Etymology of 'ends' or 'the ends' and other current British/London slang

I'd like to know more about how 'ends' came to mean 'hometown' in current London slang. I have heard it used to mean money, which is an extension of mainstream use - means to an end, for one's own ends etc. Can anyone enlighten me? Also, is there are decent source of general etymological information on current slang words? I know a lot come from Caribbean words and American hip- hop but a central source would be great.


What is another way to say the need for?

What is another way to say "the need for" in regards to mental health system reform


Is there a software that can help my speech and grammar

Is there a software that can help me to improve my speech and grammar?...like learning the past participle,present participle and etc...also in constructing the sentences...or if there is no software can you tell me where i can start in learning my english skills.I know this is ridiculous question but i am serious to gain knowledge.I hope some one can help me on this.


Synonym for "a lot" where each contributes only a little

I'm looking for a professional-context appropriate synonym for the word "a lot", but with the additional expression of "each contributes only a little" For example, > To fill up that vat you'd need a crapload of tennis balls. Here "crapload" implies that each individual tennis ball is actually worthless on it's own. Where the vat is big, "crapload" serves to color the sentence. Unfortunately "crapload" is unprofessional. "A lot" is just colorless. Suggestions?


From which you have received (it)

Consider the following sentence: > Please return the box back to the address from which you have received > **it**. Is the last **it** absolutely necessary? If not, what is the recommended style? Google seems to return both instances.


Is "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" still considered ungrammatical?

I was reading _The Tipping Point_ this morning, and the author spoke of how Winston's slogan in the 1950s that went "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" was very memorable because of its ungrammaticality. Apparently, back then, this was noticeably incorrect, but when I first heard it, I didn't think anything was wrong with it. In fact, I hear "like" being using in this fashion quite often and "as" much less. In my own writing, I typically use "as" as opposed to "like," but I would personally phrase the slogan as "Winston tastes as good as a cigarette should." That has a _slightly_ different meaning, but the correct version of the slogan sounds odd to me. As I am much more an advocate for descriptive linguistics than prescriptive grammar, I have to come to the conclusion that using "like" as a conjunction in that way isn't "incorrect" because broad stretches of the population now use it, but do grammarians now consider it to be correct? Here's more information about the controversy over this slogan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_tastes_good_like_a_cigarette_should#Grammar_controversy


What's a title for a founder no longer with a company?

I've seen it quite often that people refer to someone as a "former founder" or "former co-founder," but that's not really possible since a founder is always a founder. Once you found something, even if you leave the project that you founded, you are still a founder. You can't be a person who was at one time the founder of a project, but is no longer the founder. What's the proper way to refer to this phenomenon?


Expression that means "as soon as something is finished"

I am looking for an expression that means "right after finishing something, start something". For some reason, the words "fresh off the heels" keep springing up but I googled them and it's not an expression.


'Happy new year, really' vs. 'Happy new year, sincerely'

Suppose I want to add more emphasis and realism to the phrase 'Happy new year', especially in order to make it less conventional, should I use--or, at least, which is better (in the aforementioned sense) to the ear of a native speaker-- at the very end 'sincerely' or 'really'?   * Happy new year, _really_.   * Happy new year, _sincerely_.


Word for "No I in Team"

I heard a song this morning that had "We put the _us_ in _trust_ " in its lyrics. It reminded me of the maxim "There is no _I_ in _team_." I've heard other, gloomier examples like "harm in harmony" and "utility in futility." Is there a hypernym for "insight based on the presence (or absence) of substrings in another string"?


afterwards or forward on?

My question is very simple--- > a: I will go with your confirmation forward on.   >  b: I will go with your confirmation afterwards They seem have no mistake in grammar, so, both are correct?


formal way of saying "I want to"

I’m writing a piece of mail to the manager of some other company, and I wanted to ask him: > On a different note, I wanted to know how you are doing [ _something_ ]. I was wondering, is there a more formal way of saying _I want to know_? Would it be correct to say _I am keen to know_?


"No head injury is too trivial to ignore"

I was looking at the book _Introduction to Mathematical Thinking_ by Keith Devlin, and came across a question where the reader is asked to reformulate this sentence to avoid the unintended second reading: > No head injury is too trivial to ignore. However, I couldn't really find any alternative meaning. Any ideas about what the “unintended second meaning” might be?


Which one is more correct to say? "Sit" or "Sitting"?

>   * The sit of her dress was perfect. >   * The sitting of her dress was perfect. > I didn't know that "sit" could be a noun form of the verb "to sit". I've been using "sitting" so far, but I came across "sit" as a noun form in this sentence. I don't know which one is more suitable to use.


Is "despatch" the British spelling for "dispatch" or is it an archaic spelling (or both)?

In John Ormsby's 1885 translation of Don Quixote, the word "despatch" is used. Is that the corresponding British spelling for "dispatch" or is it simply an archaic spelling (in both the American and UK English dialects), or is it both (British _and_ archaic)?


What is the shortest commonly-used word or expression that describes both the delivery of services and of goods?

I'm trying to find one general expression that describes all sorts of businesses that _serve you where you are_ as opposed to being a destination, that is, food delivery, electricians, personal trainers, doctors who make house calls, etc. The resulting sentence would look like: > "What is the best _business category_ that _sought-after expression_ North > Beach?" Example: > "What is the best _Indian restaurant_ that _delivers to_ North Beach?" This is a category-dependent example though ("delivers to" doesn't work for services), so what I need is the shortest term that covers both delivery and on-site services (even if it ends up being a compound expression like "serves/delivers to").


What do you call a man who desires to have a lifelong, non sexual but intimate realtionship with a woman?

1. The man lives in the same house with a woman but never have sex or desire to have sex.   2. Hey is comfortable with being nude with her and so is she, but not sexual touch or for lust.   3. He cuddles and does things socially together.   4. He sleeps in the same bed with her but again not sexual.   5. He supports her and provides but is not married or joined together.   6. He loves deeply but cannot marry the woman.


"Rather quite" or "quite rather"?

I'm a bit confused about this. They both sound correct to me.   * Quite rather weird   * Rather quite weird  Which of the two is correct?


Is "We have the power, so can you" (from She-Ra) grammatical?

The lyrics of the closing theme of the She-Ra cartoon include the line "We have the power, so can you". (Listen to it on YouTube.) I'll grant them their poetic license, but it doesn't sound right to me and I can't quite put my finger on why. Would you say it's ungrammatical? Why?


A prediction made in the past that affects something we will do in the future

Please ignore the factual accuracy of this sentence and focus on the tenses used. > If the Mayans were wrong to end the calendar on Dec. 20, 2012, we'll use > your donation to fund 2013 programming. I’d like to know:   1. if it is correct, and   2. what it would be called.


Words to separate value from counting

I'm a software developer, and as such I often come in contact with situations where I need to name variables related to the following context: > 4 apples for $3 each equals $12 My problem is the word `amount` because it feels as natural to write `amount of items` (4) as `amount each` ($3) or `total amount to pay` ($12). But obviously I can't use the word `amount` for all of them and would like some guidance on what word to use in each situation. English isn't my native language and I guess that's where my problem begins. What I basically would like to know, is:   * **What is the best word to describe when you're counting items?** My backup plan is `NoOfItems` but it's a bit complex with three words, I was hoping for a single word or something else more intuitive.   * **What is the best word to describe when you're describing a value?** I can't use `sum` because sometimes it's a single value that hasn't been summarised. Thanks a lot...


Are modal verbs finite or non-finite?

According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, > _finite_ ... **2** _Grammar_ (of a verb form) having a specific tense, > number, and person. > > _non-finite_ ... _Grammar_ (of a verb form) not limited by tense, person, or > number. Modal verbs (can, may, should etc) are always followed by bare infinitives. For example: > We **could** _practice_ our dialogue. Here, _practice_ is a bare infinitive and is a non-finite verb and **can** , by its own nature, does not express tense, person or number. Does that imply that in sentences like the one above, where a bare infinitive follows a modal verb, neither is a finite verb? If so, am I correct in understanding that we can have grammatically legitimate clauses and sentences even without a finite verb?


What exactly is a run-on paragraph?

I recently learned there is such a thing as a run-on paragraph. Whenever I write stories my paragraphs become a page or longer at times, so I began to wonder if I make run-on paragraphs. I haven't been able to find much information on it, so I came here. Can someone please explain to me what a run-on paragraph is?


Are there meta-plurals beyond "peoples"?

The plural of "person" is "people". The plural of "people" is "peoples". Person-people-peoples is the only sequence like this that I know of, but I'm looking for another. (The equivalent question is, is there another plural noun which has become a singular countable collective noun?) **EDIT** For those of you that think that `people` is nothing but a collective noun (and not an irregular plural, like `mice`), I urge you to consider:   * Do you treat other collective nouns as plurals? One person, two people, but one star, two galaxy?   * Do you treat other plurals as collective nouns? You can certainly say "a galaxy of stars" but do you say "a mice of mouses"?  For those of you that think the _customary_ plural of `person` is `persons`, try it on the next three, uh, persons you see: "Finish this sentence: 'one person, two ___ ?' "


What is the origin of the phrase "Top of the morning to you"?

Each morning, a colleague of mine greets me with the phrase: > Top of the morning to you! I've tried to figure out what the meaning of this really is and how to properly respond, however there seems to be dozens of interpretations as to what this phrase actually means. Does anyone know what the origin and original meaning of this phrase is?


What should I call a place that sells "street food"?

Today I went sightseeing in my city. After I got home I wrote the diary in English, but I didn't know what to call a place that sells "street food". Should I call it restaurant, cafe or something else? **Street food:**   ![Street food](http://i.stack.imgur.com/1icFw.jpg) **Update**   From Marcin's answer, I searched each words in his/her answer to find out how to call each type of place that sells food. **Food stall** ![Food stall](http://i.stack.imgur.com/ZNgSI.jpg) **Food cart** ![Food cart](http://i.stack.imgur.com/kHPIi.jpg) **Food van** (I'm not sure I can call it "Food van" or not, please correct me if I'm wrong) ![Food van](http://i.stack.imgur.com/A4XzH.jpg)


Alternate, polite word for "Fee"

I want to inquire about fee for Tai Chi course. But, the word "Fee" would not be polite for such martial art. Would there be any alternate word I could use, which is more polite and kind to ask about this.


The usage of "a little bit"

I was wondering how this phrase sounds in English: > She is a little bit shy. In my country the people say "a little bit" a lot, and sometimes they use it wrong. I have the impression that in US (or even in other countries where English is spoken), people prefer to be more specific saying "She is shy". Anyway, I don't want to be misunderstood, can you tell me if the above phrase sounds awkward, and in which situations I can use "a little bit" without problem.


A single word for the state of extreme inner melancholy and wistfulness

I am looking for a word that refers to the state of extreme, deep melancholy mixed with pain, anxiety, and wistfulness; the state in which one feels that their hearts are going to burst with sadness.


New word for Christmas?

Not that I'm pro/for 'christ out of christmas' but are schoolars thinking about a new word? I mean this past 2013 Christmas season in Los Angeles I didn't see much of that word. [update] chat about xmas   joe: I'm so excited happy holidays is coming!   jane: what? happy holidays?   joe: Yes! happy holidays is the best time of the year. I wish you a happy holidays!   jane: you are wierd!


A word for "every two days"

Is there an adjective that means "every two days", i.e. is to a day as _biennial_ is to a year?


Should I use "vue de l'esprit" in English?

I'm a French-native-speaker. I'm not sure in which cases the French expression _vue de l'esprit_ should be used, or if it should not be used. Is there any general case or rule? For example, I have a blog post title that I'm thinking about in French as _Vue de l'esprit : [a game name]_ , because the post is about a game's drawings that drive its development. I'm not sure if I should use _vue de l'esprit_ , _mind view_ , or something like that. Some people told me it's pretentious, so I may use another English expression instead, but whether to do so is not very clear to me.


Is "Please to" proper English?

I have been around on Twitter for awhile and I regularly find people using "Please to retweet this" or "Please to help me", etc. Is this proper English? I do not think prefixing the infinitive form with a 'to' is necessary here at all.


Winter — wintry; summer — summery; spring — ?; autumn — ?

> **wintry:** characteristic of winter, esp. in feeling or looking very cold > and bleak: "a wintry landscape". > > **summery:** belonging to or characteristic of or occurring in summer; > "summery weather"; What are the words that mean characteristic of spring and autumn, respectively? For example: > a ~~springly~~ landscape; an ~~autumnly~~ landscape What about American English, where one uses _fall_ instead of _autumn_?


Shouldn't the verb be in the third person?

I came across this book > It's Not the Big That Eat the Small...It's the Fast That Eat the Slow and my question is why **eat** is not **eats** ? Thank you very much


What is the correct way to quote (and cite) computer code using the Chicago style?

I would like to quote from line 205 to 214 of a particular source code.


What does off of oil mean?

I am reading a book and I came across the sentence below. I am not getting the meaning out of the line. Please guide me. Thanks. > I decided that the most important thing to do was to figure out how to take > a single country off of oil. Edit: Its about Israel, how Israel decided they would move forward when they had no resources.


Is it right to say that "they have their utopia starting when they see a plate of food and water"

I have to do a presentation about a third world country next week and I started writing down what I am going to say and I am stuck in the introduction! I am speaking Greek and this phrase make sense in Greek but I think it's not right in English! > I want to say that they have nothing to eat and nothing to drink and that > when they find food or water they feel so good that it's like our utopia!


Meaning of "threaten"

According to Merriam-Webster, _threaten_ has the following four meanings: > 1: to utter threats against > > 2a: to give signs or warning of > > 2b: to hang over dangerously > > 3: to announce as intended or possible > > 4: to cause to feel insecure or anxious There is one sentence: > The lecturer's monotonous delivery **threatened** to put us to sleep. What does _threaten_ mean in the above sentence?


Word that means "to call it even"?

One person has a debt to another. The other person runs a debt to the first person, so instead of exchanging money, they **(insert word here)** the debt. The phrase is to **"call it even"**. I'm looking for this, but in verb-form.


Can sound be "blurry?"

Can sound be considered "blurry?" I have heard of visual things being "blurry." Examples of this include blurry photographs or blurred vision. Is the word "blurry" restricted only to vision? I have a friend who uses the word to refer to indistinct sound. For some reason, this annoys me at an instinctual level. It seems to me that the word to use in such cases would be "muffled." Popular usage seems to restrict the usage of "blurry" to vision. I have a bet riding on this. Edit: Are there any literary or journalistic uses of this?


Why is a smudge stick called a smudge stick?

What is the origin of the name "smudge stick"? And why is it considered offensive by some (according to Wikipedia)?


Is there a different understanding of "rubber" in British and American English?

I was well aware of the different meanings of _rubber_ , not least because there are the same definitions in my mother-tongue. However, while reading a text about differences between British and American English I read the following lines: > Here's something else for Americans to be aware of: did you know that an > _eraser_ is called a _rubber_ in Britain? A good British Mum makes sure her > children go to school with a rubber in their pencil case. So, it's also not new to me that there are differences between British English and American English, but I was and still am surprised that that could somehow be misinterpreted. Checking the dictionary (OALD and OED) I learned that _rubber_ as _condom_ is indeed an Americanism, though I can hardly believe that British people do not know/use that word. The other way round, I can imagine to some extent that Americans are not aware of the fact that it isn't that popularly known/used in British English. Anyway, when talking to British people do I really have to expect that they don't know what I'm talking about when using the word _rubber_ instead of _condom_? And when talking to American people, should I avoid _rubber_ and use _eraser_ instead whenever I expect it might sound ambiguous? To be more concrete: the OALD designates rubber (as eraser) as British English, thus do I have to suspect that an American may not be aware of that meaning? Finally, when talking to both an American and a British at the same time, which words do I use for condom and eraser so that both will understand me correctly?


Opposite of "miracle"?

Are there any English words that mean "an unlikely calamity" in that same way that "miracle" can mean "an unlikely beneficial event"? My thesaurus only provides antonyms of "miracle" that mean "a mundane event" rather than "a horrible event". I'm thinking specifically of multiple unlikely failures occurring simultaneously: I suffer an unlikely injury that leaves me unable to leave the house _and_ my usually-reliable telephone service suddenly cuts out for the day, so I can't phone for help. Words like "catastrophe" and "calamity" seem too general, since I'd like to express the _exceptional unlikelihood_ of the event (or events). The best I have is a descriptive phrase like "disastrous coincidence," but I'd prefer a single word. Overtones of the divine or demonic are not required, but preferred.


Is "apocrypha" plural?

Is "apocrypha" plural? These are extra-canonical books of the Bible. Is a singular one called an apocryphum or apocryphon or something like that?


Word for collection of religion's essential writings

I'm looking for a single word to describe the collection of all letters, scriptures and books specific to a religion, something like _teachings_ but with a stronger emphasis on the written aspect.


"Firstname" or "First Name"?

In filling out forms, I'm starting to see a lot of this: > Firstname: xx > > Lastname: yy Is it generally acceptable to join the words like that? Or should we be sticking to: > First Name: xx > > Last Name: yy


"To this effect"

What does "to this effect" in the following sentence mean? (This sentence is in a reply of an application). > However, if you are not successful, we will inform you to this effect. Does this mean, if I failed I will still get informed(by a mail or phone-call) or if I failed, I will have no idea that I have failed already?


Is it correct to use "how's" as short for "how does"?

I've often seen "how's" used as short for how is - such as "How's your wife feeling?" or "How's the weather where you are?" I'm pretty sure the above is grammatically correct. However, it's also common to use "how's" as short for "how does", such as "How's it feel to be a student?" Is this second usage grammatically correct, or just a colloquialism?


Etymology of using 'joint' to mean a place

What's the etymology of using 'joint' to mean a place? Like burger joint or juke joint...


Word for problem listening/speaking and not reading/writing english

Suppose I have problems   * listening and understanding English esp. of non-Indian accent   * speaking English fluently How should I tell someone about it using very few words instead of typing a long sentence?


Why does "pre-" change the meaning of "dominantly" to mean "for the most part; mainly"?

Consider the following two sentences: > People in North America are **predominantly** English speakers. > > People in North America are **dominantly** English speakers. Merriam-Webster defines _predominantly_ as "for the most part; mainly"; and while it doesn't directly define _dominantly_ , the definition for _dominant_ is "commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others". Therefore, I would take _dominantly_ to mean "in a commanding or controlling manner". What I don't understand is how adding the prefix _pre-_ changes the meaning of _dominantly_ to the aforementioned definition.


How to describe the sound of the English language as spoken by someone with Asperger's Syndrome?

I've heard many people say that individuals with Asperger's Syndrome seem to have a distinctive way of speaking the English language. I've heard descriptions such as "The cadence of the words is different", but I've been wondering if there is a more general way of describing this difference.


Is "my preference towards exact sciences" legitimate?

Do you consider the following phrase legitimate? > my preference towards exact sciences Is there a more accurate way to say it?


How to Identify a Rhetorical Question?

I am familiar with the idea of a rhetorical question, but are there any criteria to mark or identify one? Can a rhetorical question be recognized alone or does it need surrounding context? It doesn't seem like there is a single syntactic method to distinguish them (the wiki article mentions a 'rhetorical question mark' that really didn't catch on, but that's not really syntax, just punctuation in writing). If there are no syntactic markers, what semantic criteria are there that could say that a sentence is a rhetorical question?


What does "Five times over!" mean here?

I came across a sentence while reading Newspaper and I'm wondering what does the sentence mean in this context. This news article completed with the sentence `Five times over!`. What does it mean actually here? **Excerpt from the Newspaper:** > Here’s introducing iDiva: Five Magazines in One that packs in the best of > five of India’s top women’s magazines in a single new weekly.   >  . . .   >  . . .   >  . . .   >  A magazine that gives you all this and more should cost the earth, right? > Luckily this one doesn’t. At an introductory price of Rs 5 per copy, we are > sure you’ll find it a steal. **Five times over!**


Etymology of "to be like" meaning "to say"

It seems that "to be like" is an informal phrase for "to say". E.g. > She was so angry, she was like "I'm breaking up with you", and I was like > "I'm sorry", and she was like "Go away". Is this a recent thing? When did "to be like" start to be used to mean "to say"? It doesn't seem to be in any dictionaries (yet) (I might be wrong, though). It would be interesting to know why the words "to be like" came to mean "to say", although I realize that the answer to the majority of "why" questions is "just because".


Can you really "See that thing in person"?

Consider the following scenario: > A woman at a store is shown a dress by a clerk. After a few moments, she > tells the clerk that she would like "to see it in red". > > The clerk would then go and fetch her the same dress but colored red, rather > than whatever he had just shown her. There would be no confusion- the _in red_ is clearly describing an attribute of the dress. If the clerk were to then drape a red blanket around the woman and show her the same dress, the clerk would surely be fired. And yet, if I were to look at a picture of a coffee table online and say "I want to see that in person", the same logic could not be applied. You _can't_ see the coffee table in person, because it is a coffee table. Coffee tables don't typically come as people (I should hope!). So is one correct over the other? Shouldn't the meaning be consistent across the two phrases? Or is there some way of considering the two different contexts that both make sense from?


Can “lackadaisical” be used in literature?

Has _lackadaisical_ ever been used in literary works? My _Oxford Dictionary of Quotations_ has no quotation that includes this word. Who first used _lackadaisical_ in the 1760s as the OED claims?


One word synonym for "easy to follow"

I am working on a rubric to grade a presentation, and I am only allowed 4 very short criteria. After a lot of thinking, the 4 I have chosen are:   1. Organized & Easy to Follow   2. Interesting / Useful   3. Delivery   4. Overall My question isn't really focused on why I chose these criteria (although suggestions would be appreciated), but more so on the "easy to follow". I am trying to find a shorter, more precise, way to say that the presentation flowed well in a logical and comprehensible manner. Any suggestions?


What is the etymology of the word "howwa", meaning "that thing"?

In the North-East of England, where I live, the word **_"howwa"_** is used to mean "that thing". It is pronounced like "shower" and could be used in the following contexts: > Can't you get it to work? Pass the howwa here. or > I was trying to find the pub but it was an hour before I found the howwa! or even about a person: > He's the howwa who sold me the car. Although I hear it regularly, I have no idea where it comes from. Any ideas?


What is the difference between “take to court,” “take the court,” and “take someone to court”?

Today’s (April 27) _New York Times_ carried a caption,“Clippers **Take to Court** , but in Protest” and the lead-copy: > The players made a statement a day after racially charged remarks attributed > to Donald Sterling, the Clippers’ owner, by wearing their shirts inside out > before playing the Warriors. in its home page. But, the headline of the article was altered to “With Uproar Around Sterling, Clippers **Take the Court**.” Is there any difference between _take to court_ and _take the court_? Why did NYT bother rewording the headline (though it may be better to ask directly to NYT)? By the way, I found the following question and answer in wordhippo.com: > Q. What's another word for **take to court**?   >  A. Here's a list of words you may be looking for. > > Verb. prosecute, sue, take legal action, press charges, file a suit, bring a > claim. Does the phrase, “take to court / take the court” in the above NYT article simply mean “appear in the court / join the game”, or “sue / bring a claim” by chance?


"Did you do it?" vs "Have you done it?"?

If someone did something that made me mad, which is correct to say:   * _Did you do it?_   * _have you done it?_ If not, what is the proper situation for saying _Did you do it?_


Time given to fix the problem

In a biblical passage I am studying, I noticed that the accused was given a short span of time in order to fix the problem he had caused. This idea (granting time to correct the situation) is important for my study and I want to include it in the index. Is there a word (or short two word phrase) that has this meaning?


Why do we say "wearing perfumes?"

Why do we "wear" perfume, and not "apply" it? For example, why do we say "Alice _wore_ her mother's perfume", and not "Alice _applied_ her mother's perfume"? What's your take on this?


Doubts about using "to+ ing"

I heard this sentence in a film: > We are one step closer to ending this. I do not know why we have to use "ending" instead of "end". Is "Step to" a phrasal verb?


Is there an adjective for 'speechless-making'?

I wanted to write about intense fear, something like _abject terror_ , but implying that it strikes you dumb with fear. Am I missing something obvious, or should I just settle for changing the wording to avoid the problem?


A word for a form of government that governs itself

Let us suppose there existed a society that was governed not by people but rather by a comprehensive set of rules, and whereby each person voluntarily followed those rules, and executed punishment on themselves in accordance with those rules if they violated them. What word would describe this form of government? (We can assume that there are never reasons to change the rules, that each rule is able to be perfectly interpreted by every member, and that those who originally wrote the rules no longer exist.)


Probably excessive commas - a part of sentence looks like a list of items

Sometimes, when I am trying to put into a sentence all the commas that should be there, according to the rules, it begins to look like a list of items - a comma after every word. (Edit: and as David Schwartz pointed out, even worse, it _sounds_ badly) For example: > If we saw it as Kris, then, personally, I do not understand how ... Is it possible to omit some commas in such case? If yes, then how could I determine which commas are less important and could be omitted?


Usage of English definite article when referring to generic word

My mother language does not have articles, so I still struggle to choose when to use the indefinte and definite article. The other day, I learned:   * "The dog is an animal" is acceptable.   * "The iron is a metal" is not acceptable. (By _the iron_ , I mean the metal, not the device.) Is that true? If so, could anyone explain why?


Abbreviation of EU and associated punctuation

Why doesn't the abbreviation of _European Union_ (EU) carry periods with it as the abbreviation of _United States_ (U.S.) does, for example? A brief online search turned up little on the punctuation of EU. If you have a link to a site with a decent explanation, I'd really appreciate that!


Single word for the phrase "friends at high places"

A person's "jack" is the slang for "friends at high places" in the part of the world where I belong to. Thank you. Edit: I split the long question as I was asked to.


Comma before a verb

> Altimeter Group provides research and advisory for companies **_,_** > enabling them to pursue new opportunities and business models. Is the comma before _enabling_ necessary and right in the above sentence?


Is "am" in "I am right" an auxiliary verb?

Consider these sentences: > The ice _was_ thick enough to walk on. > > They _were_ in a hurry. > > There _is_ enough salt in it. > > It _is_ freezing. > > I _am_ right. Are the italicized verbs auxiliary verbs? * * * **Update:** Let me explain why I asked this question. The above sentences are from exercise 6 "Auxiliary verbs" from the book "A Practical English Grammar Exercises 1". From the 36 sentences in exercise 6, all except the above mentioned five sentences are indeed sentences that contain auxiliary verbs (may, must, can, will, had, etc.). So, what happened here? Why are those five sentences in this exercise? Is it an oversight? ![](http://i.stack.imgur.com/gjn8J.gif) View image in full resolution here: http://i.stack.imgur.com/gjn8J.gif


When is correct to capitalise these words?

At the beginning of sentence is a given. Here are some examples for each word. Should any be capitalised? If not, is there any situations where they should? The word "government"   1. The government raised taxes.   2. Thatcher was in government for a long time.   3. The UK is having problems with its coalition government? The word "organisation"   1. The organisation needs to make 10% savings.   2. I would like to work for an organisation like Google.


Ability in past for positive and negative sentences

I have doubt about the correctness of the following rule. If it is correct then is there any reason behind this? **Rule:** > Not all abilities are general. Some abilities happen only once (or a certain > number of times) in a particular situation. In positive sentences, we can > **only** use "was able to" for the specific event / occasion Examples: > _I was very tired but I`could` stay awake all night._ \- This is according > to the rule I am investigating syntactically incorrect   >  _I was very tired but I`was able` to stay awake all night._ ✓ If the sentence is negative, we can use `could` or `was able to` interchangeably . > _I`couldn't` hear him because of the music._ ✓   >  _I `wasn't` able to hear him because of the music. ✓ Why are we able to use both "could" and "was able to" in negative sentences, but not in positive ones?


What's the difference in usage between "annoyed at", "annoyed with", and "annoyed by"?

When is it appropriate to use _annoyed at_? Can I say I'm _annoyed at_ you or should it be _annoyed with_ you? What about _annoyed by_? I've read somewhere that _annoyed with_ is for people and _annoyed at_ is for the rest but I haven't been able to find a link to a supporting document/textbook.


Can I add a comma here just for "rhythm"?

I have the following sentence in a technical paper: > Recent research has addressed this issue in two important ways: by > developing and improving on automatic algorithms and by exploring human- > guided systems. Though I think this is grammatically correct, it seems like it would sound better with the addition of a comma: > Recent research has addressed this issue in two important ways: by > developing and improving on automatic algorithms, and by exploring human- > guided systems. I'm by no means an expert on the English language, but I think I have seen commas like this before in decently respectable pieces of writing. But is it technically okay to add one here? From what I remember, they belong after a conjunction that is followed by an independent clause--not a conjunction followed by a dependent clause as I have above. (?)


Can Present Perfect be used for Past Conditional

Does present perfect in conditional only mean future situations? Can it be used for hypothetical future? > When I went to Africa, I thought as if I _have_ already been there. > > If you have studied, you would pass the exam.


A sign that is still up after it no longer applies

What is the word to describe the following situation: There is a sign up warning people not to do something, but it has been up so long I think it no longer applies, but I'm going to follow it anyway. Thanks.


What does this mean - "If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the trip"?

Has it got anything to do with appearances in the passport photo?


Date formats for Americans

Do Americans find a date such as 11 Apr 2012 more readable than the ISO format 2012-04-11? The reason I ask is that there are many situations where we do not have access to the locale, and even if we do there are often no locale- sensitive formatting functions that we can use.


When modifiers precede, is ‘wounded’ used without ‘the’?

> . . .she tended **Hungarian wounded** returning from the Russian front and > casualties wounded in American bombing raids. (The Telegraph) When there are modifiers before 'wounded,' is it used without ‘the’ to denote 'wounded people'?


Is that grammatically correct?

> I'm going to blog about each feature and progress I made in my book? Is that grammatically correct?


Pronouns and declension for merged/hermaphroditic entities

I have a pair of friends who since entering into a relationship have become rather disgustingly effusive and clingy, to the point where people around them have begun referring them an 'it' [singular], or as a (hermaphroditic) single organism. Equivalently, imagine attempting to speak to a sentient coral, or a Portugese Man o' War, or a mated anglerfish pair, wherein > When [the male] finds a female, he bites into her skin, and releases an > enzyme that digests the skin of his mouth and her body, fusing the pair down > to the blood-vessel level. The male becomes dependent on the female host for > survival, receiving nutrients via their shared circulatory system, and > provides sperm to the female in return. ( ** _Wikipedia_** ) My question is, is there an accepted or even simply precedented way to correctly refer to an entity of this nature? _'It,'_ for example, is passible, but it's really a neuter pronoun, rather than bigendered. Similarly, trying to convey the two-in-one-ness is difficult, especially when attempting to decline it in a sentence: _Which of it was here yesterday?_ ('Which part' is again, passable, but to me seems to imply inanimate parts of a single organism, not sentient parts of a merged one) _It fucked itself._ I feel that the singular, genderless 'they' might be useful, but apart from being questionably grammatical, definitely implies a separation. Perhaps useful; how is the Holy Trinity referred to in scholarly texts? _**Edit:** To my dismay, a number of people seem to have taken this question as insulting, or 'ask[ing] how to insult people whose behavior you cannot tolerate,' or 'look[ing] at the phenomenon in a perverted way.' None of these interpretations are accurate. Rather, I was amused by the concept, which was not coined by me, and wondered upon the possible grammatical constructs. Believe me, I can insult people quite well unassisted._


"With" in "difficulty with (verb)-ing"

Is this usage of "to have difficulty with" ok? > I've been having some difficulty with reading the books that I decide to > read. A Google search suggested that the "with" may perhaps be dropped, but I'd prefer to keep it if it is ok. A noun after "having difficulty with" seems more clearly ok, like in "I'm having difficulty with the homework", but I wasn't sure about the quoted sentence above.


"Continue existing there" or "continuing existing there"

I wrote the following sentences: > Eyed closed, he imagined the moment disintegrating, returning to the stars, > and continue existing there for eternity. > > Eyed closed, he imagined the moment disintegrating, and returning to the > stars to continue existing there for eternity. Now, I'm not sure if I should say _continue existing there_ or _continuing existing there_.


Which is correct? "Until the 1990s, no one knew the fact." or "Until the 1990s, no one had known the fact."

I think "Until the 1990s, no one had known the fact." is grammatically true. Is the other one using the past tense is acceptabe? Or it is also true? Or it is not grammatically true?


How would you handle ellipsis outside quotation marks?

Would it be: If I had only said, "I love you."... or If I had only said, "I love you"... or even If I had only said, "I love you,"... Basically, the ellipsis would represent someone trailing off. For example, the person might have wanted to say: If I had only said, "I love you," he wouldn't have run off. Or something like that. While I'm at it, is that the correct punctuation for that sentence as well?


Original Meaning of Blood is thicker than water, is it real?

I recently read that the phrase "Blood is thicker than water" originally derived from the phrase "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", implying that the ordinary meaning is the opposite of the original intention. However my problem with this is that I can't find any references to this supposed original proverb (while it's possible to find references for the modern meaning from the 12th Century in German, and at least the 17th Century in English). There are plenty of places on the internet where people reference the supposedly original meaning, but I haven't been able to find anywhere they actually point to specific examples. Does anyone know of any examples for this? Is there a reason not to consider this a mistaken etymology?


What does "seed" mean in "seed the arguments with"?

There is an sentence in a document: > You can seed the arguments with an array of args, but this is only used > internally How to understand the word _seed_? Does the sentence mean: > You can pass an array of args as the arguments of the function


Sentence Chaining

For lack of a better understanding, I'm going to call the following _chaining_ : > 10011111 in binary is 237 in octal is 159 in decimal is 9F in hexadecimal While I understand the sentence and its structure, I'm curious as to   1. Whether it's a grammatically correct sentence structure   2. If (1), what's it called? Is this a complex sentence?


A word for “inner protected world”

What can be the word for "inner protected world"? I want to use for this title sentence: > A guy in his **inner protected world** It's some sort of mental sanctum. I want to use it in a positive sense. In my local language we call it _cossetto_ , the same as when a worm converts itself into butterfly. In my local language we say that it comes out from its _cossetto_. Like I want to use it for a guy who is happy in his own environment , who doesn't worry about the world situated outside . Please can someone suggest a better word or phrase?


Can someone explain Hmmm

Some people quite frequently use "Hmmm" in their emails and messages. What does this mean? Does it mean they are annoyed?


Is "woman" really interchangable with "female" as an adjective?

I listen to BBC Radio 4 a fair bit. They pretty much always use "woman" as opposed to "female" - like "a woman pilot". To me this just sounds completely wrong, and most stuff I can find online about it seems to agree with me. My first thought was that there might be a gender equality reason for saying "woman" (Radio 4 is fairly good about promoting gender equality), but if there is one, I can't find it. I found another question that almost suggests the opposite - that "woman driver" is a derogative term. What do all y'all think? Do Radio 4 have a reason for this or are they just being sloppy?


Is the use of ‘Red meat’ for ‘Substance’ very popular? Can I say ‘Your talk doesn’t have any red meat,’ to talkative person?

Today’s (Aug 28) Washington Post carries the article titled, “ _Red meat_ on the menu as convention kicks off” followed by the following sentence. "GOP delegates are scheduled to take the vote that will formally settle their party's long primary battle, although there were signs of the un-mended rift between Romney's backers and the minority of delegates supporting Rep. Ron Paul." I think I’ve seen the cases “ _Red meat_ ” was used in the sense of the substance of political agendas in the past. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘red meat’ as   1. meat (as beef) that is red when raw    2. something substantial that can satisfy a basic need or appetite.  However, Cambridge Dictionary defines it only as ‘meat from mammals, especially beef and lamb.’ Oxford Dictionary likewise defines it only as ‘meat that is red when raw, for example beef or lamb. Often contrasted with white meat.’ Wikipedia gives a definition - Red meat in traditional culinary terminology is meat which is red when raw, and not white when cooked. Red meat includes the meat of most adult mammals and some fowl. In any of Oxford, Cambridge Dictionary, and Wikipedia, there’s no reference of ‘something substantial’ to ‘Red meat’ as defined in definition 2. of Merriam- Webster Dictionary. Is the usage of ‘ _Red meat’_ as ‘the substance (supported by concrete evidence)’ well-received? Is it predominantly a political jargon? Can I say ‘There was no _red meat_ in his talk (proposal)’ just casually?


“Thanks for the write-up!!” in American English

Just confused about something. If person A asks for some suggestions to person B, C and D via email. Now one of three persons say C respond over the email with very detailed reply having some suggestions (some of them may be relevant and some maybe not). Now person A who has asked the question originally reply by just saying **Thanks for the write-up!!** All of above words are bold and double exclamation mark. Can someone please recommend what this means in US English sense? Strong approval or strong dis-approval sarcastically? Many thanks. Regards,


Do we "study about" something?

I accept **study about** where study is a noun ("He conducted a study about changes in population"), but I saw this construct in a local newspaper article and it struck me as odd. Here, **study** is a verb. Is this actually acceptable or is it just a regional variation that has mistakenly made its way into print? > More than 30 seventh- and eighth-graders and their chaperones will be flying > to Washington, D.C., for a five-day trip to see the places and monuments > they have been **studying about** this year. > > The students have been **studying about** the U.S. government.


Does a "word" have multiple meanings, or are there multiple "words"?

I always find it difficult to discuss the meaning of a word because I don't really have a definite meaning of _word_ in my head. _Cook_ refers to the verb (to cook) but it can also refer to the noun (a cook). Would you say _cook_ is one word with multiple meanings or that the verb and the noun are separate words? Is a word simply the arrangement of the letters?


Is "almost exactly" correct English?

Is the collocation "almost exactly" grammatical, when one is trying to express that something is almost at the edge of being _exact_? E.g.: > ...and it's almost exactly like...


Rewrite this grammatically troubling movie poster

On a Wiki-walk the other day, I stumbled across the movie poster for _Devil._ The tagline on the poster is: > Five strangers trapped. **One of them is not what they seem.** The writer was obviously using a singular "they" to avoid specifying the gender of the Mole, so as not to give away part of the plot. Sometimes singular "they" works for me, sometimes it doesn't. In this case, it really struck me as jarring, but I can't come up with a better alternative. Can you?


Is there a term or short description for an accent you "can't place"?

Some examples of this _might_ be Standard American English (though this may still be tied to geography) or, more likely, Received Pronunciation. The speaker's language doesn't have to be English, of course. Basically, the speaker's accent isn't discernible or particular to some region. It may be that the speaker has a unique way of talking or a blend of accents such that a listener can't place the speaker's origins. I don't think "accent-less" would be valid, since technically there's no such thing as having no accent. I'm also trying to describe the (artificial? synthetic?) accent of some text-to-speech programs.1 1: Can a TTS program truly have an accent in the first place? (I know you can assign an American or Australian "accent" in some cases, but I'm referring to the crude, "robotic"-sounding speech typical of early TTS.)


Inverse proportions, but the other way around

The title sucks, I know... Anyway: As part of a game I'm making, one of the buildings decreases the time it takes to build other things. Like so: At level 0: Full time   At level 1: Full time / 2   At level 2: Full time / 3   At level 3: Full time / 4   ... So basically, the construction time is inversely proportional to this buildling's level. But so far my sentence to describe this effect is: > This building reduces construction times by a factor proportional to its > level. Is this correct? Is there a better way to phrase this? By my understanding this means that the factor (the denominator of the fraction) is proportional to the level, is this correct? Does "level + 1" count as proportional?


Alleged misuse of the word 'respective'

I was told I misused the word _respective_ in the sentence 'If bilingual, please list the respective languages.' My understanding is that the word points to the prior mentioned subjects. Here's a definition: > **respective** _adjective_ [ attrib. ] belonging or relating separately to > each of two or more people or things : they chatted about their respective > childhoods. So I struggle to see how I used the word incorrectly when the question asked to have the listing of the languages spoken by those who are bilingual. Please explain how I misused it and how I can use it correctly.


Is "Succonded" a real word?

I've seen the word _Succonded_ used on several websites, but can't find a definition anywhere. I believe it may have to do with "being assigned to". Can anybody point me to a dictionary definition - nothing seems to surface! Examples phrases off Google search: > The war came along, Marconi was succonded to the effort, and my granddaddy > went to work - > Dr. Dominic Otieno the DSWT veterinary officer succonded by KWS treating the > Zebra - > Try and find people in your business who can be succonded to your project - > Senoir lawyers will be succonded to serve night courts


When quoting a quotation, how do you handle the double quotes?

Assume there is original source text: > This restaurant is amazing with "delicious lasagna" and great service. Make > sure you go 6-7pm for the quietest times. I want to quote _"delicious lasagna"_ but not sure how to handle the outer double quotes. If I was quoting more than just that quotation (e.g. _is amazing with "delicious lasagna" and great service_ ) I'd just do: > "...is amazing with 'delicious lasagna' and great service." However, when quoting just that quotation, it looks like: > "'delicious lasagna'" Is this the correct way or is there something better?


What exactly does "heavy conversation" mean?

I think it is a serious conversation which has become boring. Am I right?


what's the meaning of "naturally replenished"? e.g. El Paso receives its water supply from a set of aquifers as well as from the Rio Grande, but the supply, upon which soils used for agriculture are also dependent, **is not being naturally replenished**


More grammatically correct: "anything but" or "anything except"?

Could you tell me which of these phrases is grammatically correct — "anything but" or "anything except"? If the use depends on context, what are the instances when each must be preferred?


Do "in future" and "in the future" imply different meanings?

Do _in future_ and _in the future_ imply different meanings? If so, using which one is grammatically correct?


17th Century affectionate term for Mother

I'm writing a ghost story, and (in an admittedly well worn trope) a child ghost is looking for its mother; but how would a 17th century child affectionately refer to its mother? In short, what would the 17th century version of "mummy" be?


What is the difference between "Have you seen this?" and "Did you see this?"

What's the difference between these two phrases?


What does the phrase "on to" mean?

The following sentence is the context. > Accordingly, in the next few chapters, which deal specifically with the > tags, we’ll spend a lot more time on the OGNL expression language. On to > chapter 6! Your answers or comments are appreciated!


"all of you" vs "you all"

> All of you are sitting here with me in my den vs. > You all are sitting here with me in my den And a general form: _you all_ vs. _all of you_ Which is the proper usage?


Alternatives to "hypocrite"

I'm trying to accurately describe a person who acts in one way and does another but knowingly and openly accepts that his actions also include him in the same group he criticizes. This differs from a hypocrite who condemns those who perform an action but justifies his own actions by unrelated means and does not accept he is a part of that group. Does such a word exist or is there a better way of describing such a person? Merriam-Webster defines a hypocrite as a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.


Usage of '' to mean "ditto"

The NOAD reports that _''_ (two single quotation marks) is a symbol used to mean _ditto_. When is it used? Should it be used to replace the same word that appears in the same position but in the previous line? > I always thought it could be a dog.   >  I then discovered it is all but a ''.


The meaning of "how" in questions

Some of my colleagues have argued that when a statement/question uses the work "how", the reader expects to get a list of solutions. Examples: >   * "How could world hunger be solved?" >   * "How can a search engine be implemented using Python?" > Is this expectation correct? Does using "how" implicitly indicate that the answer should be all possible solutions/answers?


A "friend" friend? Is that ironical?

Here is a quote from the "Lois & Clark" series: > A: Who are you?   >  B [a guy]: I'm a friend of her ["her" is another female character whom B is > looking for].   >  A: A boyfriend, **a "friend" friend** or just a friend? Do you have any idea what "a 'friend' friend" is supposed to mean? Is that ironical or something?


In which type of situations we can use "I Were"?

In some situations, we can use "were" with "I" although its grammatically wrong. But somehow it's being used many times, I don't know the situations any idea guys??


Confusing sentence from reddit

There was this reddit thread to see who can create the most confusing sentence. Judging by the upvotes, I am guessing it is indeed a correct sentence. If so, can someone decipher this work of art? What exactly does this mean? > Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look > More Like?


Origin of "of course"?

What is the origin of confirmative phrase "of course"? I assume it has something to do with sailing maybe?


"whether it be a Tuesday or not"?

There is a claim at this link to another stackexchange question that the usual form is "On rare occasions, whether it be a Tuesday or no, I will go to the supermarket." as opposed to "whether it be a Tuesday or not". I thought it would be the opposite so I'd like to see it resolved here, please. Is the usual form geographically specific?


How do I refer to a geographical area outside Britain (use article or not)

I am not a native English speaker. In a scientific paper I'm writing, I refer to geographical areas in Belgium: Kempen, Hageland. In Dutch, an article is used when referring to these areas: "in de Kempen", "in het Hageland". Is the article needed in English, or would one simply write: "in Kempen", "in Hageland"?


Is that an adverbial participle? Should there be a comma?

I found the following sentence: > In part of my spare time, I work on fun projects. I am not sure as to whether there should be a comma. If it is there, then this obeys some rules, for example on _adverbial participle_ (is that the correct term?). If it is not correct to put a comma here, then maybe the following sentence would be correct? > When I have spare time, I work on fun projects.


Is there a single word for “Seeing the Unseen”?

Is there a single word which means “Seeing the Unseen”? Imagine one needs special equipment or accessories (for example, a microscope, telescope, or periscope) to see something that otherwise is not seen with the naked eye. What is the act of “seeing the unseen” called?


Which preposition goes with the word "altar"?

I am getting contradictory usages of the word _altar_ :   1. Sacrificed his family life on the altar of career advancement(Source:Merriam Webster)   2. You probably aren't going to like the solution, but the goal right now is not to get the perfect answer but to pass the test. We'll make our sacrifice at the altar of truth and beauty later.(Source : A book by Kent Beck on TDD So should the usage be like _on the altar_ OR _at the altar_?


Literal echelons?

Merriam-Webster and the OED list only figurative senses of the word echelon (i.e. military formations and organizational ranks). Would it be incorrect to use it in the literal sense of the French word from which it derives (échelon) to refer to a tier on a physical structure? > Gardens had been planted on the upper echelons of the hotel's exterior.


Using plural and singular to refer to the same thing(s)

I often have trouble expressing myself when I want to talk about some things (plural) holistically as a single thing. For example, "differential equations are a form of expression...". It doesn't seem right to say that somethings (plural) are a something (singular), but I would like to say something like this if it can be done at all correctly.


"Minify" vs. "minimize" in this NYT piece

I would like to ask for clarification to understand the meaning and the usage of the word "minify". Let us read the following piece: > The New York Times   >  “But by no means do I ever overlook or **_minify_** the fact that this is > one of the most extraordinary experiences of my life. I have never seen > anything like this before. I have never seen anything so great and fine and > real as this devotion.” I'm under the impression that "minify" there means "reduce in importance or value", but I cannot find this word on Oxford Dictionary Online. Also, according to Wiktionary, "minify" means "to reduce in size", not "to reduce in importance or value". Can anybody explain if "minify" is the right word there? Shouldn't the journalist have used "minimize"?


> Her teeth gleamed **white** against the tanned skin of her face. It seems ‘white’ is an adjunct modifying gleamed, while it’s not a complement for it’s not necessary to complete the meaning. But I’m wondering if adjectives can make adjuncts modifying verbs. My question are two: (1) Is ‘white’ a complement or an adjunct? (2) Can adjectives make adjuncts modifying verbs? (Even if the case is not an example of this question, would you let me know?)


Choice of articles: the reduction/ a reduction /reduction

I am often confused about the use of articles before abstract nouns. Are the following three sentences all grammatically correct? If so, what differences are there, if any, in their meaning or nuance? (1) Obama chose the middle ground, ordering the reduction of U.S. troops to 50,000 by August 2010. (2) Obama chose the middle ground, ordering a reduction of U.S. troops to 50,000 by August 2010. (3) Obama chose the middle ground, ordering reduction of U.S. troops to 50,000 by August 2010. Please assume that this reduction of troops has not been mentioned before this sentence, thus "the reduction" in (1) does not refer to something already mentioned.


You are in Jonathan’s circles: "too" or "as well" or "also"?

I just read on Google+ that: > You are in Jonathan’s circles too But I always thought that you couldn't use _too_ there. Am I wrong? (because Google can't be wrong, right?)


'You rather not' construction

What would be a correct way to say this: > If you rather not wait, you can always do sth else. or > If you'd rather not wait, you can always do sth else. And what about the comma? Is it needed here?


Function of "too" in the phrase "so too" or "so, too,"

I just ran into this sentence in an online article: > But as the App Store’s fortunes rose, so too did the iPhone’s, and later the > iPad’s. If I were editing that sentence, I would remove the _too_ on the theory that it doesn't add anything to the sentence's meaning beyond what _so_ provides. On the other hand, the phrase "so too" (or "so, too,") is quite common in everyday speech and writing, and it may be idiomatic for some speakers and writers. Site searches for "so too" and "so, too," reveal that these terms appear a total of 25 times on EL&U pages—mostly in answers, and mostly by extremely well-informed answerers. If we think of _so_ in the quoted example as meaning "in a like manner" and _too_ as meaning "in addition," it seems to me that the sense of _too_ is embedded in the sense of _so_ , since Event B can't happen in a like manner to Event A unless it is happening in addition to Event A. But perhaps I'm overthinking this and the main point of _too_ is simply to emphasize the also- ness of Event B. Here's my question: Is the _too_ after _so_ in sentences like the one quoted above superfluous to the sense of the sentence, or does it contribute a shade of meaning that I may not be recognizing?


Using "I do web and graphics" instead of "I do web and graphic design"

I'm building a website and its mobile version. In the mobile verison I need a shorter tagline. Initially I wrote: "I do web and graphic design." For the mobile version I wrote: "I do web and graphics." I would like to know two things:   * Will the average person understand the meaning of the shorter version?   * Are many people using "I do web" or "I do graphics"? (I haven't seen people using it that way but I do know people who write stuff like: VISINOMEDIA - WEB & GRAPHICS).


What's the origin of "throwing someone under the bus"?

What's the origin of the phrase "to throw someone under the bus" or "so-and-so threw me under the bus?" (in the sense of betrayal)? It seems like a very specific phrase not to come from some specific incident.


What does "if and when" mean, and is it the same as "when and if"?

Rather than trying to describe my beef with this idiom, I will give a bunch of successively objectionable examples. None of these are taken from real life. As I see it, if (and when) both "if" and "when" are used, they should _both_ describe the following statement. > (in an argument) If and when you admit defeat, I will be gracious. This example is a perfect instance of this: "you" have not admitted defeat and it is not certain that you will, but "I" am promising to receive it with grace when it does happen. "I" am not offering to make an exchange (which is what "if you admit defeat, I will be gracious") would imply), nor am "I" expressing bravado (which is what "when you admit defeat, I will be gracious" would imply). The combination of circumstance and syntax produces a perfectly neutral conditional. > (planning a war) If and when this country is invaded, we must be ready to > fight. This is more or less equally good at expressing unbiased uncertainty, though I suspect the speaker really meant to say "We must be prepared for an invasion", and thus, "We must be prepared! (Because we are at war and might get invaded)". > (concerning a pregnancy) If and when we have a boy, we must name him after > my father. This has some false confidence leaking through, since with a pregnancy underway, whether or not the child is a boy is not in question (even if it is unknown). > (family planning in general) If and when we have a boy, we must name him > after my father. This is actually expressing an agenda, and has very little to do with conditional action. The speaker intends to continue trying for a boy until one is born. Indeed, no pregnancy is yet extant, so the pure "if" statement is at best wishful thinking, while the pure "when" statement is expressing false certainty about an event over which one has no control. > (preaching caution) If and when this country is invaded, we must be ready to > fight. This is worse than the 2nd example because the speaker is actually raising from nowhere the possibility of an invasion, and simultaneously elevating it to certainty. You, the reader, may have the intended reaction to the statement "If and when the dollar becomes worthless", which can probably actually be heard these days. > (estate planning) If and when I die, I want you to have everything. This is silly: everyone dies. There is no "if" about it. On the other hand, in circumstances where untimely death is a possibility, it would be inappropriate to say "when". > (sarcasm) If and when I ever learn the meaning of life, I will let you know. This is even sillier: there is no possibility of "when". Without the possibility of "when", the "if" also means something else: it is no longer a true conditional or even a counterfactual; such a statement can only be sarcastic. Here's my question, then: what connotation is this idiom "supposed" to have? What, at least, does it usually have? Does the "if" or the "when" dominate or are they intended to be balanced, as I think? And finally, as the title suggests, what difference does it make if their order is reversed?


"I must to England" in Hamlet: What does "must" mean without an infinitive?

What did "must" mean when used as a non-modal verb (sorry, I don't know the technical term) in Early Modern English? For example: > I must to England; you know that? > > ( _Hamlet, Act III, Scene IV_ )


What is the meaning of "don't mention it" (in response to "thank you")?

I read at several places that "don't mention it" is equal to "you're welcome". But for me, the word means something like "don't go around talking about this to anyone". So what is the real meaning of the phrase and how does it fit in as a response to "thank you"?


Usage of the part 'through other means'

It might not be the typical way to say this, but is it incorrect or does it sound really awkward? > Thank you all for the birthday wishes, by postcard or through other means. Or does it necessarily have to be: > Thank you all for the birthday wishes, through postcards or other means.


What's the origin of "beta" to describe a "user-testing" phase of computer development?

It occurred to me that I use the term "beta" to describe a "release candidate" of a computer product that has passed all expectations of the development team, and is now being given limited exposure to users at large for comment. However, I have no idea how the term came to be, or what context it originally was used in. If we use "beta", then "alpha" must have been used at some point (possibly to refer to the internal QA testing period). Was "gamma" ever used? Who came up with this nomenclature for the QA process?


Why are "some" letters silent in English?

There are many such words that we all know about, but please explain why the makers of the English language made up words with silent letters?


Do robotic insects have “antennas” or “antennae”?

I know that insects have _antenn **ae**_ and machines have _antenn **as**_. Which plural form should I use for something that’s both insectoid and a machine? Does one officially take precedence?


What is the origin of “heart goes out to”?

With hurricane Irene in the news, it seems this week’s most popular phrase is “my heart goes out to everyone affected”. How did this expression get started?


Usage of "though" in formal writing

Consider the following text: "It is a bicycle. How do we know it is a bicycle, though?". Would this be a reasonable use of _though_ in formal writing (in an essay)? What are the ways of avoiding this construction if one would want alternatives (except for skipping the _though_ )? Would _however_ , for example, work? The question doesn't really contradict what is stated, though.


Difference between "close up" and "close down"

What is the difference between _close up_ and _close down_? They look like completely different verbs because of the contrast between the words _up_ and _down_ , but they have similar meanings.


Periods after directional abreviation in address

I am creating a business card, and I need to put the address of the company on it. What is the proper way to write this address? >   * 555 14th St NW, Atlanta, GA 55555 >   * 555 14th St NW., Atlanta, GA 55555 > Or should "14th St" be spelled out or "NW" be "N.W." or should "St" be "St." or should I spell out "Street"?


How to begin an email about recent meetings

I was involved in a couple of meetings recently which the company CEO attended. I wanted wanted to give some feedback on the meetings; but am unsure how best to begin the email... I thought of the following but just doesn't sound right... "following on from the recent meetings..." Is there a better way of beginning this sentence?


Looking for a list of "english words" that exist in other languages, but with different meanings

I had a terrible misunderstanding with a semi-conservative Turkish woman who was offended when I said > "Let's have brunch, and I'll bring some platonic female friends" I'm told that in Turkey, "platonic" has a meaning of one person who deeply desires the other (sexually), but that is not reciprocated. The English version is that of a non-sexual friendship, where lust isn't in the picture. She thought that I wanted all these women present who admired me in that sexual way. I don't wan to create these offenses again, and so is there a list of words that have a strong similarity to English, but with a different meaning?


Is it appropriate to use "it's my bread and butter" in formal english?

I am preparing for an English language test. That is why I am working on strengthening my English vocabulary. My question is regarding the speaking section of the test. If the examiner asks me about a particular subject, for example mobile development, would it be too informal to say "it's my bread and butter"? If yes, then could you please suggest to me a word for that? I don't want to write a sentence like "that is how I make money or that is the source of my income" Thank you. PS: If you find any grammatical or spelling mistakes in this question then please do let me know. I would appreciate that.


What can I use in place of "literal"?

While it's not too difficult to convey that an action actually occurred, there are occasions and phrasings where people may wonder if a sentence is figurative or literal. Given that most dictionaries and much of the English speaking world have accepted that "literal" can be used to emphasize figurative speech, what is the best way now to convey a literal meeting to an audience about a topic where it isn't immediately clear, even if you use the word "literal"?


Is there an expression for only offending the recipient?

Suppose one makes a statement that is likely to be offensive to its recipient, but will not offend most third parties. Is there a word or expression for this type of statement? **Example:** I see someone picking a pocket or "shoplifting," and yell, "Stop, thief!" The perpetrator is likely to be offended, but neutral third parties would likely applaud, rather than be offended by my yelling. **Counterexample:** I call you a "sob." You're likely to be offended, but so would many, if not most, third parties. The expressions that come to my mind are "calling a spade a spade," or "if the shoe fits," but neither quite "rings the bell" for me. Is there a better way to express what I'm describing?


Use of "brother" in non-family and non-religious contexts

I think the word _brother_ (sometimes spelled _brotha_ or _bro_ ) has been used for a long time among African Americans when talking to one another with the meaning of "pal" and not in a family context. From the novels I read and the series I watch I have the feeling that for some years (difficult to date) the word is used more and more frequently by non- African Americans. I've always gathered it was OK for African Americans to use the word when talking to one another. To fully understand the feelings between the characters in the fiction I read or watch I'd like to know:   * what effect is conveyed when non-African Americans use it when talking to one another,    * if African Americans would call a non-African American _brother_ ,    * how African Americans would react if called _brother_ by a non-African American, and    * how non-African Americans would react if called _brother_ by an African American.


Is it correct to say "correct A to B"?

In Chinese, when we want to express the idea of "change _A_ which is erroneous to _B_ which is correct", we usually say "correct _A_ to _B_ "; very concise, right? But is it the proper way to express that meaning? If so, please cite a web page containing that expression; if not, present the correct way please and cite a web page too.


Is "an assortment" singular?

Is "an assortment of [something plural]" singular or plural? Removing the [something plural] makes the answer easier: > An assortment was here. makes more sense than > An assortment were here. Put in the [something plural], eg. "people", now I'm not sure which way sounds the most correct: > An assortment of people was here. or > An assortment of people were here.


What's a man called who follows everything his wife says or wishes?

In Hindi, there is a phrase called "zoru ka gulaam". Translated in English as "slave of his wife". Typically the people who get this honorary title are those who seem to care for their wife more than expected. Not only care but they also never seem to question any of their wives actions. In short, they do as their wives please. What is the word for these kind of people in English language?


Is a question mark used when trying to get someone's attention?

> Mike: Hey, Matt? > > Matt: Yeah? > > Mike: What are you doing? Since it's not actually a question, I'm not sure if a question mark should be used or not. But I'm also not just saying 'hey' to someone; there's more to come. I know if you were to greet and ask a question of someone before their response, you'd use a period like this: > "Hey, Matt. What are you doing?" but I'm not sure what punctuation to use in this instance.


"Most" vs. "most of"

> During **most of history** , humans were too busy to think about thought. Why is "most of history" correct in the above sentence? I could understand the difference between "Most of the people" and "Most people". Problem is why "Most of history" is correct.


Cause vs Causes - subject-verb agreement

A student wrote the following sentence in an essay: > Things such as software and workbooks are included in the textbook packages, > which causes a significant increase in price. My question is regarding the verb _causes_. My opinion is that the sentence should read "...which _cause_ a significant increase..." One of my peers disagrees with my assessment. My reasoning is that the subject in this sentence is _things_ , therefore the verb should reflect that. Am I wrong? Also, please ignore any other issues the sentence may have. I'm simply concerned with this one point. Thank you in advance!


How do I describe even values of the tenths digit of a number?

How can I describe the following numbers?               0.2     0.4     0.6     0.8      Can I call them "even tenths"? For example: "If the maximum value in the data set is 1, then the values displayed in the bar graph are the **______**." I am pertaining to the numbers above.


what's the difference between "past tense" and "past participle"?

For example,in this sentence: > Begun in 1078, the Tower of London was built in London’s southeast corner by > William the Conqueror. Why does that sentence use _begun_ not _began_?


Why does “His to lose” mean “He will (most) likely win?

I found the phrase “ _his to lose_ ” in today’s Associate Press news reporting Herman Cain’s sexual harassment allegation under the lengthy caption “Cain seeks to put aside harassment allegations even as lawyer for accuser presses on.” It appears in the following lines: “Romney is running his second national campaign and has spent the past few weeks shoring up support among the GOP establishment for _a nomination fight many Republican insiders think is his to lose.”_ I first thought “his to lose” means he will certainly to lose, which sounds very odd to say at this stage. So I checked the exact meaning of the phrase on online dictionaries, and got the quite contrary definition on wiki.answers.com, that says: "It means that someone is winning by so much, that the only way he could lose at that point would be if he defeated himself, i.e. by 'choking' or 'dropping the ball.'" I’m interested in how did “his to lose” come to mean he is sure to win (the game / fight) unless he should blunder (defeat himself) in quite reversal way from its surfacial look – his to lose? Although I see growing increase of the incidence of the usage of this phrase since 1980 after the first peak in early 1900 in Google Ngram, Is this a very popular phrase among English speaking society today?


Should you use en dashes in acronyms?

For terms like liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry that typically use an en dash rather than a hyphen, would an en dash still be used in the acronym, LC–MS? Or would we only need a hyphen there, LC-MS? EDIT: Anybody have a style guide that speaks to this issue?


"Pa. man bagged deer Wal-Mart lot deer" Is This Headline Grammatical or Sensical?

http://news.yahoo.com/charges-pa-man-bagged-deer-wal-mart-lot-145951272.html I just cannot parse this headline. I understand the story - a fellow was standing in a Wal-Mart parking lot, saw a deer he liked, shot it from across the highway, and is now being charged for being reckless, but I cannot make sense of the headline. Am I missing something, or is it really nonsensical?


Deal in vs deal with

I wrote this sentence: "The scientists dealing in complex systems have proposed...." But then I thought 'dealing with' would be correct. Are they interchangeable?


Idiom for magic object (or idea) that fixes everything

Some people hold the irrational belief that one object (or possibly idea) can fix all their problems. For example, someone who is unhappy or anxious might think that smoking is a cure to all their problems. What's the idiom to describe this belief? I used to know it but it slipped my mind.


Blood - Bloods - pluralisation

Why is it that the plural of 'blood' is 'blood' in normal usage but 'bloods' (e.g. 'I'll be taking some bloods') is acceptable in a medical context? Are there any words with similar pluralisation anomalies? This odd pluralisation _may_ be confined to British English, here are some examples http://m.studentmidwife.net/student-midwife-forums-2/clinical-placements-and- electives-8/3845-taking-bloods.html http://www.babyandbump.com/miscarriage-support/626402-reasons-taking-bloods- any-information-would-great.html http://www.babyandbump.com/trying-to-conceive/866899-have-bloods-tested- progesterone.html http://www.mail-to.co.uk/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13134 http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/09/restraint-should-be-last-alternative-in- taking-bloods.html UPDATE: I'm struggling to find online examples of this usage outside of midwifery as per the links above. Now I'm wondering if 'bloods' is actually a pluralisation that refers to both the mother and baby's blood. Has anyone an example of a medical usage outside of pregnancy?


Antonym of "apathy"

I'm looking for a word that describes a general feeling of concern for things. Preferably not with a negative connotation (ie. neurotic), but for use as a description of someone who expresses interest in and wants to change things around them. Dictionary.com gives: interest, care, concern, feeling, passion, sensitivity, sympathy, and warmth. These all feel specific though. You can say someone is generally apathetic, but if you say that a person is generally interested, caring, etc., those have very specific implied meanings (interested ~ interested in something specific, caring ~ cares for others).


Is this correct usage of "it's"?

I saw this in an English text, and I was wondering if the "it's" here is used correctly: > The morality of **it’s** debatable but you can ... I would be inclined to write it as: > The morality of **it is** debatable but you can ... but I am not a native English speaker.


Is it offensive to call a Jewish person a "semite"?

Is it considered offensive to call a Jewish person a _Semite?_ I've heard the phrase _anti-semite_ or _anti-semitism_ , but I've never heard someone call someone a _Semite_.


How should I refer to the godmother of my child in formal documents?

Is there a word such as _sister_ , _spouse_ , _aunt_ , _cousin_ , etc., which describes a person who is my child's godmother? Informally, I would refer to this person as an aunt, but that implies a genetic relationship that does not actually exist. I could formally describe her as _friend_ , but I am hoping to find a more accurate term.


"Not once he would" vs. "not once would he"

Not being a native speaker and suffering semantic satiation from overthinking this, I'd like to ask this probably overly simple question. > Not once would he... uses reversal for negation and means "he wouldn't even once..." > Not once he would... is litotes for "He would frequently..." Is that correct or did I mess up? If I did mess up, how to correctly express the two meanings?


"Embarassed" vs. "ashamed"

Is there any difference between the words _embarrassed_ and _ashamed_? If so, could you provide some examples of usage?


What is a term for someone who has a rather frown face?

With tensed muscles and looking "difficult" (as I don't know how to describe this any better...) Not done most excessively (a face frown as much as possible), but kind of like someone who (pretended or not) is having a hard time. You may have seen this kind of face before from young people who take a lot of "selfies".


"Don't try and Lance Armstrong your way outta this one!"

I don't know in the sentence I will refer to, what does "Lance Armstrong your way" mean, is there any irony or not? The situation is between a man and a woman, and the man wants to deny a mistake he had made. Her friend had heard a sentence which the man had said, and then the woman says: > She was in the other room, you bastard! In the next room, ok, so don't try > and Lance Armstrong your way outta this one!


What are the differences between "assumption" and "presumption"?

I was told the following: > A presumption is something you think is true before you know any facts about > the matter.   >  An assumption is something you think is true when you miss information, but > you think you have it.   >  The difference can be subtle. When you have certain set ideas about some > things, they are also presumptions.   >  Women can not drive cars is a presumption.   >  Based on the presumption, I can assume that you can not drive, because you > are a woman. Is this right, or is there more to it?


Is “be no profile in something” an idiom or just a pun with “no profiles in PPD for qualifier XXX”?

I came across the phrase _“be no profile in something_ ” in the following statement of Maureen Dowd’s article titled “Of Mad men, Mad women and Meat loaf” in today’s (October 27) New York Times: > “Mitt was certainly _no profile in courage_ ” after Murdock’s comment blew > up. He didn’t take back his endorsement. He hid from reporters on his plane, > and even dodged his usual custom of giving a reporter a birthday hug.” Readers English Dictionary at hand shows only two idioms – “in profile” and “keep a low profile” under the headword of “profile.” Google Ngram viewers show instances of “ _no profile in_ ” since 1880, and its usage is on the sharp rise since 1990. What does “Somebody is no profile in something (courage, integrity, command of foreign policy, and whatever) means? Is this an established idiom, or just a Dowd’s usual pun with the error message “no profiles in PPD for qualifier 'RGB16.1.600x600dpi, ” we often see on our PC.?


What does custom mean when it comes to parties?

I've seen different sets of people from around the country mention a "custom party" on _written_ Halloween invitations. Does it simply mean costume (and just intentionally mis-spelled)? Or some specific kind of costume?


Word that means weight? (heath?)

I'm trying to spell the word that sounds like "heath" meaning weightiness?


Is it possible to use “have” in this case?

I know it is acceptable to use the verb _get_ when saying you are trying to get yourself to do something or you are trying to make yourself do something Examples:   * After much hesitation I finally got myself to enter the dark room.= Even with difficulty the speaker succeeded in convincing himself to enter the room.   * Despite being extremely lazy as I was, I made myself get up.=The speaker forced himself to get up. But is it possible to use the verb _have_ in this way too? Example:   * I need to have myself standing at the door, when the guests come in.   * I need to have myself ready for the meeting.   * I want to have myself see the painting. All of the last three sentences sound very odd if not utterly wrong to me, so are they?


Is there any difference between a 'Web slide Show' and a 'Carousel'?

Are Web **slideshows** and **carousels** the same thing? If not, what is the difference? For _Web slideshow_ , I mean HTML image galleries like:   * Flexslider by WooThemes   * Nivo Slider™   * Juicebox


Should I use interchangable terms in academic writing?

In academic writing (when writing to a journal), should I stick to the same terms throughout a paper, e.g. > Twenty participants participated to the _study_. The participants received > monetary compensation for participating in the _experiment_. OR > Twenty participants participated to the _study_. The participants received > monetary compensation for participating in the _study_. OR It doesn't matter which one I use.


Do English words have fixed pronunciation?

I'm not a native English speaker. I sometimes pronounce some English words by following the way I pronounce things in Mandarin. While Mandarin does have a fixed way to pronounce every word, I was wondering if the same is true in English. Does each word have a fixed pronunciation?


all three loop types - no the?

> Loops allow stored programs to execute statements repetitively. The MySQL > stored program language offers three types of loops: > >   * Simple loops using the LOOP and END LOOP clauses >   * Loops that continue while a condition is true, using the WHILE and END > WHILE clauses >   * Loops that continue until a condition is true, using the REPEAT and > UNTIL clauses > > > With **all three loop types** , you terminate **execution** of the loop with > the LEAVE statement. Is there some kind of explanation as to why we don't need the definite article **the** coming after **all** but before **three loop types**? I think I have encountered this particular grammar structure before but at the time no one seemed to know the answer (but that was on the Yahoo question-answer service). Yet another thing that bothers me here is why is there no **the** in front of **execution**? Like, **you terminate THE execution of the loop with the LEAVE statement**. Any thoughts? Thank you.


The superlative of sincere

Is the usage sincerest gratitude wrong?Can we use such in acknowledgements?


Meaning of "quick reply"

"Quick reply": does it mean responding in a timely manner or something like 'your answer was super fast you could've put more thought into it'? Because if you say "thanks for the quick reply" I think it's the first but if you write "here's a quick reply" I think it's something you've put together in a rush, maybe because you're about to go out and you'll elaborate later.


Do I use an article if the word is combination of a proper noun and a common noun?

Do I use an article if the word is a combination of a proper noun and a common noun? For example, “Microsoft website.” Would I say “I need to go on the Microsoft website” or “I need to go on Microsoft website”? I think I’ve seen both cases used, but I haven't been able to find a clear rule on it. Thanks


Commas around "and"

I'm at a loss as to how I should title this. I have this sentence: > We have the option to provide notifications via telephone, and, possibly, > email. I am trying to express several things:   1. We have an option to provide notifications    2. We can provide those notifications via telephone    3. I think we can provide email notifications (Further research is required, but I believe the audience already has that context. The addition of "possibly" is primarily meant to emphasize the lack of a guarantee). Would I be better off with this: > We have the option to provide notifications via telephone, and possibly, > email. or this: > We have the option to provide notifications via telephone and, possibly > email.


Is there an adjective for acedia?

The Oxford dictionary list "acedia" as: > noun literary another term for accidie > > Origin: early 17th century: via late Latin from Greek akēdia 'listlessness', > from a- 'without' + kēdos 'care' Is there an adjective for being in a state of acedia?


Is using "too" correct in "As X, so too Y"?

Is the usage of "too" correct in this sentence? > As the systems we simulate become increasingly complex, so too does the task > of validation.


Optional 'of' in various phrases, especially with 'much/much of'

Yes, I know there is a related question here. But that doesn't answer my question. For each of the following phrases, are they correct?   If not, why not? What is the OF doing? What part of speech is it? What role does it play in the phrase/sentence? Is there a technical name for this role?   * somewhat/somewhat of (with a/the)  a. Joe's somewhat a/the philospher.   b. Joe's somewhat _of_ a/the philospher.   * much/much of (with a/the)  c. Do you know if Sam's much a poker player?   d. Do you know if Sam's much _of_ a poker player? e. Do you know if Sam's much the poker player?   f. Do you know if Sam's much _of_ the poker player?   * much/much of  g. There's much the wolf in you.   h. There's much _of_ the wolf in you.   * not much / not much of i. I'm not much a writer.   j. I'm not much _of_ a writer.   * much/much of (money) k. Much money is on the table.   m. Much _of_ the money is on the table.   * much/much of (time) n. I spend much time on my homework.   p. I spend much _of_ the time on my homework.   * much / much of a (difference) q. There is much difference between Syndey and Vancouver.   r. There is much _of_ a difference between Syndey and Vancouver.   * not much difference / not much of a difference s. There's not much difference between Syndey and Vancouver.   t. There's not much _of_ a difference between Syndey and Vancouver.


Is Gorka’s remark “Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?” so preposterous enough to  be deemed ‘never before rendered in English’?

In his 3 August 2012 Krathammer Kolumn, Mark Halperin characterized a remark by Charles Krauthammer about Rick Gorka (Mitt Romney’s aide), _“Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?”_ , as a _“sentence never before rendered in English or any other known human language”_. To me it seems that Krauthammer simply asks why what’s taken for granted for Teresa Heinz Kerry is not taken for granted for Rick Gorka, when they used similar words in similar situations. The only significant difference between Rick Gorka’s and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s remarks (Krauthammer says both included _‘anatomically risky suggestions’_ ) is that one was made by a man and the other was made by a woman. Actually Hillary Clinton spurred Teresa Heinz at that time by saying _‘It’s good for you. You go girl!’_ Is this (difference of sex of the speakers) the only reason why Krauthammer’s remark, _“Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?”_ , is deemed _"never before rendered in English or any other known human language"_? Is it such a terrible remark for many Americans? I find it hard to understand the delicate nuances and effects of quips in foreign languages. Are there other ways of reading _“Is what’s good for the Heinz not good for the Gorka?”_ as a “‘historic’ preposterous remark”?


Meaning of "Multicultural Koolaid"

In a recent internet conversation, someone used the term _multicultural Koolaid_ and I'm having trouble figuring out what it means. What does it mean and where did it come from? The context is a debate on the Internet. Someone responded to a comment of mine by saying “Sorry Brandon, we don't drink the multicult koolaid around here”. I think it has something to do with how someone perceives multiculturalism. I'm thinking it may be related to a political ideology, but I can't be sure. I can link to my comment and the response but I'd like an unbiased opinion of what the phrase means outside of this conversation. Google searches provided me with little information.


Is this a valid sentence using "approbation"

I believe the word means to approve or praise. So can I use it as > Are you looking for an approbation from your boss ? or > Why are you still standing here ? Do you want me to approbate you ?


'What ho!' of Bertie Wooster

_"What ho!"_ \- this strange form of greeting is used all the time by Bertie Wooster, a character of well-known "Jeeves and Wooster" stories by P. G. Wodehouse. > Bertie Wooster: Oh, what ho, Sir Watkyn! > > Sir Watkyn Bassett: Kindly do not address me in that familiar way, Wooster. > I happen to know that once again you've yielded to the awful temptation to > steal a policeman's helmet! ..... > > Bertie Wooster: Aunt Dahlia! What ho, old blood relation! > > Aunt Dahlia: [affectionately] Hello, Bertie, revolting young blot. What does _"ho"_ mean in such expressions? Is it a word reduction or an idiom?


"I went to the hotel you were staying at" vs. "you stayed at"

Is there a difference in meaning between these two sentences?   1. I went to the hotel **you were staying at** when you were in New York.   2. I went to the hotel **you stayed at** when you were in New York. Perhaps one reading is that they went to the hotel where their friend was (still) staying, but another is that they went to the hotel where their friend had (previously) stayed. The use of the past tense _were staying at when you were in New York_ would seem to mean that the friend was no longer there. With _I went,_ which represents a definite action at a point in time, does it matter if the stay at the hotel is described with the past continuous _you were staying_ or not? Is one more correct than the other?


Should I use present tense in reporting speech?

Should I use present tense in reported speech? I have both sentences and not sure which one is correct:   * (1) Peter mentioned that the formula A **is** based on formula B.   * (2) Peter mentioned that the formula A **was** based on formula B. Should I use present tense here as it is a fact (always)? However, it also makes sense by using past tense in reporting speech. Also, can the "that" be omitted? Thanks!


What is the standard English for “a receipt written in ‘catering short hand’”?

Ruth Marcus wrote in her article in Washington Post (September 29), titled “Fiscal Trivial Pursuit” describing the waste of the U.S. government’s disclosed by the Justice Department inspector general recently that ranges from $600 Pentagon toilet seats to $16 a piece muffin billing, and she says: > "As it turns out, the receipt on which the Justice Department’s inspector > general based that assessment was written in a kind of catering short-hand." I’m not very clear with the meaning of “a receipt written in a kind of catering short-hand,” but can easily guess it implies a receipt in the form of hand-written, scribbled note given by vendors. Although we have words such as '私製領収書-privately-made receipt' and 'tentatie receipt -仮領収書'usedd only for private, casual and petty cash transactions in Japan, I’m puzzled with the fact that government otentative ffices of a civilized country like America accept a (hand-written) short-hand receipt in contrast to a receipt in official (printed) form. Bureaucrats’ wastes of taxpayers’ money is not uncommon in any countries, but passing- by of receipts in ‘catering short-hand’ form meaning sloppy auditing seems to be unusual to me. Then my question, what is the short or "standard" English word for “a receipt written in a kind of catering short-hand,” that doesn’t require “a kind of”?


Can you replace the present perfect continuous with present continuous when a concrete time period is specified?

As I have learnt, present perfect continuous should be used when we want to describe some activity which lasted for concrete period of time and is not finished still. For example, "I've been waiting for her for 2 hours already" or "How long have you been waiting for her?" These constructions (especially the question form, where 'have' cannot be shortened) look and sound rather complicated. That's why I wonder whether it's acceptable to use present continuous (especially in speech). Another logical argument to use present continuous in question form is the analogy with questions which doesn't touch time aspects like: > What are you waiting for? > > Who are you waiting for? > > Why are you waiting for her? > > but > > How long have you been waiting for her? So, is it acceptable to ask > How long are you waiting for her? One more thing: does present perfect continuous add some additional hidden value, like expectation for results or anything else?


Is there a word for the desire or emotion of wanting to prove someone wrong?

Is there a word for the motivation to do something only because of the desire to prove someone wrong? When someone is using reverse psychology like: > You won't do this chore, you'll probably just mess it up anyway. Are they preying on a particular characteristic? If successful, is the manipulated person acting with a particular emotion?


Is "Should be *ing" a valid English phrasing?

I'm Portuguese and my girlfriend German. Because she is a Germanic-language native-speaker, she is constantly correcting my English. Though, often it is annoying that she corrects me in grammar constructions that I take as valid in English and Portuguese, but not in German. Are "we should be going" or "we should be eating" valid English phrasings?


Which is correct: "math" or "maths"?

Which one is considered correct? I say "math", however I believe I heard somewhere that "maths" is correct. Also, should it (and "mathematics") be capitalized or not?