word that describes a thing done, an action taken, or a decision made without being shaped by its context.


How is this quote interpreted?

I was going through Goodreads and found this quote > “Show me a hero, and I'll write you a tragedy.” > > ― F. Scott Fitzgerald I thought it means behind every hero there is a story of his   struggle to become a hero.(efforts/hard work/sacrifices etc etc) (1) Are there any hidden interpretation(s) to it? (2) Reading more online I saw one site referencing it to the word Hamartia ?   Does it relate to Hamartia ? If so, how?


Word for "little insect"

What's the best word for small kind animals such as earthworms, butterflies and caterpillars but not the bad bugs like flies, mosquitoes and cockroaches? The word may refer to the bad bugs, but it should sound sweet and kindly, and girls may use it as a nickname.


Using "déjà vu" as an adjective

Usually, I use the word _déjà vu_ as a noun, e.g. "sense of déjà vu aroused by an experience". But the sentence sounds somewhat passive this way and less interesting and also long. I couldn't find an adjective form of the word _déjà vu_ to make the sentence more active like "déjà vu' _tic_ experience". How can I make use of the word and yet form my sentence in a more active and impactful manner without having too many "by"'s and "of"'s?


What is the "explicit"'s equivalent of "imply"?

> _**Note** : The original title of this question was_ "Why is 'exply' not a > word? While considering the words _implicit_ , _implicate_ , and _imply_ , it struck me that I can't think of an equivalent to _imply_ for the word _explicit_ (specifically one with the same Latin root). Is _explain_ the equivalent? It ~~has~~ _seems to have_ * the same Latin root, but doesn't have the full connotation of intentionally making something _explicit_. * ( ** _Edit:** Thanks, Jason and e.James, for the clarification on this_)


Meaning of "strips thin but delicate"

What is the meaning of "strips thin but very delicate" in the following precisely-quoted passage? > "My grandson Vin come at weekends and he likes to sun himself in the garden. > He strips thin but very delicate, and a lovely choice of the trunks. Gold > and white satin." — p.57, _Anglo-Saxon Attitudes_ , 1956, Angus Wilson. The quotation is part of Mrs. Salad's explanation to Gerald Middleton about living at the residence of her daughter, Gladys. Mrs. Salad is Middleton's former char-lady, and is visiting him two days before Christmas, for exchange of gifts.


"Graphics gallery" or "graphic gallery"

Is the term _graphics gallery_ or _graphic gallery_ more appropriate for a gallery that contains images? _Graphics gallery_ sounds more right. However, I would choose _photo gallery_ over _photos gallery_ and _image gallery_ over _images gallery_.


What is the word that means the way that a word feels in the mouth when it is spoken?

I have found some words for pleasant sounding words, such as mellifluous and phonoaesthetics. However I am seeking a word, either in English or any other language, that means the feel of a word as it is being spoken. The closest I can get is mouthfeel, or phrases such as rolls off the tongue or feels good to say.


What is the difference in nuance between these sentences?

> It's probably / certainly going to rain in minutes. > > It'll probably / certainly rain in minutes. Is the 1st one based on something we can see now and the 2nd one based on our personal opinion or knowledge?


What is difference between congregate and aggregate? I see that those words deal with same things, but there are difference, and I don't see which?


"Winner winner chicken dinner"

What's the proper context to use this phrase? And who would usually say something like this? Sounds very childish.


Why are certain categories of words more likely to vary between British and American English?

There are certain groups of words that are much more likely to vary between British and American dialects of English.   * terms relating to cars, trains and roads (boot/trunk, bonnet/hood, railway/railroad, brake van/caboose, points/switches, pavement/sidewalk, road surface/pavement)   * cooking and food terminology (corinader/cilantro, barbecue/grill, grill/broil, /barbecue)   * education (university/school, form/grade, invigilate/proctor) have big concentrations of dialect differences, while computing has very few. Is there a systemic reason why some subjects have many variants between the two dialects and others have very few variants? If not, what other subjects have large concentrations of dialect differences for the unwary to pay attention to?


Hard real time in user space with preempt_rt patch

From: https://rt.wiki.kernel.org/articles/f/r/e/Frequently_Asked_Questions_7407.html > Real-time only has impact on the kernel; Userspace does not notice the > difference except for better real time behavior. Does it mean that if we write the applications in user space, they won't get the hard real time effect? I am not able to understand the English behind it.


"Could have" vs "might have" (in lucky escape situation)

>   1. That was a lucky escape! You might have been killed. >   2. That was a lucky escape! You could have been killed. > Which one is more suitable in this situation? Is there any difference between them? Thanks in advance!


Meaning of "The nature of your imagining makes the claim that there couldn’t be a hearing of the imagined sort seem mistaken"

I need help with understanding this sentence: > The nature of your imagining makes the claim that there couldn’t be a > hearing of the imagined sort seem mistaken.


Two cultures — "bicultural", one culture —?

I am looking for a word that means that somebody only has one culture. For example, somebody immigrating from Country 1 to Country 2 would be bicultural. What is someone who has only one culture. I thought unicultural but I don't think that is correct.


Is there a term or adjective to describe this plot device?

Imagine you are watching or reading a work in which a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required (such a work is typically science fiction or fantasy). And then, out of nowhere, comes this other plot device which cannot be a plot hole just by the sheer amount of thought that had to be put into it, but, nonetheless, actively counteracts the suspension of disbelief thus far achieved. Is there a term or adjective that describes such a device? These devices are distinctive in that they are frustrating because even granted the often remarkable postulates of the plot, they are still ridiculous or ask too much of the reader/viewer. I'm sure many people have experienced this phenomenon and have been frustrated by it. Whenever I've experienced it among friends or family, we often quip at the person who points it out by saying "This is what you have a problem with?", or something of the like, and go on to point out the equally ridiculous or more ludicrous events that have happened or things that exist. Of course, this quip is in jest and everyone agrees that it's ridiculous, but we are unwilling to pause to discuss it, and it is easier to accept it and move on. I have many examples of this type of device. Of the ones I have in mind that would be well-known are of the 'cop-out' flavor, or in highbrow terms _deus ex machina_. For example, the eagles in the Lord of the Rings. J.R.R. Tolkien requires us to suspend a lot of disbelief such as disbelief in elves, hobbits, dragons, etc. But then he invokes the use of the eagles to save the heroes on more than one occasion; and yet, they are not used to end the main conflict in the story. There are many more examples of that flavor, but I'm asking for a more general term. At the risk of losing some readers but for the sake of another example, I was particularly confused by Karl Ruprecht Kroenen from Hellboy. First of all, Hellboy required the audience to accept the existence of demons, mutants, and Nazis that created a portal to hell. All that is fine and good, but then Karl shows up, who somehow achieved immortality for himself through genius, but nonetheless needs to 'wind himself up' like a common pocket-clock. As though a person with that amount of genius couldn't figure out how to automate that required function. Any suggestions to describe this type of plot device are appreciated.


Explanations on the tense of the expression, "XX said that..."

Here's the example that triggered me to ask this question > Sony Corp. said Thursday it wants to become the biggest player in Japan's > growing Android tablet market by changing the way the devices are used. If we take a look at the use of tense in the above sentence, we can see the past tense was used for the main sentence, "Sony Corp. **said** Thursday." I am happy with that. But when it comes to its objective clause (hopefully that's the right term here), the tense somehow is not consistent with the main sentence, indicating the present tense by using the verb **wants**. Is it grammatically correct or not? I'd appreciate if someone can explain it to me.


Is this correct: "Aloof the hallow things shall always be"?

I'm writing a poem, and I wondered if, to a native speaker, this would sound awkward (or grammatically incorrect): > Aloof the hallow things shall always be. As a variant of > The hallow things shall always be aloof. Is my phrase grammatically correct (for a poem)?


I quote/ I am quoting

This is the last paragraph of a book review: "To conclude, I quote the concluding paragraph from the..." Is this correct English? Why is it "I quote"? Can "I am quoting" be used insteand?


Can this statement be called a paradox?

The sentence is: > She needs her glasses to find her glasses. The inference that she doesn't have her glasses and she needs her glasses to find her glasses somehow sounds paradoxical, but is it really paradoxical? If not, is there a term that can be used to describe the seeming contradiction?


Is there a word to describe the kind of sentence where one uses one's own point to prove one's point?

These sentences sound illogical. Their arguments can fall to pieces easily. >   * "God exists because The Bible says so, and The Bible is the word of > God." >   * "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects > won't sink in water. >   * "If you don't believe me, ask Mary. I vouch for her integrity." > Is there a word to describe such reasoning?


A word that describes both "encoding" and "decoding"?

I am looking for a word that describes _both_ of these activities, however the word _coding_ does not seem to be suitable. Likewise with _encryption_ and _decryption_ , _cryption_ does not work well.


why would one use the word "environment" relating to business and job creation?

Actual phrase reads "Strengthening the Environment for Business and Job Creation" Single word - Environment


Does the term "abusive" connote intent?

When applied to an individual, does the term "abusive" imply that the individual harbors malicious intent? Similarly, if applied to an action, does "abusive" infer that the individual who performed it had unsavory intentions?


What does "I stand corrected" mean?

When someone says > I stand corrected. What does that mean?


What is the difference between metonymy and synecdoche?


"Parting shot" origin

Is there a connection betweem "a parting shot at the end of a discussion" and the Parthian horse archer practice of wheeling from the battle line and firing an arrow on the run?


"Senseless" and "irrelevant" synonyms of "unreasonable"

Aren't "senseless" and "irrelevant" synonyms of "unreasonable"? This question is related to:   * What does it mean when someone calls himself “non sequitur”?   * comments to to my answer to Is there a better noun form of “unreasonable” than “unreasonableness?” Is not “unreasonable” synonym to “senseless” and “irrelevant”? Update:   Thanks for answers. I still did not grasp the definitions well. Is the behavior of Grigori Perelman,   insistingly rejecting intrusions into his private life,   for example, like making a show of him by awarding him a $million,   is seen as non sequitur, unreasonable or senseless   in the eyes of general public and organizers of shows around mathematical sciences?


Are prepositions fixed for words?

Is it fixed that words will always take a specific preposition after them?   I am reading a book "High school English grammar". It says for example > The following nouns take preposition **for** after them. :- ambition, blame, > aptitude candidate, match, ... and > The following nouns take preposition **of** after them. :- assurance, > charge, distrust, doubt, failure, ... and same for other prepositions Is that so? I am not a native English speaker but I doubt what is written in the book, I think prepositions are used according to meaning of sentence and are not fixed.


Do I spell out a time in an essay?

When I am writing an essay, do I spell out times? How would I write AM or PM? **Example:** > 11:45 PM How would I write that?


Meaning of "Render onto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"

> Render onto Caesar the things which are Caesar's What does this sentence mean?


Numbers / number

![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/E9vDE.png) By looking at the graph above, should numbers or number be used in this context? > Overall, the **numbers** of international tourists arrived in these five > countries had increased over the period > > Overall, the **number** of international tourists arrived in these five > countries had increased over the period


What's a sophisticated synonym for "cooking"?

I'm looking for a word that essentially means "to cook" but sounds fancy and sophisticated. What synonyms are there? **Edit:** As for context, I'm thinking of a restaurant setting.


What is an alternative, succinct phrase for something that is not prone to errors?

What is an alternative, succinct phrase for something that is not prone to errors, i.e. the antonym of error-prone? "Error-free" is too extreme in that it suggests infallibility.


Can accomplished be used synonymously with executed or carried out?

I've stumbled upon this sentence and to me it just sounds a bit off: > The selection of shops is accomplished by our company. I've never seen accomplished used in that context and I was just wondering if using a word such as "carried out" would sound more natural or if this is indeed a valid usage of accomplished.


Can I address someone in an email with their first name if they sign with their first name?

I'm planning to do an internship and I usually address my supervisor as Mr. X, however, he signs his emails with his first name is that means I can address him with his first name ? Note: I haven't met him yet.(if that's makes a difference)


Meaning - Conversation

> (Source) And now Nineteen persons having been hang'd, and one prest to > death, and Eight more condemned, in all Twenty and Eight, of which above a > third part were Members of some of the Churches of N. England, and more than > half of them of a good **Conversation** in general, and not one clear'd; > about Fifty having confest themselves to be Witches, of which not one > Executed; above an Hundred and Fifty in Prison, and Two Hundred more > accused; the Special Commision of Oyer and Terminer comes to a period. > —Robert Calef[1] What does **Conversation** mean here? Also, why's it capitalised? Further to simply stating the definition, would you please explain how you inferred or determined the correct definition, so that I can learn how to do this myself? Is it definition 1 here?


Central to their value proposition

I heard someone (whom I wasn't able to ask to explain the meaning) use the idiom "[blah blah blah] was `central to their value proposition`". What does that mean?


The difference between slick and sleek

What is the difference between the two adjectives: _slick_ and _sleek_?   My dictionary returns almost the same explanation for both, like _smooth_ and _glossy_. Could someone explain when it would be more appropriate to use one or the other.   Thank you.


What adjective can describe someone who counts his chickens before they're hatched?

For example, someone who writes "I chose to study biology and chemistry at school because I am going to become a doctor after graduating."


How to quote a book that has a quote in the text that I'm quoting?

I'm trying to quote this in my paper: > despite the universal desire to return to "normal," things changed How would I quote this in MLA? Would I substitute the double quotations for single, or use double quotes for everything? Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Grammaticality of "the" in "I am going to the Asda later"

A friend of mine and I are having a long standing debate about the correctness of a sentence. Informing me what he was doing later that day he said: > I am going to the Asda later. **Note: To anyone outside of the UK, Asda is a supermarket/grocery store.** I corrected him and said, "don't you mean, I am going to Asda later". He insists that the definite article "the" is needed because he is referring to a particular Asda near where he lives. I argued that he didn't state which Asda he was referring to (and it is not obvious to me) so therefore the definite article is incorrect. If he had said "I am going to the Asda near my house", that would make more sense. He states that "... Asda near my house" is implied because **he** knows which Asda he is talking about, but I argued that I do not know which Asda he is talking about so the "... near my house" cannot be implied. It is my (arguably limited) understanding that we don't use the definite article when referring to place names or company names (there are exceptions of course). Incorrect usages:   * I am going to the Germany on holiday   * I am going to the Walmart later But if we add the context "...near where I live", Asda becomes a noun because we are now referring to the actual store or building so the definite article is needed. "I am going to the Asda near where I live" So, to settle a long standing debate. If I have no knowledge of the "Asda" he is referring to, can he imply it and use the definite article "the"? UPDATE In response to the answers below: Consider the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun > A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique > entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft Asda is clearly a proper noun. With regard to the use of definite articles and proper nouns: http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/tsw/art-pnou.htm > In general, do not use an article with a proper noun unless the noun > contains a prepositional phrase. With the above in mind, it seems logical to me that the following statement is incorrect. I am going to the Microsoft later. Therefore my reasoning is that "I am going to the Asda later" is also incorrect. "Later" is not a preposition so I believe that the only time you can use the article is when the person communicating the intent converts the proper noun into a noun i.e. place, thing. I am going to the Asda store. "Store" makes it a noun. As does a prepositional phrase "... near where I live". In summary, it is my belief that: "I am going to the Asda near where I live" is correct. "I am going to the Asda" is not. Happy to be wrong!


Can "it" be used as "which" to represent what the previous sentence means?

> The priority is to lay down the moral base of this society: including > ethical principles and political justice. It means that what we are going to > seek out and construct is the “republican virtue” which is a full virtue, > concerning both institutional justice and individual duty. Here I use "it" of the second sentence to represent the whole first sentence. It is equal to "A. which means B...". Can it be used in this way?


Is "to move from people to more abstract things" suitable in this sentence?

> To move from people to more abstract things, the admiration and esteem for > teachers can be extended to knowledge and practical wisdom, talent in arts, > and scientific creativity. (self-made) The context is that China has a tradition to revere teachers, but this moral idea is not restricted to teachers, actually it extends to general culture and education. I am not sure whether "to move from people to more abstract things" makes sense to you people?


Name for this particular part of a boat?

In John Dewey's _How We Think_ , there is an example of someone reflecting on the purpose of a particular part of a boat: > Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which > I daily cross the river, is a long white pole, bearing a gilded ball at its > tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color shape, and > gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in > this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly > horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was > no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were > elsewhere two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. After a bit of reasoning (which you can see in #2 here), the person decides what he thinks the 'pole' is for. > I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing > the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer > correctly. However, Dewey never provides the name of the actual part. I've been looking around for a word to describe this so that I can find a picture of it! I found this list of words and thought it might be a 'bowsprit' or a 'jibboom'. Both are excellent words but may be inaccurate. Looking up 'ferryboat' does not help; I think ferries have changed so much since 1910 that finding a matching word, description, or picture using this search term alone is not going to be possible! Any ideas? **UPDATE:** In both these pictures, you might just about see the part I'm talking about as a dark line angling up and out from the upper deck, in front of the bridge. Assuming that I've read Dewey's description correctly, that is. ![You can just about see the part I'm talking about in this image as a dark line angling up and out from the upper deck, in front of the bridge.](http://i.stack.imgur.com/3Rs3X.jpg) ![You can just about see the part I'm talking about in this image as a dark line angling up and out from the upper deck, in front of the bridge.](http://i.stack.imgur.com/GkX9s.jpg) **FURTHER UPDATE:** I think I have found a clearer picture of what I'm looking for (or is this just a standard flagstaff?) -- see the _Eureka_ , an 1890 ferryboat. But is the end shown below the stern or the bow? [Source.] ![A clear picture of the one end of the Eureka ](http://i.stack.imgur.com/1anUW.jpg)


I'm not sure if this place is the right place for asking this question. (Forgive me if I'm doing something wrong at the moment.) I would like to know if Is there a study guide for determining missing topics in English for foreign learners? I have a book named "Grammar In Use", it has a study guide part when I answer questions on that part I can learn which topics of English missing for me, such as Future tense,passive voice...are missing . Study unit 1,2 ... so on. Is there any good online resource or software do similar job for me. I would like to evaluate my free time logically. Note:I'm not asking for a level test. I would like to learn what exactly I really do not know. Thanks in Advance


Should I say "I’ve been also" or "I've also been"?

Where should the word "also" appear in the sentence: > I've been in Paris. Google result count:   * "i've been also" 2,090,000   * "i've also been" 76,000,000 It seems like the second is more common, but why is that so?


What's the reason for the difference in pronunciation between "dispatch" and "dispatcher"?

I checked some online dictionary and found that the pronunciations of _p_ in _dispatch_ and _dispatcher_ are a little different. What's the reason or pronunciation rule for this difference?


This good answer ended up with a lot of comments about whether the phrase is "close-minded" or "closed-minded." Since this debate seems to have reasonable arguments on both sides, I thought a new question would be prudent. Personally, I think it is _close-minded_ , the opposite of _open-minded_ , and that both of these ( _open_ and _close_ ) use the intransitive forms of these verbs. In another words, I think the mind opens or the mind closes, as opposed to the mind being opened or closed. But I thought the comments raised some interesting points about the word formation, and I may have to reconsider my opinion. Is it "close-minded" or "closed-minded"? EDIT: The NGrams are nice to demonstrate usage, but what I would like to know is more along the lines of _why_ rather than _which_.


What do Brits means when they say "perving around"?

A friend mentioned her British girlfriend talking about drinking and "perving around the pool." What are the possible meanings for this? I gather from my friend's story that this Brit wasn't a pervert, as the word might imply, but was it an ironic usage? Anyone from the U.K. want to chime in?


What does it mean "plays with data, words and music"?

One of my friend wrote on her profile, "plays with data, words and music." She is a data scientist. Is this also wordplay?


I have questions about the paragraph I can't understand

**Of** groups of atoms collected together and **able** to think, to look out in wonder at the universe that made us, and build machines that can revisit our origins in the Big Bang. Question 1. What is meaning of the 'of'? Question 2. Is it correct that 'and was able'? Was the 'was' omitted? Thanks for reading.


'well-organised' or 'well organised' - hyphenated?

Should I hyphenate the term 'well organised'? The context, if it matters, is the following sentence: > For this role you should be well organised and analytical with some research > ability. (I see there are other question here about hyphenation; do point me to one if this falls under a general rule, I just couldn't see it.)


Is there a verb to describe opening a can with a tab?

Is there a verb in the English language that describes the act of opening a can with a tab (like soda, for example). The closest I can get is "cracked open", but I'd like something more concise. What about in other languages?


"Unequivocably" vs. "unequivocally"

I was interested in the following sentence which appeared in a news article titled “SCIENCE WATCH; PROGRESS IN AIDS DISPUTE” in The New York Times (March 10, 1987). > Dr. Robert Gallo at the cancer institute later isolated the same virus and > asserts that his laboratory first demonstrated **unequivocably** the role of > the virus in causing AIDS. After searching on Oxford Dictionaries, I have found no item for "unequivocably", but I got a lot of hits (139.000) from Google; so I am wondering if "unequivocably" is in common usage nowadays. Can someone clarify this question? Or is "unequivocably" a common error?


Can "the man from Earth" mean "caveman"?

There is a movie called "The Man from Earth" and someone told me that the title is referring to "caveman" because "Earth" meant "cave". I doubt that. I can't find any dictionary supporting that explanation. All I want to know is whether the statement is true in English: Does the phrase "man from earth" mean "caveman"?


Proper pronunciation of ordinal numbers?

Ok, so these few are easy: > 1st (first)   >  2nd (second)   >  3rd (third)   >  4th (fourth)   >  ...... And all other ordinal numbers ending in 1, 2 or 3 have their respective values, except for _11th, 12th_ and _13th,_ as far as I'm concerned. But when you reach numbers like **_601st_** , what is the correct way to pronounce it? These were options I was going over: > six hundred and first   >  six hundred first   >  six hundred and oneth (final thought) So, which one is it? None of them sound 100% right. Have I missed the correct one out completely? Please help.


Reported Speech

I am correcting a reported speech test. I am more than familiar with the backshifts and exceptions. However, I would need some help to see if I can accept these two reports:   1. "We can't protect our planet if we don't stop littering."   = She told us we couldn't protect our planet if we DON'T stop littering.   2. "We must work harder if we want to make a difference."   = She told him they had to work harder if they WANT to make a difference.


Do I need an article here?

Which of the phrases is correct and why? "This document assumes a general familiarity with ..." or "This document assumes general familiarity with ..." Google search gives me approximately equal distribution of occurrences, so I don't know which one is better. Would greatly appreciate your assistance.


"Mass communications shapes the world we live in"

I am editing a web page and came across this declaration:               Mass communications shapes the world we live in      It looks wrong to me, but I am wondering if it should be               Mass communication shapes the world we live in      or               Mass communications shape the world we live in      Any thoughts on this?


Reading dollar amounts

I have a question regarding reading dollar amounts. At this store, I saw some scrunchies on sale for $5 per dozen. Should I say, > These scrunchies is a five dollar per dozen item. or is this completely incorrect? Should I reword everything into something like this: > These scrunchies are priced at five dollars per dozen.


Why does English have an indefinite article?

I've seen many non-native speakers of English not making use of indefinite articles, presumably since their first language did not contain them. Thinking about this, and about the fact that even in English we get along fine without a plural indefinite article (only singular), I wonder why the indefinite article in theory is helpful. It seems to be an arbitrary particle, without the use of which we lose no meaning: > A tall man saw a black dog. --> Tall man saw black dog. This sounds stilted; but if we switch gears to plural nouns, it sounds better without articles because English has no plural indefinite articles, only singular: > Tall men saw black dogs. The presumption here is that we could understand the nouns in the above sentences as if they had invisible indefinite articles. Therefore, no article = indefinite article, as in many other languages, and as with English plural nouns. My basic question is this: What does the indefinite article accomplish? I'm not asking if we should stop using it - obviously it's here to stay for the time being, but is there something I'm missing that supports its existence? Was there a logical reason it came into being, or did it have a subconscious debut? (OK, I'm a language cynic, but deep down, so are you. ;) Apparently the article _an_ ( _a_ being a variant) derives from the OE _ān_ meaning "one, in a weakened sense". Is there any further etymology of the indefinite article, or did its usage arise around 950 A.D.? Did English always have an indefinite article? I'm asking because I want to see intermediate usages if possible: usages of _a_ while _a_ was still being born.


"less than" - wrong understanding or mistake?

As English is not my mother tongue, I am not sure whether I really do not understand the text below or if there is a mistake with "<" and ">" (less than, more than). Shouldn't it say "...were eligible for the intervention trial if >80% of prescribed doses were taken"? Otherwise the whole text doesn't make any sense, right? ![a scientific text](http://www.easteregg.ch/lessthan.jpg)


What is the meaning of the phrase “The morning constitutional”?

What exactly is the meaning of the phrase “The morning constitutional”? Is it an early morning walk or the first visit to the bathroom during the day? What is the origin of this phrase? What is the word “constitutional” doing here?


“I have come to” vs. “I have came to”

I am not a native English speaker, and I learn from people. I often hear people say “ **I have come to a place** where there is no end…”.   I am wondering, isn't the right way to say it: “I have **came** ” (I know that sounds awful, I am asking what's proper)?


Is "Girls will be girls" the counterpart of "Boys will be boys"?

It seems that "Boys will be boys" is a well established idiom and, according to Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed, as it is written on The Free Dictionary, it is " _something that you say which means it is not surprising when boys or men behave in a noisy, rude, or unpleasant way._ " However, searching on Google Books I found plenty of books whose titles contain the phrase "Girls will be girls" and I found, too, a film named "Girls will be girls". So I began to wonder if "Girls will be girls" is a phrase that begins to take on an idiomatic meaning in English. Is it so? If yes, in what circumstances do Americans or Brits use it? And, what do they want to say when they use it?


Is there a name for someone that accepts a risk and then complains when it occurs?

Example: Frank is going to buy a house The real estate developer, Jim, warns him, there's a 30% chance your house will drop a lot in value in the next year. Frank buys the house. The value of his house drops a lot in the next year. Frank tries to sue Jim. You would call Frank a...


perfect continuous or simple perfect in negative sentences

I want to know the difference between present perfect continuous and present perfect in negative sentences. My textbook says (namely, English Grammar In Use, 2nd edition) 'use simple for negative sentences'. Surprisingly, it does not explain the reason. After some googling I found that continuous forms are also used, but I couldn't get the precise distinction. Please help.


Usage difference between modest vs decent?

The Dictionary definitions are below: > Modest = not excessively large, elaborate, or expensive. > > Decent = appropriate; fitting Please consider below sentences > He has a modest three bedroom house. > > She is a very modest woman. Can I replace the _modest_ with _decent_ in the above sentences? If not what is the difference between usage of _decent_ and _modest_ > He has a decent three bedroom house. > > She is a very decent woman. I have been observed there is some overlap between these two words. My question is how much overlap is there between these two? Are these are interchangeable always?


When phrases with the same words are combined by "and"/"or"

How are phrases with the same words joined by the conjunctions "and" and "or" to avoid repeating the same ones? If I intend to say sentence 1 below, which of sentences 2 to 5 has/have the same meaning?   1. What are the differences between the North Pole and the South Pole?   2. What are the differences between the North and the South Pole?   3. What are the differences between the North and the South Poles?   4. What are the differences between the North and South Pole?   5. What are the differences between the North and South Poles? Would you rewrite the following sentences to make them more concise?   * There are a red flag and a blue flag.   * South Korea and North Korea are located on the Korean Peninsula.   * Which continent is bigger, North America or South America? Thank you.


Positive euphemisms for desert?

Looking on thesaurus.com I can find only synonyms for "desert" with negative connotations. Are there any synonyms with positive connotations? Specifically, something that invokes the sense of clean desolation and unspoiled nature.


What is the typography term which refers to the usage of bold, italics, and underline styles simultaneously?

I remember seeing such a word before, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. I'm googling and having no luck. The classic web comic Pokey the Penguin used this technique quite a bit.


Sometimes the article precedes the noun and not the adjective

I have a question that baffled me for a while now, and I'd be a happier person for an answer. Why in sentences such as > It's not that big _a_ deal. And > He was as nice _a_ friend as you were. Or > Your awesome of _a_ father, told me that. does the article position itself between the adjective and the noun instead of the usual start of the phrase: > I have _a_ big house to play in. Much obliged.


question about the future tense

In a sentence like > How do you get to the train station? What would be an appropriate answer (tense wise)? Could you say both of these two: >   * I’ll drive you. >   * I’m going to drive you. > I think both could be correct: the _will_ one if you say it right after you’ve asked the question, and the _going to_ one if it’s planned and you’re having that chat a week before or something.


What's the difference between "I see nothing" and "I don't see anything"? In what condition each of them is more appropriate?


Using the word 'option' meaning 'a variable', not 'an alternative'

There are two meanings of the word 'option', that I have encountered:   1. A variable that takes one of the multiple possible values. (e.g. "You should set the resolution option to 'default'")   2. An alternative, one of the possible values of a variable. (e.g "In the resolution menu choose the biggest available option") Are both of these meanings acceptable? Is the latter one more common than the former?


Word or phrase for "online supporting documents"

In a conversation on a particular topic, I want to ask the other person to provide online supporting documents about his views on the topic. They may be _websites_ or _blogs_ or _wiki_ etc, but they should have global acceptance. I mean those documents are hosted or run by a globally accepted consortium, or an enterprise or may be it belongs to some government. In short, to provide online documents that have global acceptance for his views on that topic. So what would be the appropriate _word_ or _phrase_ I should use to say this sentence?