Does pronouncing an initialism make it an acronym?

One definition of an acronym is: > An abbreviation formed by (usually initial) letters taken from a word or > series of words, that is itself pronounced as a word, such as RAM, radar, or > scuba; sometimes contrasted with initialism. An initialism is: > A term formed from the initial letter or letters of several words or parts > of words, but which is itself pronounced letter by letter. If I pronounce an initialism, as a word, and not just as letters, does that 'make' it an acronym?


syntactic analysis of the sentence(s)

Help me,guys.I'm totally lost in those analysis...The aim is 1) to find out what kind of sentence it is (simple,compound,complex,complex-compound), 2)clause type 3)parts of sentence 4)word order and sentences are the following 1)The key,did you put it there or i did? 2)Should you lose your credit card, call our emergency helpline 3)It was a bright room and I noticed immediately the door which opened into balcony. 4)I don’t think that flying planes is dangerous 5)Flying planes are dangerous


Other ways to define a turning point

After a difficult childhood, the encounter with Rev. Charles, was a _turning point_ in his life. What other expressions can be used to to define the concept of _turning point?_


"Directory" for the main board in an airport, etc., informing people on arrivals/departures, floors/levels to certain stores, etc

In AE, is it appropriate to designate as a "directory" the main information board found in the concourse or front room of a public place such as a passenger station, an airport, a shopping mall, an hospital, a movie theater, etc. -- and assisting people in finding various information like arrivals and departures, tracks, gates, levels/floors to certain sections/offices/departments, etc.? Or, is there another name (or other names) by it? If indeed it is, why then can't I seem to find one single dictionary online in which "directory" is defined as such? If I hadn't already come across this term used in that specific sense, there would be no authoritative source online to state it as fact.


What is a term for the "process of copying somebody's work/invention"?

I need a phrase to mean _process of copying somebody's work_ is in the context of industry/manufacturing. Is there a concise phrase with the meaning similar to "plagiarism" by a competitor in business (e.g. copy a car engine or design of the car)? I am describing a situation where a competitor can benefit from the lack of R&D costs, and bring their product to market with a higher profit margin.   * `reproduction`   * `cloning`   * `replication` I think "This was done to make the **_reproduction_** of their work by competitors more difficult." sounds not so bad and also doesn't lose the desired meaning. The style is that of a technical register. It seems that **_counterfeiting_** is too strict for the current sentence. Perhaps I should restructure the sentence: > Not least of all it was done to make the reproduction and distribution of > their work (e.g. through reverse engineering of products and technological > processes) by competitors more difficult (as the result of competing in > manufacturing speed). In this way both meanings are covered, though it is not a single word nor a phrase, rather enumeration of the senses: reproduction (clone/copy) and distribution (selling).


Set of Preference

I want to send a formal email to describe my order of preference of some courses that I want to study. Is it correct to say : With the following set of preference:   1. course a   2. course b   3. course c


What does ‘shpritz’ mean?

I came across the word _shpritz_ in the following sentence of a _New York Times_ article (May 12th) titled, "At 100, Still a Teacher, Quite a Character": > At 100 years old, Ms. Kaufman is still _shpritzing jokes_ , Jewish and > otherwise, which is in her genes. Her grandfather was the great Yiddish > storyteller Sholem Aleichem, a writer who was able to squeeze heartbreaking > humor out of the most threadbare deprivation and wove the bittersweet Tevye > stories that became the source for “Fiddler on the Roof." As I am unfamiliar with the word _shpritz_ , I consulted several English dictionaries. Neither Cambridge Dictionary nor Merriam Webster Dictionary had entry of this word. _Readers English Japanese Dictionary_ defines it as > _vt_. attack, slander. _n_. a bit. Urban Dictionary defines it as > A word of german language origin - similar meaning to that of semen, or > spunk. Now used in popular English to describe the act of being impressed, > aroused, happy, or ecstatic, upon seeing or tasting a > person/substance/product. More commonly used to describe uncontrollable > release of excitement or joy However, neither the definition from _Readers English Japanese Dictionary_ nor Urban Dictionary seem to me to apply to the phrase "Ms. Kaufman is still shpritzing jokes, Jewish and otherwise." Though I think there’s good reasons for picking up the word, _shpritz_ , what does it mean exactly? Is it a "popular" English word as Urban Dictionary asserts?


"She doesn't like fruit" vs. "she doesn't like fruits"

In the following context, which do you use and why? > Helen doesn't eat apples or bananas. She doesn't like [fruit/fruits]. I think it is _fruit_ but I'm having a hard time explaining to myself why it isn't _fruits_. What is the reason?


Yeast: mass or plural noun?

I think of "yeast" as a mass noun, and the Oxford dictionary, bless its heart, agrees with me. However, Merriam Webster Unabridged says it's a singular whose plural is formed by -s. Can anyone offer an explanation?


What does “I hit Delete” mean?

I just deleted my own question about the sentence in the Time magazine (July 8) article titled “The Happiness of Pursuit” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2146449,00.html) as I noticed that I overlooked a word (poor) in the quoted sentence. However, I came across another line I cannot make out in the same copy block: > “Rich isn’t just better; it’s much better. That is how things shake out at > the national and global level. At the individual and community level, it can > be much different. If you’re rich, your experiences are not the same as > every other rich person’s, and the same is true if you’re poor. “A reporter > once asked me, ‘Yes or no, does money make people happy? No scientific > waffling, Just yes or no.” says psychologist Edward Diener of the University > of Illinois, “ **I hit Delete**.” What does the ending phrase, “I hit Delete” mean? Is it the same as the 'Delete’ practice as we do, and I did on my question an hour before in EL&U site?


Lesser number vs. smaller number

I am wondering about the correct use of lesser/smaller in the following phrase: > This library has a smaller/lesser number of books than the National Library. I did find another thread on nearly the same question, where one answer states: "As a general rule, 'smaller' is used for size, whereas 'lesser' is used for quantity." In this particular example, however, I am not quite sure how to approach this, as 'number' in this sentence refers to an amount, which you could argue has a size, and 'smaller/lesser number' as a whole only refers to a quantity. To me, 'a smaller number' sounds better, but I am not a native speaker and I can't make out a clear reason for choosing one over the other.


When did "while" and "whilst" become interchangeable?

I think most folk happily use either "while" or "whilst". I've a vague recollection that at one time "while" indicated the passing of time and "whilst" was essentially the same as "whereas" or "although". So using while for time passing... > While I was walking down the street the sun was shining. ... and whilst for whereas/although... > Whilst I was walking down the street I often prefer to hop. Any views?


Why is it a mosquito *bite*?

I don't understand, why you would call it a bite, when a mosquito "bites" you. I'm fine with saying "bite" to a wound produced by a tick or other insects that actually have a mouth or something comparable.   But mosquitos, they don't have a mouth or teeth with which they could bite you. In my opinion, they sting you. This is even worse for wasps. They really sting you with their sting to defend themselves (and not to feast on your blood), yet still some people call it an insect bite.


What's the difference between "stared at" and "stared off at?"

What's the difference between these two sentences? > Mary stared at the distance > > Mary stared off at/into the distance


Precise definition of "wear [something] lightly" wanted

I would like a precise definition. Does 'wear' mean 'show'? From NYT: > You don’t become president without clawing your way into the Oval Office, > but voters prefer pols like J.F.K., Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama who > **wear their ambition lightly**.


What is a good antonym for "infest"?

What is a good antonym for "infest"? I thought of "cleanse" but I'm hoping there is a better antonym. The context I'm thinking of is when an exterminator gets rid of an insect infestation.


What is the name of this elevated street crossing thing (In Britain?) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/4gKO9.png) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/fRIVO.png) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/RIDMD.png)


When to use & instead of "and"

Are there rules of usage when using the ampersand "&" instead of "and"? Are they completely interchangeable? The ampersand seems more casual, but I'm not sure.


When to use "and" as opposed to "&"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When to use & instead of "and" Is there a rule as to when to use "and" as opposed to using "&"? eg. Andy and Steve's duties were to grade, guide & proctor exams, homework & projects


Is the phrase "in that" interchangeable with "since"?

My boss likes to use "in that" when he really means "since." Is this acceptable? If not, what is the rule that I can tell him?


Term to describe users' initial dislike of user interface change

What is the best term to describe the fact that most users have an initial dislike of any change to a UI even though it may really be net better over time? _Note: Question originally appearedas a Google+ post here._


What is a good alternative to "the film is set in"?

I'm writing a paper about a movie. I would like to start like this: > _Monsters_ is a 2010 independent science-fiction film directed by Gareth > Edwards and set in the Mexico-U.S. border region. It is set in the present; > however, a significant event has changed human history six years before .... I would like to avoid duplicating "set", but I can't think of a good alternative. The Thesaurus isn't helpful because it doesn't seem to cover the case of "to be set", at least dictionary.com's doesn't. What are good alternatives here? I'll restructure the sentences if none exists, but I thought I'd ask first.


Why do some people pronounce 'a' as 'u'?

I often hear English people pronounce 'a' as 'u' when using words like 'rather' and 'bravo'. Why is this?


What could be a single word or phrase for the one who helps people to achieve their goals?

I was just wondering about this word to suggest it to my friend to use it for the NGO he is going to start soon.


An expression to say that someone is talking without thinking

What idiom can be used define a the situation where someone is telling something without thinking? Possibly a slang definition. * * * Is "Don't say bullshit" a possible answer?


Person who fills out a form - single word

What single word would I use to describe a person who fills out a form? So if Abigail fills out a form she is a... whatever the term should be. The form is an application but the applicant does not fill it in himself. The person who fills it out may be a secretary or a manager. It needs to be one word. "Filler-inner" does not sound right. Data-capturer is two words.


What do you call someone who finds everything

I'm trying to define a character for a short story I'm writing, but I'm having a hard time defining him. He has the ability to find everything. What you do call someone who can find anything/everything?


When can we change the order of the particle and the verb in a phrasal verb?

My textbook says this: > Be careful with word order when using phrasal verbs. The verb and particle > cannot be separated: > >   * when it is a three-part phrasal verb   > _I caught up with Jack further down the road._ >   * if the phrasal verb is used intransitively (without an object)   > _All my hard work paid off._ >   * when the particle is a preposition   > _Sally jumped at the chance of visiting Rome._ > I'm confused because I thought this last topic was always true. When is a phrasal verb **not** followed by a preposition? All the phrasal verbs I can remember use a preposition.


"Put it at the backseat" or "Put it onto the backseat"?

What preposition should I use in the expression "put **___ __** the backseat"? The sentence goes like this: > I have a few items on my plans, item A is the least important one, so I will > put it **___ __** the backseat. Should I use "at" or "onto" here?


What does "all words are pegs to hang ideas on" mean?

I have searched for this quote's meaning by Henry Ward Beeccher on the internet, but couldn't find the meaning.   What does **all words are pegs to hang ideas on** means?


What does "unimpressed" mean in this sentence?

I don't completely understand its meaning in the sentence below. > Because of its lack of theaters, the city came, ironically, to be viewed as > an **unimpressed** theater town, and that reputation led entrepreneurs to > believe that it would be shrewd to build new theaters there.


Is this correct : "the bigger a dream is, the harder is to achieve."

I believe it's correct from a view of grammar, but is it clear?


A word like "hundreds" but for multiples of 10

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How to use "tens of" and "hundreds of"? Take this example: > Hundreds of pieces were used to create it. What if the amount were something like 20 or 30? What would the equivalent sentence be that would sound natural?


“Deliberately” vs. “intentionally” vs. “on purpose”

I wonder if there is any difference between usage of these three:   * deliberately   * intentionally   * on purpose Are they completely interchangeable? Are they at the same level of formality? I found some explanation (forums) Googling the three words, but I don’t find them reliable since people simply stated their own opinion. In the dictionary, they are mentioned as synonymous: _deliberately_ means _intentionally_ , and _on purpose_ means _deliberately_.


"Millions" versus "million"

Usually when discussing monetary amounts, people will say "That cost one hundred million dollars" or "one hundred million pounds". But I have also seen it written as "that cost one hundred millions sterling". Former UK PM Gordon Brown also used to say millions not million when giving his budget updates. Are there rules for this usage, or is it just a question of putting the plural in the right place?


Saxon genitive to identify algorithms, methods, techniques, theorems,

When identifying an algorithm or theorem, which of these two sentences is preferred, _Seifert's algorithm_ or _Seifert algorithm_? Does it have to do with the "prestige" of the algorithm/theorem? I mean that we conventionally say _Newton-Raphson method_ and not _Newton-Raphson's method_ , but it seems to me that when the method is not so known the possessives formed without an apostrophe 's appear to be preferred.


Use of 'That" rather than "the"

The weather reports on the BBC frequently use the word "That" when I was expecting either no article or possibly "the". For example 'There will be more of that cold weather.' when no cold weather has been referred to, unless they meant yesterday, or last week, possibly. Am I wrong, or is this just another silly attempt to sound vaguely colloquial? This use of "That" seems very common currently in what might be called reporter speak, the weather men are not the only example, but they seem to do it a lot. Over the last few weeks I have also heard "that sunshine", "that rain", "that fog". I have hunted around some grammar web resources and can't find any justification for this use of "That". Have I missed something?


"Is called" + article?

What is the best way to define a new object by using "Something is called [name]"? I have seen all three posibilities, that is: >   1. Fruit of this tree is called apple. >   2. Fruit of this tree is called an apple. >   3. Fruit of this tree is called the apple. > Which ones are correct and which is the most natural one?


Is "our and other" correct?

I am helping to edit a scientific manuscript. The author in one sentence wants to talk about what his study and other studies have found. Here is part of his sentence: "Although our and other studies have previously reported a link between [...]." Is it grammatically correct to use "our and other?" It doesn't sound right to my ears, but I'm not sure how else to word it. Thanks!


Language aesthetics and era

I was just wondering about this today. I know that language does change over time, but what about the colloquialisms and/or general style of an 'era', make it so 'cool'? For example I've been reading quite a lot of Victorian books and while the language is still 'English' at its core there are certain aspects of the language, the words, the mechanics that cannot be re-duplicated and are just characteristic of the era. Moreover, I've found that (this isn't based on any hard data, purely anecdotal) the style they cultivated in the 19th century has been very influential and has extended far into the future as well. 'Good/Pompous/Scholarly writing' in the modern era, almost always harks back to the lingo and mannerisms of the Victorian age. While it is possible to be skillful and articulate in any English dialect, most people have stereotyped Victorian style prose a la Arthur Conan Doyle, HG Wells as being what constitutes stellar writing. And this sentiment isn't just confined to England, but has rather bled into the entire English-speaking world. So in a sense we've fetishized the era. I'm pretty sure if you went back in time, none of what we've stereotyped to be 'good form' was that special to the Victorians. Also, I'm pretty sure that the Victorians themselves had an inferiority complex of their own since I believe it was them who dug Shakespeare out of the dusty annals history and made him a big deal again. To them I bet they considered their own literature to be piss poor and renaissance literature to be the absolute pinnacle that the English language could hope to reach. Why is this? Why do we cast our eyes backwards instead of infront? Why do we use large dictionaries to keep the terms of a by-gone era fresh in a newer generation's mind? Why not do away with dictionaries, respecting grammatical rules and/or following precedent altogether so that we can refashion the language, however we see fit, at our own discretion? This would in a sense allow us to masters of our own fates. I sometimes feel that we the newer generation get tyrannized by our past When later generations look at early 21st century English literature, what's going to stand out to them? Are we not merely following precedent? Copying our predecessors? Does anybody have any thoughts and/or insight on this? It's really quite fascinating.


What's the history of the mnemonic "Father Charles goes down and ends battle"

If you work your way around the 'circle of fifths' you work your may through all the major scales. For example, starting with C major if we add one sharp, F#, we get G major. Adding a second sharp, C#, gives us D major and a third, G#, A major. The way English speaking music students remember this is with the mnemonic: > Father Charles goes down and ends battle (N.B. Going the other way, adding flats, follows the mnemonic "Battle ends and down goes Charles' father".) What is the history of this mnemonic?


Is “flatter than a mashed cat” a common phrase?

I became interested in the expression but can’t find out whether it has original or common forms. Why is it a cat? > From the very first note she was horribly, hopelessly, irretrievably off > key, and with each high note the problems were exaggerated. “Good God,” I > would yell to myself, “you’re flatter than a mashed cat!” ( _The Piano Shop > on the Left Bank_ by Thad Carhart)


"Your and my [something]" vs "Yours and my..."

Prompted by comments against this question, I'd like some help figuring out why some people (myself included) prefer _yours_ over the apparently more logical/grammatically consistent _your_ in this kind of sentence... > Yours and my native languages have co-existed for hundreds of years. Google Books has _Your:Yours_ ratios for _languages:2:2, parents:9:10, houses:4:2_. That's a very small sample size, admittedly - but even without anything like that, I know my own usage. So I'm not really interested in being told _which_ is correct, except insofar as this has a bearing on my question itself - why do some people, (including some "careful speakers", which I don't necessarily claim to be) use the apparently incorrect form? EDIT: It may be important to note (as @Gnawme guessed without it being explicitly stated in the first version of this question) that I personally would use singular _language_ in the above. It was just too difficult to search Google Books for that particular distinction, so I said nothing about it.


"Homeland" vs. "motherland" vs. "fatherland"

What is the distinction between _homeland_ , _motherland_ and _fatherland_?   1. Is there any difference in meaning of such terms?    2. When it comes to connotations are there any differences, except for the relation to Russia or Germany?


Consistency to, or consistency in?

Let’s say I’ve written an article that contains an argument or analysis, and I want to ask someone to check it for consistency.   I want to use the word ‘consistency’ here (rather than other variations of the word).   So I’d ask the person:   “Is there consistency **to** what I wrote?” Or, alternatively:   “Is there consistency **in** what I wrote?” Are either of these okay, or is one more clear or more correct?


I have a tendency to place the phrase _I suppose_ at the end of a sentence. It sounds alright to me. But when I want to write the expression down in words, how should I write it so that I won't violate the syntax of English? > This is a question regarding punctuation, I suppose. > > This is a question regarding punctuation I suppose. > > This is a question regarding punctuation. I suppose. > > This is a question regarding punctuation, _I suppose_. Or is placing the phrase _I suppose_ at the end of a sentence considered a bad habit? Sometimes I do the same to phrases like _I assume_ , _I believe_ , _I guess_ too.


How do you refer to letters of the alphabet?

If you're talking about a particular letter of the alphabet, how do you format it? Do you just write it? Do you put quotes around it? Do you italicize it? Do you just have to write it out? > Does the h come before the g or after it?   >  Does the 'h' come before the 'g' or after it?   >  Does the _h_ come before the _g_ or after it?   >  Does the aitch come before the gee or after it? Which of those would be right? Any of them?


would thus like

From Wikipedia > The bank **would thus like** to be able to identify (screen) the borrower > types, and in the absence of other instruments to do so, it will use the > interest rate. I saw this phrase for first time in my life. I've got the message but I'm not exactly sure what it means. I'm not sure whether it is grammatically okay or not. What meaning has the "would thus like" in this text?


Does ‘profile’ have a meaning of ‘identify’ or “read” by appearance?

Time magazine (July 16) carries Maya Angelou’s comment on the Zimmerman Trial under the title, “Maya Angelou reacts to Zimmerman Trial, evokes Civil Rights era.” http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/16/maya-angelou-reacts-to-zimmerman- trial-evoking-civil-rights-era/#ixzz2ZFi70AgH It goes as follows; > “Author, poet, and activist Maya Angelou was shaken by the verdict of the > George Zimmerman trial, saying it shows “how far we have to go” as a > country. “That one man, armed with a gun can actually **profile** a young > man because he is black and end up shooting him dead…It is so painful,” > Angelou said in an interview with TIME Monday.” According to Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, ‘profile’ as a verb is only defined as; to give or write a description of sb / stg that gives most important information. Does the word, “profiles” have the meanings such as “identify" or "read" by figure and appearance, which I construe from the text, other than the OALD’s definition? Is it a _prevailing_ usage? What does ‘profile’ here mean specifically?


Is "subcopy" a word?

A copywriter just sent me over a copy deck that had the word subcopy to describe the text immediately after the page title. Up until now I had been referring to it as a description. Example: > TITLE > > Going to the park. > > SUBCOPY > > I can still remember the days of my youth when a trip to the park was ... > > BODY > > ... Is _subcopy_ a word and does anyone have a better alternative?


More issues with the predicate nominative

In comparison to German, English is very "situational" with its predicate nominative (see this question). Suppose the rule is that the predicate nominative is only ever applied for sentences like the following: > It was I, who did that. then it would be very logical if it were > "Who was that." > > "That was I."   * Is this spoken by anyone?   * Is this considered correct by the ardent defenders of the predicate nominative?   * If the answers are "No." wouldn't it make sense to say that there is no such thing in the heart of the English language after all?


Correct use of "proof-of-concept"

In writing a technical paper, I'm wondering about the correct use of _proof- of-concept_. In short, the situation is that we have developed an application/tool to show the feasibility of a new approach to a problem, i.e. a proof-of-concept. Now in the paper itself, which of the following would be better to use? >   * Therefore, the proof-of-concept tool proposed in this paper... >   * Therefore, the proof-of-concept proposed in this paper... > I'm not sure how to formally say this in English, but I guess the question is: can _proof-of-concept_ be used to refer to the thing itself, or is it used as an adjective?


When is Mr/Mrs appropriate?

I often receive business emails starting with "Dear Daniel..." or "Hello Daniel..." although I haven't been into contact with the sender before. As an Austrian citizen (thus german speaking) this is quite unusual to me, I always write "Dear Mr. Smith..." or "Hello Mr. Smith...". When is it appropriate to address someone with Mr/Mrs instead of his given name?


If we say "Socrates", "Hippocrates", etc, why don't we say "Aristoteles"? Why "Aristotle"?

If Σωκράτης is transliterated as "Socrates", and Ἱπποκράτης is transliterated as "Hippocrates", and other Greek names ending with -ης are transliterated as ending with "-es", why isn't Ἀριστοτέλης transliterated "Aristoteles" instead of "Aristotle"?


How do I say 'people insist on' in the passive voice?

If I have 'read guides where people insist that...' then how do I use that in the passive voice? 'In guides I have read, it is insisted that...'? 'In guides I have read, it is insisted upon that..'? Or is it something different?


Oh, Say Can You See?

In the Star Spangled Banner, the opening line/question is "Oh, say can you see..." Is that grammatically correct? Why isn't it "Oh, say you can see...?"


Shouldn't have vs. Shouldn't of

Got into an argument with someone I know about this. I think "shouldn't of" is incorrect and comes from people typing the phrase the way they're used to pronouncing it. He believes both are correct. Thoughts guys?


Do native speakers understand all the words in songs?

I'm wondering if native speakers understand all the words in songs? For me it is very very difficult, as I can understand only 30% of words and phrases in songs usually. While listening to people's conversations (e.g. podcasts) I understand much more, perhaps about 80%. This was the first part of the question. The second part involves an example. Listen to this great song from Nick Cave. Do native speakers really understand all the words in this song? I mean without looking at lyrics. Is it possible? He sings very fast and there's no spaces and pauses between words, so I mostly "hear" separated words, and the rest of song is just some kind of Abracadabra. **Update** Let me explain why this question is not off-topic. It's closely related to English because in my native language (which is Russian) we always understand all the word in songs, I mean we understand more than 99% of words all the time. And I was wondering is my English so bad that I can't fully understand all the words in English, or is it just a feature of English language.


Is there a literary term for the circular nature of a story?

Is there a literary term for the circular nature of a story, starting in place _a_ , going on to _b_ and _c_ before returning to complete at _a_ again?


Comparing two juxtaposed elements by way of clause inversion?

What is this sort of sentence/style/literary device called? I'm sure it has a name. > There is no love without forgiveness, and there is no forgiveness without > love. It appears that a point is being inverted to circularly tie to the initial point. I just don't know how to label this device. Perhaps some more context: > There is no ice cream without vanilla, and there is no vanilla without ice > cream. or > Cookies are good, but there is no good without cookies. I'd clarify this better if I had a clue of what's actually going on here, but to help you understand: people usually create statements this way to sound wise and/or righteous while causing a person to think (and it's usually a trivial attempt, for the record). It's a cliche style.


-er rather than -lier as an adverbial comparative form

In modern German, one can make _tief_ into the comparative _tiefer,_ regardless of whether the word is used as adjective or adverb. In English, I now have a sentence in which I want to do the same thing with the English _deep,_ because _more deeply_ does not suit the cadence of my sentence and, frankly, _deeplier_ looks dippy. Can I do what I want? Can I use _deeper_ as an adverb? Is this good usage? Is it good philology? Is it sanctioned by practice? If so, why, please? If not, why not? My _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_ surprisingly seems to offer no clue. I realize that English occasionally allows the positive _deep_ as an adverb, but such usage probably would be pretentious in my particular instance -- or, at best, would serve only to dodge the linguistic question. If such dodging makes bad English in principle, then one prefers not to dodge. It is not that I wish to convert the poetic adverb _deep_ into _deeper,_ but the more pedestrian adverb _deeply_ into _deeper._ (I do not know how interesting or relevant my specific sentence is to readers of this site, but if it interests you: "Ideally, the professional mathematician knows or precisely specifies in advance -- or, deeper, reveals the very wisdom of -- the set of fundamental axioms he means to use to derive a result.")


A word that refers to a large scale wall paintings/mural

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "paintings on walls and ceilings" and "painting of portraits, landscapes" There is a word which refers specifically to large landscape wall painting (I'm thinking in terms of the Roman wall paintings in Campania) and for the life of me I can't remember it. All my searches for it come up with a blank, and I'm trying to work towards a deadline which I can't reach unless I can search for articles specific to this term! Anyone know what I'm talking about? I think it's a technical term, perhaps with the stem "mega" which seems to ring a bell, but apart from that my mind is a complete blank!


Can I use the "ll" contraction with proper names?

Can I contract "will" as "ll" when preceded by a proper name? For example: > John will visit you tomorrow > > John'll visit you tomorrow I am inclined to think this is not acceptable in standard English. It's also not pretty when spoken. In which case, is this construction valid in any dialect? Why am I asking this? (some people seem to care): I'm translating a game I originally wrote in Japanese, into English. I have a native English speaker taking care of the dialogue, and a construction similar to the one I wrote above appeared on the text he sent me to check. I'm not a native English speaker, so even though I have probably heard that contraction a handful of times in my life, I would like to know if it is correct English. It also happens that my native English speaker is from Texas, so it occurred to me that this is probably common in the Texan dialect of English. I have never been to Texas, so I have no idea if this is right.


"Has preserved" or "has been preserved"

Which is correct? >   * Roman temples have not preserved in their original condition >   * Roman temples have not been preserved in their original condition >


Doubt about plurals in a sentence

I often find myself in this situation. I try to describe my time with something, but it doesn't come out sounding right to me. Specifically, in this instance I'm trying to describe my time with someone. We had beers, we had multiple conversations over a few nights. This is what I came up with. > We had great conversations over beers into the nights. Is the above sentence grammatically correct? What about style? Why does it sound ugly to me if it is correct?


Can you begin a sentence with an emotion?

Is it incorrect to begin a sentence with an emotion? For example: > "Afraid and alone, he no longer wished to continue on." I'm translating some work from a foreign language into English, but I would like to keep the original sentence structure if possible. Starting the sentence with "being" or "as he was", just doesn't seem to give the same feel.


Independent clause markers

I understand independent clauses, and how there are certain markers such as _however, therefore, consequently_ which can denote an independent clause. The common example of use is when one of them follows a semi-colon and is follwed by a comma, followed in turn by an independent clause. That is all good. My question is are they only 'markers' when in the initial position, or are they still such when used elsewhere in a sentence? For example: a) The bus was late; consequently, many people missed their appointments. b) The bus was late. Many people, consequently, missed their appointments. Is the _consequently_ in the second example able to be viewed as an independent marker? This is possibly not a great example but hopefully will give you the idea behind my question.


Word meaning "before sleeping"

What is a word that means _before sleeping_ or _before bed_ , like how _postprandial_ means _after dinner_?


"Gnashing teeth" - why only teeth?

Why is it always "gnash one's teeth"? Is anything else ever gnashed?


Problem listening to foreign accents

From the beginning I had some problems listening to foreign accents. Like when someone from my native country (India) speaks English I understand it at once, but if someone from a foreign country especially US speaks English, I have to make them repeat the sentence several times to understand it. Also, I have noticed I have more problems when watching movies, talking than when watching lectures. I am having lot of trouble these days because of it. So how can I solve this problem? Also, is there is particular term for this state? Note: I have watched 100's of movies but still there is very less improvment.


Telling the vote?

English is my second language. I heard someone saying "Now that the right people are telling the vote..." I wrote down 'telling' but I don't think it was that word. What could that verb be that could sound like 'telling' to mean "...now that the right people are voting..."? I'm pretty sure it wasn't "casting". Situation is like in the 'survival' show. There are two teams and the loser team was to pick someone to leave. That line is said before they are going into the area to pick each one's 'worst performer' choice.


How to interpret polyhedron name "Rhombic Hexecontahedron"? What prefixes and suffixes that are generic and reusable? What're some examples to "make up" polyhedron names following the same style?


What is the right way to use add-ons to questions?

Can we do it like a flower? Without needing to be admired, adored, or even noticed? or Can we do it like a flower, without needing to be admired, adored, or even noticed?


"On the tournament" vs. "in the tournament"

What preposition should I use, _in_ or _on_? For example: > 67 people took part **in/on** the tournament.


How did "inmate" evolve to only apply to prisons and asylums?

If you look at census records from the 1920s and before, dorm residents in schools, seminaries, and institutions are referred to as "inmates." The term, then, was not limited just to prisons as today. How did the association of the word to prisons only, evolve? Has this evolved usage made the former, broader definition obsolete or inappropriate?


Count vs. mass — where can you look this up?

Most dictionaries don't say whether a noun is count vs. mass. Short of asking a fluent English speaker, where can you get this kind of information? I've tried asking various other ESL/EFL people I know this same question, and also tried googling it, but to no avail.


A better way to say "to engage in double standard"

As is, it sounds a bit awkward to me. Let me try to incorporate what I am after into a sentence. Just as Bush once said "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.", I would like to write something along these lines: "Double standard does not bother me for as long as I am the one engaging in/doing it". It does not quite roll off the tongue. Hopefully there is a better way.


Does "to cook leeks" imply anything about the method of preparing them?

This question is inspired by but unrelated to Is "Know how to cook leeks" an idiom. I'm Dutch and the English "to cook" is a bit confusing to me. The Dutch "koken" is used in a general way as in English (I'm going to cook dinner), but also as a specific method of food preparation, namely to put something in boiling water until it's done. I think that's _boiling_ in English. So to me "to cook leeks" sounds at first as if someone is going to boil them, which is not how I would do it. I know the English term is more general than that. What I'm vague about is -- does using "to cook leeks" put any limit on the method of preparing them at all, or can it mean boiling/frying/barbecuing/sauteing/grilling/chopping them to use them raw in a salad/et cetera?


Plural of "the [x] of [y]"

What is the proper usage between 1) and 2)?   1) "Determine the values of the coefficients."   2) "Determine the value of the coefficients."   Each coefficient has one value in this context. Similarly, which of the following forms is correct?   1) "Write the values of the coefficients in the book."   2) "Write the value of the coefficients in the book." Is the rule consistent for all possible [x] of [y], excluding constructs such as "every" and word-specific exceptions such as "cattle"? I'm aware this question is very vague. Basically, I'm looking for clues like "the rule depends on whether you want to emphasise [x] over [y]", etc. I read about the similar question 'Does a [x] of [y] take a singular or plural verb?', but I'm still in doubt after reviewing the discussion. Thanks for any help!


Usage of 'and' as a noun

I am reading _The day that changed the world_ by Stephen King and in the beginning he mentions that there is a correct usage of _and_ as a noun. Unfortunately, he only mentions it. I Googled for a long time but phrases with such common words as _noun_ or _and_ gave me various amounts of unnecessary web sites. Can _and_ be used as a noun? If so, in what way?


What is another way to say 10 months?

I'm just curious because we call 10 years a decade. > The word (decade) is derived (via French) from the Ancient Greek dekas which > means ten. As sighted from wikipedia: Decade Is there another similar way to say 10 months?


Talking about late husband

I heard a lady talk about her late husband today and was curious about her verb tense usage. She said, > "He was a loving father. He always took the kids out on weekends. He would > stop whatever he was doing for the kids." But then, I'm not entirely sure why she talked in simple past, since although he is dead, she was talking about a lot of things that happened in the past. It feels like she should have spoken in present perfect, since she was talking about several different events, not about specific times in the past. Can you please help?


Salutation in motivation letter for academic purpose

What salutation should be used except "Dear Sir\Madam," in motivation letter for enroll in Master or doctoral program? "Dear person responsible for application review," ? Also I read that ":" instead of "," must be used in salutations. Is it true?


Response to "Would you not do it?"

If posed with the subject question, given that I will not do the action in question, then what is the correct answer > No, I will not do it. or > Yes, I will not do it. #1 sounds better to me, but #2 is more logical. #1 sounds somewhat paradoxical in context of the question.


Artists shall make a living (by) making art

Which one sounds better and/or is grammatically right? > Artists shall make a living making art. or > Artists shall make a living **by** making art. or any other formulation?


Is it proper to use "that" instead of "at which" to refer to speed?

On a physics assignment, I believe that these sentences are grammatically incorrect, but some other students disagree (especially on the second one). > What is the maximum speed **that** the mass can be whirled without breaking > the string? > > What is the maximum speed **that** this car can round this curve without > skidding > > (NOTE: 33 1/3 is the frequency **that** it turns -- 33 1/3 revolutions per > minute) I think the use of _that_ is incorrect, and "at which" or "that ... at" must be used to be grammatically correct. "that ..." is used above as restrictive clauses. They accepted that the last one is incorrect. > the frequency [that it turns **__** ] Something cannot turn the "maximum speed". For the second part, it doesn't seem like proper use of restrictive clauses. > the maximum speed [that this car can round **_ _**? this curve **__**?] > > -> this car can round **__** this curve > > -> this car can round this curve **__** "the maximum speed" is not the object of the clause. The car cannot round "the maximum speed". Using "at which" or "that ... at" is better: > the maximum speed [at **__** which this car can round this curve] > > the maximum speed [that this car can round this curve at **__** ] Compare this to some valid examples: > Subject: This is a sentence [that I wrote **__** ]. > > Object: This is a sentence [that **__** was written by me ]. > > Preposition: This is a sentence [at **__** which you looked ]. > > Detached preposition: This is a sentence [that you looked at **__** ]. Am I correct?


What articles are needed in document titles?

There seems to be a general consensus that some articles can be omitted from movie, book or newspaper titles. Can this be generalised and applied to any document titles such as titles of technical reports or software user manuals? Please consider the following title of a technical document (where "TG Platform" is a product name): > **TG Platform Architecture from Engineering Perspective** Can it be like that, or should it be changed to one of these? > **TG Platform Architecture from an Engineering Perspective**   >  **The TG Platform Architecture from an Engineering Perspective** .


What tense should be used here?

Is use of present simple correct in these examples? > **My daughter goes to school tomorrow** [for the first time].   >  **I go to school to talk to my daughter's teacher tomorrow** [and this > happens regularly]. As far as I know from books, present simple is used for actions that happen regularly, and for scheduled events, but what about the situations above? Suppose the second action may take place regularly, but not the first one. What tense would a native speaker use for an action that happens for the first time?


Which is better, "provided object" or "object that is provided"?

Here is my original sentence that I was told needs correction. > For instance, the provided metadata and types are sufficient for the > automatic construction of the application user interface. The intent is to say that the "metadata and types", which are provided by someone, are sufficient to achieve a certain goal, automatic construction of the application user interface. A native-English-speaking person (my native language is Ukrainian) who helped me proofread my article suggested changing this sentence to > For instance, the metadata and types that are provided are sufficient for > the automatic construction of the application user interface. and explained as follows. > "Provided" in this instance seems to mean "on the condition that", > especially when the word "provided" precedes the object. "For instance, > provided metadata and type are sufficient for the automatic construction of > the user interface, then ... something can happen", but the ending of the > sentence is missing, so the reader must start again and mentally rearrange > the words. This is a fairly consistent (but incorrect) approach to this type > of syntactic expression, and possibly results from an equivalent syntactic > construct in Ukrainian. Yes, the suggestions tend to be slightly more > verbose, but upon re-reading they are more clear and less ambiguous than the > originals. A resource at diclib.com suggests that such meaning of the word _provide_ is only the fourth possible meaning. Constructs like _attached documents_ instead of _documents that are attached_ , or _implemented program_ instead of _programs that are implemented_ are common in English. Is _provide_ (as in _provided program, provided document_ ) really so different from _attach_ and _implement_? Is the suggestion to always say _object that is provided_ instead of _provided object_ correct?


What is the opposite of "usage"?

I am looking for a word which meaning is the opposite of "usage". The context is the use of devices of any sort. The best I've come up with so far is to look at the situation from the devices perspective and consider "usage periods" and "inactivity periods".


Which one is the correct usage, No plus neither nor, no plus either or?

Given: 1\. No consonant cluster is possible word initially. 2\. No consonant cluster is possible word finally. A. No consonant cluster is possible neither word initially nor word finally. B. No consonant cluster is possible either word initially or word finally.


Origin of the phrase "free, white, and twenty-one"?

I understand the phrase "I'm free, white, and twenty-one" was used in several films of the 1930's, generally to mean "I can do what I want and no one can stop me" and that the phrase was common in that era, at least in the some parts of the U.S. Does anyone have information about when and how that idiom first came into use? Does anyone have references to it being used before 1930?


Isle vs. Island

Some islands are called isle like "Isle of Man", "Isle of Tortuga" and the "British Isles". Other islands are called island, like "Island of Malta" or "Island of Cyprus". What is the difference between the words? How to know if a land mass confined by water is called an isle or an island?


Is it "the position of particles" or "the positions of particles"?

Having many objects (particles) with one property (position), what is grammatically correct?   * the particles' position   * the particles' positions It should be noted, that it is possible for one particle to have many positions (over time). And it is also possible for many particles to have one position (if they are considered to be clustered). But I want to express the case, where many particles are distributed wildly across space at a specific point in time.


Awkward style choice or syntax error?

I'm doing a bit of copy editing on some work, and ran into a sentence that I feel is poorly constructed; however, the author insists that there is no error and that the supposed error in question is a style choice. I've included the quote; however, I've swapped out the proper nouns for anonymity's sake, so whether or not the sentence is factual is irrelevant. > _Panthera leo senegalensis_ are the most endangered of lions, residents of > Africa. I feel as if though something is wrong with the phrase "...of lions," but I can't put my finger on the exact rule. Adding the definite article "the" feels as if though it would help: "...most endangered of the lions." However, from what I understand, the use of a definite article before a plural pronoun indicates the scope, and its use is optional dependent upon the meaning. Therefore, this would change the meaning of the sentence from all lions to a specific subset, "the lions." So what I'm really wondering is if there's a grammatical rule I can cite that says "of" must be omitted in the sentence, if the definite article is not present. Or perhaps despite reading awkwardly this sentence is still grammatically correct, and it is in fact a style choice? I also feel as if "...residents of Africa." is a dangling modifier, but in the sentence it is meant to modify lions (not Panthera leo senegalensis) so I'm not sure again if there is a syntax error, or if this is simply an awkward choice of wording.


Word for being disgusted by but unable to stop looking at something

This seems to be a common phenomenon — lots of people report being unable to avert their eyes from a wound or dead body or even the mess after they blow their nose! But is there a single word forit? I found some related words like "rubbernecking" but not quite with the sense that I was looking for.


Why are so many English expressions derived from baseball terminology?

* Get to first base   * Step up to the plate   * In the right ballpark   * etc Why are so many expressions in common use today based on this one specific American sport? Many of them seem to be used often in corporate environments too -- why is this?


What is the word for a slime monster's movement?

A slime monster like The Blob makes what movement? Slither is too snake like. I've thought of words like "gloop" and "drip", but it doesn't convey movement.


People can ‘abide by’ the law, but can the law ‘abide people’?

Time magazine copy chief and copy editor pointed out the grammatical errors of many movie titles, and suggested corrections in the article of Time magazine (May 24) titled “Writing Wrongs: 10 Movie Titles with Bad Grammar.” There was the following suggestion on the title of “Law Abiding Citizen”: > “Some citizens the law can abide; others it cannot stand.” Suggested fix: A > hyphen Law-Abiding Citizen Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘abide’ as a verb: > 1 [no object] (abide by) accept or act in accordance with (a rule, decision, > or recommendation):   >  2 [with object] (can/could not abide) be unable to tolerate.   >  3 [no object] (of a feeling or memory) continue without fading or being > lost. I understand citizens can **abide by law** and we are mostly **law-abiding** citizens. But can the law **abide** citizens as used in “Some citizens the law can abide"?


What does the expression "wheels on the shoulder" mean?

> A local policeman, Calvin Bridges, thought it was odd that I was going about > ten miles an hour and had two **wheels on the shoulder.** When I failed the > straight-line walk, he took me off to the station. I was guilty and told the > authorities so. — George W. Bush. “Decision Points.” Crown Publishers, 2010.


Do I need a comma after "when in (%time)"?

> The company had just started to make money when in 1914 the World War put an > end to its aspirations. OR: > The company had just started to make money when in 1914, the World War put > an end to its aspirations ?


dash non-restrictive element in the middle of a sentence

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has- changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong > Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it > is too far from the market to do so*—*it squanders money and the efforts of > some of the world’s best minds. Should the **starred dash** from the above be replaced by a **comma**? because when you take the non-restrictive element out of the context. It should be like: > Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk, it squanders > money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. So, the closing dash ,in the original quote, for the non-restrictive element actually encroached the original comma and made the structure blur a bit. Or is it a rule for a dash non-restrictive element to be enclosed by dash when it is in the middle of a sentence?


Opt for, to be up for (and to be down for)

What's the difference between **I opt for** the party and I'm up for the party? And, to make it more complex, I'm down for the party. But I'm especially interested in the first two.


Action of unintentionally leading someone into concluding something

Imagine a situation where one sees a woman without being aware of her surroundings and concludes wrongly something about her and the group she is a part of. For example, the person sees the writings on woman's face and proceeds to conclude that the she is part of a protest group, but is soon told otherwise. Now the person sees the bigger picture and learns that it was actually a football match. What may he respond? I'm looking for the right response. "Sorry, I was ... by that woman" "The woman ... me" maybe: "Sorry, I was misled by that woman" "That girl tricked me (into thinking it was a protest)" "I was deceived by that woman" There must be a more fitting word. I'm looking for a verb which describes the woman's unintentional misleading of a person into concluding wrongly. She was the reason why the person came to the wrong conclusion, because women rarely attend football matches so one concluded it was something more plausible. As if the person was tricked into believing something based on a single characteristics which turned out to be the one which can't represent the entire group.


What does the term empirical praxis mean?

I don't know why but more than often I am encountering the phrase _"empirical praxis"_. Does its meaning have any relation to the phrase "empirical truth" ? What is it exactly about ? Sample usage - > More and more companies are discovering that empirical praxis is the only > long term energy supply in business.


Is the expression "topping it the ______" really used anywhere?

I've often read books where English men made statements about others "topping it the knob" or "topping it the gentleman," which I took to mean over playing a role or attitude. Is this a legitimately used idiom, or is it archaic, or even possibly fabricated?


TH sound, is it continuant or stop?

How do you all pronounce the TH sound when speaking fast? For example, I've learned to pronounce the TH sound like a continuant sound, for example the hard one: ð. I start doing a Z, so this Z go between the the teeth and creates the TH sound. Like a lisp (definition by Macmillan). But when I speak very fast, the sound becomes like-stop way. That sounds to me like a big difference, it's so different like a "SH" (continuous) and a "CH" (stop). When I hear native speakers, most of the time their TH sound sounds like a D did behind the upper teeth; I think this Wikipedia did call "Dental Approximant". But is very confusing to me, because they're three differents sounds, the TH continuant, the TH stop and the TH approximant. I would really like to pronounce the continuant one, but sometimes it's impossible, sometimes I just stay silent when I don't know what sounds right and natural. For example when I say, "The Rules" I might use the approximant or the stop, just for shame. According to Wikipedia, ð is continuous and the others are variations. I saw people just doing a T or a D between their teeth. But, this sound more different yet, because I can do a N, L the same way, so this T/D are just T/D in different places. I saw that sometimes people pronounce approximants on TH beginning words, and continuants on the middle of words. Are these variations natural, how do you do your TH? What is considered normal? How do you learn it at school? Is it impossible to run away from these variations? Does it sound weird if I say "THen" like "ZHen", the ZH represents a "Z lisp"? P.S: the unvoiced TH shows these variations: Continuant is S with a lisp, stop S with lisp and the T dental approximant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_dental_fricative http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981115/ Sorry for the errors, I've stopped studying grammar because I just need to learn this first.


How should I avoid this reflexive pronoun, or is it okay?

I typed a sentence in Microsoft Word as: > o Each mobile operating system implements encryption in their own way. It was part of a list of bullet points. I got dinged for **_their own_** being grammatically incorrect, and the error was > Reflexive Pronoun Use(consider revising) My question: What is a reflexive pronoun? Also, is there a better way to word this, or is it fine as is? I know software won't have all the nuances of the English language correct, but as I don't know who will be viewing this document in the future, I'd like to have all my Pronouns in a row.


Can the acronym "R.N.A." be used at the end of an e-mail?

There was the following statement in New York Time’s (June 1) article titled, “Sabbath Gasbags, Speak up.” - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/sabbath-gasbags-speak- up.html?hp > “My luck has been no better when I try to slip in a practical phrase like > **R.N.A.** Placed at the end of a letter, **R.N.A.** means Reply Not > Anticipated: you can reply if you want to, but the other person involved in > this interchange is perfectly happy with things as they stand. **R.N.A.** > didn’t catch on even after the advent of the Internet. When I put those > initials at the bottom of e-mails, people tended to write back, “What does > **R.N.A.** mean?” In other words, their response to Reply Not Anticipated > was to reply.” I concur with the author, Calvin Trillin’s take of the word, R.N.A. as a practical phrase, and am tempted to slip it in my e-mails, provided the word is “communicable” to internet users, many of whom cannot be bothered to respond. What is the currency of R.N.A. actually? Can I say this is an English word, not my coinage, when I’m asked by my Anglophile mail recipients? Does the word exist or had been used anywhere before the advent of Internet, as the author admits “It didn’t catch on even after the advent of the Internet.”? If not, are there any shorter forms to say ‘Responce not required’ in the same way as ‘Bye’ and ‘S.V.P.’?


Is it wrong? Will and during

I'm preparing for the FCE exam. > They won't let you speak during the exam. I have to rewrite the sentence using "allowed" so that is has a similar meaning. I wrote: > You will not be allowed to speak during the exam. But the correct solution is, according to the book > You aren't allowed to speak during the exam. Could you tell me whether my answer is wrong or there are two possible answers? Thanks a lot


What is the word for "nuisance" as an  adjective?

Can anyone propose an adjective of nuisance? Or a word that can be used to communicate that sense? The place where I want to use the word is as follows. I am talking about when children are abused and ignored by parents (as a result of high population and no family planning) and the children grow up to become not-so-constructive citizens, such as thieves and petty criminals. What could be the word for such an outcome? Also, what is an adjective for nuisance?


is there a word to represent once every nine months

is there a single word to represent "once every nine months"? Since 9 months is a fraction larger than half a year, semi-annualy seems wrong.


implement something for/in/on/with something?

Which preposition is correct to use in the following sentence?: > Implementation of this technique for/in/on/with complex objects is > complicated (meaning: it is complicated to apply this technique to complex objects.)


the correct tense of "derive"

I'm a non-native English speaker. Given the sentence: The English word " olive " **derives** from the Latin word "oliva". Why is the present tense used, not the past tense? If I say, The English word " olive " **derived** from the Latin word "oliva". is this wrong?


Correct usage of "evangelize"

I attended a meeting by a very senior person at my work place. The meeting concerned the theme of Data analytics and Big Data. The presentation mentioned the goal as "evangelize raw data". Is this usage correct and appropriate?


Is there a word for temporary-but-may-become-permanent?

Is there a word in English for a solution that is temporary, but may become permanent if no better solution is found? I thought of "provisional" but if there is something better than that I would like to know. The context is a position which I will take upon myself if I can, but I am asking for a "temporary" volunteer to replace me now and to stay the replacement if my situation means that I cannot take the position. Thanks.


Question about prepositions/conjunctions (from, to...)

Can you please tell which (if any) of the following is correct? >   1. Where are you coming from?/From where are you coming? >   2. Who will you give it to?/To whom will you give it? >   3. What for?/For what? >


Sherlock Uncovered: Steven Moffat Describes Andrew Scott's Portrayal of Moriarty as 'Coruscatingly Brilliant'

This is a word I never heard before. Steven Moffat, co-writer of the Sherlock Series describes Andrew Scott’s performance as Moriarty as giving “a coruscatingly brilliant performance”. It seemed right but I checked in Webster’s, meaning #2:   * _coruscate_ (v.) — to be brilliant or showy in technique or style   * _coruscated_ (v.i.)    * _coruscating_ (v.i.)   * _coruscation_ (n.) 1. glitter, sparkle: a flash of wit.  _Coruscatingly_ appears in Merriam-Webster as an adverb. Nowhere could I find _coruscatingly_ used or listed as an adjective. And if such an adjective did exist, Moffat’s statement would appear redundant since most coruscating performances would necessarily be brilliant and showy. Or could Moffat’s use of the word be correct, at least as far as usage goes? As I write _coruscatingly_ in this question box, the spell-checker is underlining the word in red.


Short form for the word 'Citation'

Is there a short form for the word - Citation? I Googled but still can't find one. EDIT: 'Citation' is not a long word but if my document will mention this word at least 100, it would therefore be great if I can find the short form for it.


tailings of macroeconomic statistics

From Smart Cities by Anthony M. Townsend: Instead of sifting through the tailings of macroeconomic statistics for clues about recent events, they can plug into a sensory infrastructure that shows what is happening in the real economy at a microscopic level, second by second. What does "tailings" mean? Thanks for response.


What is the difference between 'Frequentative' and 'Aorist'?

I've looked on Wikipedia, done some searching, and still I am unable to figure out what the difference is between the two.


Should “round” only be used to describe 2-d objects?

My high school teacher used to say, "No, the world is not _round_ it is _globular_ ". Strictly speaking, is _round_ more appropriately used to describe 2-dimensional objects (circle, oval, tire, plate or saucer) and globular, spherical or even cylindrical better for 3-dimensional objects (ball, egg, tube, pint glass or the earth). Or are we just dealing with a persnickety high school teacher?


How should the word "brutal" be used in marketing?

I noticed that some companies use the word _brutal_ for marketing their products. Examples:   * _brutal performance_ – a data storage software markets itself with this, they mean that their software is very fast   * _brutal engine_ – a car manufacturer uses this to indicate that their engine performs well Obviously, the word has a negative meaning when generally speaking, but it seems to refer to strength or robustness (positive qualities) when speaking in a context of technology. I heard from some people that they associate the word _brutal_ with a negative meaning, so instead of interpreting these messages as how well these products perform, they associate this with bad quality. So I’d like to know,   * What’s the real meaning of this word in such a context?   * Does it really have a side-meaning or a negative feeling in such contexts?   * Is it okay to use this word as a marketing term to indicate that a product is of good quality and performs well?   * What are the alternatives to this word in marketing which could be used to indicate good quality and performance?


"For the time being" vs. "for now"

Consider the following passages: > A litter made of two rifles and two field jackets would suffice **for now**. > That was good news; another bit was that the EPW was a lieutenant, a > regimental REMF attached to a battalion quartered in town. _\--Rangers Lead > the Way By Thomas H. Taylor, Robert J. Martin_ > > He had a couple of thousand dollars on him that would suffice **for the time > being** , until he could find some kind of legal employment. He got out > ofthe car, and walked a block. _\--The Maze By Kahn Morris_ Now, how are these expressions different? Could we use them interchangeably? Oxford Dictionary of English has the following definitions for them, > **for now** until a later time: that's all the news there is for now; > > **for the time being** for the present; until some other arrangement is > made.


Speaking with a forked tongue

What does it mean for someone to be "speaking with a forked tongue"? I've heard it used by my boss when referring to particular customers of ours.


Simple sentences that demonstrate differences among similar-looking words

While searching online for the difference between "sometime" and "some time", I stumbled upon this page. At the middle of the page you can see these two sentences that demonstrate the difference: > I'll visit London again **sometime**. **Sometimes** I let **some time** pass > before returning. These seemingly simple sentences strike me as magical because I can simply recite them like a spell whenever I have problems choosing between using "sometime" and "some time" in my writing. So, my question is, can anyone help to provide similar "magical" sentences that show the differences among the following similar-looking words:   * **maybe** vs **may be**   * **anymore** vs **any more**   * **anyway** vs **any way**   * **anyone** vs **any one**   * **altogether** vs **all together**   * **enquire** vs **inquire**   * **complimentary** vs **complementary**   * **defence** vs **defense**   * **assure** vs **ensure** Please add any additional word pairs together with their examples. * * * **N.B.**   * I'm not looking for definitions of the words. I'm looking for usage examples that succinctly show how the words are used in context, something akin to mnemonics.   * I don't mind if this question is made CW.


Is "receival" a valid word for the act of receiving something?

In the course of reviewing a standard operating procedure, I came across the subheading: " **Receival, Costing and Charging of Work** ". I immediately began to doubt whether the word "receival" was a legitimate equivalent to the noun "receipt", as in: _receipt of samples_... My gut feeling is that use of "receival" in place of the word "receipt", as above, is either outmoded/archaic, or entirely incorrect. Several Google searches of the word tend to confirm my suspicion that "receival" is used very rarely these days, and generally only occurs as a noun modifier. (For example: _receival bin_ , _receival limits_ , _Grain Receival Standards_.) Am I correct in assuming that "receival" should not be used as a post- qualified* noun, such as in: _receival of work_? * * * *(I just made up that compound adjective; feel free to correct me if you are aware of the proper term.)


"If" and "would be" when talking about future events

I am watching a basketball game right now, and the team that I am rooting for is losing. I want to say that if they win, that would be something. Which one is the correct way to state it? > If Miami pulls this off, it would be something.   >  If Miami pulled this off, it would be something.   >  If Miami will pull this off, it will be something. Hopefully, you get my drift.


What does “Optimism keeps us moving forward rather than to the nearest ‘high-rise ledge’” mean?

There was the following sentence in Time magazine’s (May 28th) article titled “The Optimism Bias”: Overly positive assumptions can lead to disastrous miscalculations – make us less likely to get health checkups, apply sunscreen, and more likely to bet the farm on a bad investment. But the (optimistic) bias also protects and inspires us: it keeps us moving forward rather than to the nearest _high-rise ledge_. Without optimism, our ancestors might never have ventured far from their tribes and we might all be cave dwellers, huddling together and dreaming of light and heat. Does ‘high-rise ledge’ in the above sentence literally mean the ledge or balcony of today’s high-rise building, a steep cliff or rock facing ocean, or something else? Why is moving forward is better than approaching or facing to ‘the high-rise ledge’? Is there special or negative meaning with “high-rise ledge” used here?


"Testing started" versus "testing has been started"

I wish to notify my colleagues that they may start testing because I have prepared the environment. Among the many ways to say this, I wonder whether I can say simply _Testing started_ or _Testing has been started_. I feel that passive voice is not appropriate here, but others vote for it. Which one would be the correct version: one of these two or a different one?


What is the etymology of "cornhole"?

Since being introduced to the bean bag-toss game of the same name, I've wondered about this word. The old farm game, similar to horseshoes, has recently gained such popularity that Googling _cornhole_ is now anodyne. Aficionados are unapologetic about the game's name, but given the word's unsavory history, introducing the game to the unfamiliar can still be sheepish. Checking Etymonline, I was surprised to find this: > **cornhole** synonymous with "do anal intercourse" by 1930s, apparently the > reference is to a game played in the farming regions of the Ohio Valley in > the U.S. from 19c., in which players take turns throwing a small bag full of > feed corn at a raised platform with a hole in it. Does the game's name _really_ predate the word's other meaning(s)? Where did the other meanings (I've seen it used as a noun and a verb) originate? I'm interested in any substantiated clues to the historical development of this Americanism.


Prepositions used with "Home"

I've encountered different usages of `preposition + Home` and I want to learn which of them are correct. Some examples: > Back home   >  Back **at** home   >  Back **to** home


Difference between "Please don't be long" and "Please don't YOU be long"

In the song "Blue Jay Way" from the Beatles, we've got the following lyrics : > Please don't be long > > Please don't **you** be very long I'm (obviously) not a native English speaker but the first sentence seems right to me but the second one seems pretty weird because of the subject of the imperative sentence being explicitly given. Is the second one just as right as the first one? Is it just a songwriter trick to get the good number of syllables? Is it something specific to the scouse? Does having an explicit "you" change anything in the meaning? Which one is the most usual? (Also, one can find the same king of difference in "Don't ever change" : > So please don't ever change > > Now don't **you** ever change )


"That" or "which"? Does it matter?

If I wish to say something along the lines of > Consider the bear _that_ scratches his head. It seems to me that I could instead say > Consider the bear _which_ scratches his head. I am unsure which of these is correct, if it even matters. Does anyone know a rule which makes this clear?


How would you use rationale in a sentence?

How is _rationale_ used in a sentence? Can it be used in place of _logic?_


No longer valid vs. Invalid

There is a subtle or perhaps more than subtle difference between the phrases **"no longer valid"** and **"invalid"**. Can English experts elaborate with examples where one should be used and not the other.


Clarification in sentence usage

I want to rephrase this: > "No member in my group is pending to clear the certification". May I say "No one is yet to be certified"?


Do Americans understand Donald Duck?

I had always assumed that although I understood only about half of what Donald Duck says in his cartoons, Americans understood everything despite his comical pronunciation. However friends have just offered me DVDs featuring Donald and one 1948 episode, "Donald's Dream Voice", hinges on the fact that he can't sell brushes—he is a sales representative—because nobody understands him (until he buys pills that give him a human voice). So my question is: do native speakers in the USA actually understand Donald's squawking (but delightful) English?


Phrasal verb “be a thing”

I’m looking for the origin of the phrasal verb “to be a thing”. It means roughly “exist” or more specifically “be recognised” or “be a phenomenon”. I first noticed it around 2008–2009. >   * Is medical grade tea a thing? >   * I don’t think that is a thing, but I just don’t think that it should be > mandatory >   * Unlocking accomplishments? I don’t think that is a thing. >   * Is That a Thing? >   * I didn’t know that was a thing. >   * a tech startup cto who doesn’t know how to code / yes, that is a thing > :( > It _seems_ to come from the use of _thing_ in the sense of a popular phenomenon—cf. “Ecigs are the new thing”. However, its meaning also extends to differentiating set phrases, names, or terms of art from normal productive constructions. For example: > — If you assign the mutable reference…   >  — Is that a thing? _[Is “mutable reference” different from “mutable” + > “reference”?]_   >  — Hm? Oh, no, a variable can be mutable or be a reference, or both; they’re > separate.   >  — Oh, okay. So if we assign this here… So I’m wondering how it was originally used and whether any authorities recognise it yet.


A proper definition for "hogget"?

This is the meaning of _hogget_ in the Collins English Dictionary: >   1. a sheep up to the age of one year that has yet to be sheared >   2. the meat of this sheep > So, is a lamb a hogget? This shouldn't be true. I also know sheep are shorn every year, so that part of it doesn't really help. Can someone provide a good meaning which can be differentiated from lamb?


some time vs sometime

Is there a rule for "some time" vs "sometime"? For example: Don’t trust your memory to recall noteworthy situations and events some time (sometime) later.


What does "when you’re talking to the cool kids around the water cooler" mean?

> The DOM is what you call bits of rendered HTML when you’re talking to the > cool kids around the water cooler. What is the meaning of the when statement ("when you’re talking to the cool kids around the water cooler") in this sentence?


"Using" or "by using"?

Example: "The feasibility of this approach has recently been demonstrated **using** PET/CT technology in a small series of patients". Should this not be: The feasibility of this approach has recently been demonstrated **by using** PET/CT technology in a small series of patients.


Pronunication of "Dijkstra"

I am a computer professional. I have heard the pronuciation of the word _Dijkstra_ from various sources as   1. _di-kstra_   2. _diji-kstra_   3. _dik-stra_ Which is the correct way of pronouncing it?


Pronunciation problem with "park" and "walk". Is there a name for this "phenomenon"?

Now and then, I struggle to say a pair of words such as "park and walk". It may come out as "park and wark" or "pork and walk". It occurs generally when the two words are close together in a sentence. Is there a name for this behaviour or speech idiosyncrasy or is it unrecognised officially? I know there is rhotacism, which is the recognised mis-pronunciation of the letter, "r". Is there a name for my "affliction"? Some other examples:   * War and car   * Far and talk


I had it coming

When you say "I had it coming", does it always mean "I caused it to happen to me"? Can it also mean in an appropriate context "it just happened to me"? Also, does it always have to be "coming" and not base form "come" like "I had it come"?


Iambic Tetrameter?

> God and my right shall me defend. I have said this motto a fair few times in my head a number of times and it seems as though iambic tetrameter is the meter that fits best The way I see it is,               god   AND   my   RIGHT   shall   ME   deFEND      x    /      x    /        x      /    x /      I was wondering if anybody had any alternative suggestions or if for once I am actually correct in seeing the motto in this way?


What pair of words can be combined with “worth every penny” as an idiom?

When I was listening to AP Radio News of Eagle 810 (Far East Network), the only English language public radio broadcasting service available in Japan, together with members of a local English Speaking Society, who wish to improve English hearing proficiency, there was the following line reporting 85th Anniversary of Coney Island’s Cyclone roller coaster: “In honor of 85th Anniversary, ride is just a quarter for the first 85 minutes, the coaster was open. Michel Hamline says it is worth every penny and ...," followed by the word that sounds something like “men some” phonetically. We couldn’t hear out the ending words sounding like “men some.” though we tried by replaying the tape a dozen times. I could have passed by this part, but was haunted with the question. So I'm venturing to ask: Is there a set of words that can be combined with “worth every penny” as an idiom? I thought “worth every penny” is a self-completing idiom sui generi, and wondered why it should be followed by anything. Can you guess what the part that sounded like “men some” would be?


Hypernym for "movie" and "TV series"

What is the hypernym for _movie_ and _TV series_?   I read that _medium_ might be possible, but it doesn't sound that good.


Meaning of "to be on the top side of the grass"

What is the meaning of this sentence: > To be healthy as long as you're on the top side of the grass I specifically mean the phrase _on the top side of the grass_.


"Covered with" vs. "covered in" vs. "covered by"

I want to find out the differences in meaning among _covered by, covered in,_ and _covered with_. For example, what is the difference between: > covered with blood   >  covered in blood or the differences in meaning among > the mountain was covered with snow   >  the mountain was covered in snow   >  the mountain was covered by snow


> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “Covered with” vs “covered in” vs “covered by” Which is the correct option: "a jungle covered in snow" or "a jungle covered with snow"? If both are possible what is the difference in meaning?


Double genitive

Which of the following is grammatical? >   1. That action would not increase my satisfaction, but the one of my > driver's. >   2. That action would not increase my satisfaction but my driver's one > I think 1) is correct, whilst 2) is wrong, isn't it?


"Go shut the door" or "Go and shut the door": AmE/BrE difference

The usage you put the verb (in its infinitive form) right after "go" is used in AmE but not in BrE, as I heard. For example, > Go shut the door. However, I doubt this is true and want to know the truth. I know it may very well depend on the speaker's age/gender etc. and am not expecting one-or-the-other answers. This question is for more of a statistics purpose. Do you think the statement above is true (based on your usage)?


What is the meaning of "to tween"?

I recently stumbled upon the word _tween_ but neither in the meaning as a contraction of _between_ nor as little child. It seems to be similar to _to tweak_. I found it in the context of programming like in UIButtonTween of the NGUI library or in the GoKit library saying > Lightweight tween library for Unity aimed at making tweening objects dead > simple and completely flexible. Any explanations or links are appreciated.


The difference between "elected and selected", and "election and selection"

What is the difference between > _elected_ and _selected_ and > _election_ and _selection_ in English? What are the tenses used in these words?


When does an aunt’s partner or husband become an uncle?

Being the youngest of five siblings, with relatively old parents, I’ve always referred to my aunts and uncles as such, even though in fact only one of each pair is a blood relative. It never occurred to me as a child that in fact Uncle Ron was my father’s brother, but Aunt Pat was related to me only via marriage to Ron. So is she really my aunt? I raise this because I’m in a situation where I’ve married a woman whose brother has a young son. He was age two when we were first acquainted, and as his aunt and I were not married I was, quite reasonably, not given immediate uncle status. His aunt and I have since married, however, so does this mean I should now be referred to as his uncle? For some reason I feel uncomfortable referring to him as my nephew — I have other nephews and nieces via my own siblings — so I usually resort to “my wife’s nephew” or “my wife’s brother’s son”. Any thoughts on this issue of when aunt–uncle status is acquired? Is marriage a precondition? Does the marriage need to predate the birth of the niece–nephew?


What does N.B. stand for?

I have received letters for years, and some of the most common things in letters are post-scripts, however, there are also these funny little "N.B." which obviously do not stand for Post Script. What are these letters and how are they used?


What is the male equivalent of "damsel"?

Is there a male equivalent of "damsel" ? > **damsel (dam·sel)**   >  _Pronunciation:_ /ˈdamzəl/ > > _noun archaic or literary_   >     a young unmarried woman. (from OxfordDictionaries.com)


"You took... and you..."

How would the grammar of this construction be analysed? I am trying to identify and define the difference between using this and the regular way of saying the same thing. Examples:   * You took this place and you transformed it / You transformed this place   * You took that song and butchered it / You butchered that song   * You took my trust and abused it / You abused my trust   * Alcohol took my life and destroyed it / Alcohol destroyed my life   * The internet took society and transformed it / The Internet transformed society


"He cannot be reasoned with"

This is a phrase I hear extremely often, with some modifications to the subject. But it seems to be improper, because the sentence is ended with a preposition. What is the "correct" way to say this phrase?


Is there a different grammatical term for "If I was" than for "If I were"?

Many people would say the correct form is "If I were rich ...". In modern colloquial English though most younger people would say "If I was rich ...". Prescriptivists might say the latter is "the subjunctive mood" and the former is "just plain wrong". Both forms "were" and "was" are identical to English past tense forms. There are no distinct subjunctive forms I am aware of in Modern English though I do not know if Old English had them. When learning foreign languages such as Spanish or German we are often told "English doesn't have the subjunctive". Such languages usually do have distinct forms for the subjunctive. So my question is what terms are used in English linguistics to cover each case? Is it just "subjunctive" or are there also now terms such as "colloquial subjunctive", "informal subjunctive", "formal subjunctive"? Or are there people who insist that English is unlike Spanish and German and name these constructions something distinct from "subjunctive"? Also how do the terms "counterfactual" and "irrealis" fit in? **UPDATE** I didn't find this related question when I was writing mine: What happened to the subjunctive? **UPDATE 2** After much Googling I've noticed the phrase "marked subjunctive" seems to have some currency but I haven't yet seen it specifically defined to mean the use of "were" rather than "was" so the hunt continues but it's the closest so far.


What is a word for "about to burst out laughing"?

Is there a word that can describe this facial expression? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/wvfTu.png) _("about to burst out laughing")_


Term or phrase for a traumatic or life-changing event

What is the word or phrase that describes a traumatic event that stops or changes a person’s mode of living? Something like an illness or something like happened to Tom Hanks in the movie _Cast Away_. Or even Tom Hanks’s girlfriend, who was going to school to get her doctorate but “put everything on hold” when Chuck (Tom Hanks’s character) disappears in a plane crash. I’m almost looking for a psychological term here, and I want to study more about the topic, but I don’t have a term or phrase for it that I can use to research it.


Why is "idea" sometimes pronounced as "idear"?

I know that idea is pronounced as /aɪˈdiə/, but I've meet several people in real life who put an 'r' at the end of the word. How come?


Meaning of "he takes the cross of making his own"

> For the ease and pleasure of treading the old road, accepting the fashions, > the education, the religion of society, **he takes the cross of making his > own,** and, of-course, the self-accusation, the faint heart, the frequent > uncertainty and loss of time, which are the nettles and tangling vines in > the way of the self-relying and self-directed; and the state of virtual > hostility in which he seems to stand to society, and especially to educated > society. When I start analyzing its meaning, I don't get even little far and stuck up in almost near beginning of it, the following comes in my mind, which does not makes any sense to me:- > For enjoying walking on the old road ... he takes the burden of making his > own way in life... I have skipped the sentence in place of ... because it was not making any sense to me. Please help me and explain the meaning.


"Deeply appreciated" or "dearly appreciated"

I want to express my great satisfaction of this person. Are there any differences between the two sentences? > This shows a great sense of responsibility which is **deeply** appreciated. > > This shows a great sense of responsibility which is **dearly** appreciated.


Opposite of "numerous"

What is the opposite of _numerous_? I expected the answer to be _innumerous_ , but that seems to mean _too many to count_. There must be a negative to _numerous_ that isn't simply _few_.


Where does the word "grateful" come from?

If "grate" isn't a word, why is there a word "grateful" (and "gratitude")?


Etymology of "shark"

I found Etymonline's entry on the word _shark_ unusually inconclusive. Not only is the origin of the word uncertain, it is also not clear if _shark_ was first applied to a dishonest person or to the sea creature. It also had no mention of this positive connotation from _NOAD_ : > **2** an expert in a specified field : _a pool shark_. Can any etymology sharks out there supply some of these missing links?


Any idea where the phrase at sixes and sevens came from, and what it really means?

Any idea where the phrase **at sixes and sevens** came from, and what it really means?


"noun of noun" vs. "noun+noun"?

I wonder if there is a significant difference at the semantic or pragmatic levels in using the compounds structures noun of noun or noun+noun. For example, is it the same to say "the consumption of energy" or "energy consumption"? Do these forms have a specific name in the English sintax? I would really appreciate if somebody can help me understand the difference between these structures, if any.


"In the middle of riddle" means what?

There is a song whose lyrics is given below... Can anyone tell what exactly "in the middle of riddle" means? > At the edge of the moon there's   >  a lonely man   >  And he blows on his horn as   >  strong as he can > > And the girl at the bar wipoes the breath   >  of winter away with a smile of her face   >  And a little black dog barks along   >  with a loon > > Is this my appointment or did I came   >  too soon   >  Got a strange invitation for teatime 'twas   >  given by somebody   >  I can't recall   >  It's **the middle of the riddle**   >  It's not very serious   >  It's nothing but a big surprise > > And the president's horse is a rabbit   >  of course   >  That is livin' in a big boy's mind   >  Livin' in a big boy's mind > > And I skate on a knife on a wire   >  That is strung from this song   >  to a distant shore > > And then I say   >  Intuition is just another phase of chance   >  While we're walking the old   >  pyramid's floors (Little pharaoh's)   >  And the little black dog   >  Here it comes again   >  He's a true companion in a foreign land > > On a quest for the valley of boojums and birthdays   >  And phone calls I cannot recall   >  It's **the middle of the riddle**   >  It's not very serious   >  It's nothing but a big surprise > > And the president's horse is a rabbit


Why does -istic turn some words negative?

The definition of -istic is: > Used to form adjectives from nouns, especially nouns in -ist and -ism, with > the meaning "of or pertaining to" said nouns. I don't see anything in there that could make words negative, but I can think of a few adjectives that are more negative with the suffix -istic. A few examples: negativistic, simplistic, moralistic, and legalistic.


Difference between "yours" and "your"?

What is the difference between the following sentences? > Your car is black. > > The car of yours is black.


Grammar of 'Meaning' and as in 'meaning of life

There is something about the term 'meaning' that is eluding me (and seems to have eluded many of humanities 'best' minds) as in 'what is the meaning of life'. The 'question' seems to lack a necessary object viz: To us, you, god, life etc and it seems to relate to the term 'meaning in some characteristic way. Does anyone have any stirring comments. Seems even Wittgen was muddled by this but it seems to be a grammatical problem... thanks The above is a thorny problem perhaps. If great philosophers have had difficulty with it perhaps it is to much to pose at a 21c forum. May i ask some narrower questions? How would one parse, "What is the meaning of life" grammatically? There is a missing term, is it a direct object? "what" an indirect object? "life" an indirect object? I realize to someone in the field of grammatical analysis this is a trivial question, but it has been 50 years since I did the coursework.


Noun for “the version that I handed in”

At university, we get problem sets, I work on them and hand them in. Then a tutor corrects them and gives them back to me. On my website, I want to provide both (since the former is digital, the latter is scanned). What would be concise words for   * “The version that I have handed in” and   * “The version that the tutor corrected”? Currently, I have “My version” and “Corrected version”. In German, I would use “Meine Abgabe” which is “My hand-in” or so, which I think is more expressive than “version”.


Which is longer: snooze, nap, kip, 40 winks or siesta?

How long is a snooze? My boyfriend will invariable take an afternoon snooze which might last anything up to two hours. A nap on the other hand, can be _short_ , _quick_ or even _long_ , and sometimes they are called power naps. Is _40 winks_ shorter than a _snooze_ but longer than a _kip_? Am I right in thinking that _kip_ is considered old-fashioned although etymologically speaking it is probably one of the most recent. And what about the term _siesta_? OD states 2 > Siesta: an afternoon rest or nap, esp. one taken during the hottest hours of > the day in a hot climate. But I'm sure one can take a siesta in the middle of winter. Questions:   * Which of the above terms has the oldest, (and consequently the longest) history?    * Has anyone ever specified the length or duration of any of these terms? For example, when does a _nap_ stop being a _nap_?    * And when did _power nap_ first appear?


Is there a name for synonyms that appear to have opposite meanings?

The words flammable and inflammable mean the same thing, but (to someone unfamiliar with their meaning) appear to be opposites (because of the "in" prefix). Is there a name for such word pairs that appear to be opposites but actually mean the same thing? A few other examples are _ravel/unravel_ , _regardless/irregardless_ , _radiation/irradiation_ , _incite/excite_ , _culpatory/inculpatory_ , _press/depress_ , _to/unto_ , _part/depart_ , _fat chance/slim chance_ , _thaw/dethaw/unthaw_ , _candescent/ incandescent_ , _canny/uncanny_ , _dead/undead_ , _write up/write down_ , _valuable/invaluable_


Where does the slang adjective “peng” come from?

I read on Cambridge Dictionaries’ _About words_ blog that **_peng_** is a British slang adjective meaning _pretty_ , _very attractive_. I am told by a coworker that it is of Caribbean origin, but have no more information. Can someone confirm this origin, and maybe provide some more information (e.g., what root it ultimately comes from)?


When Are There Too Many Commas?

This should be a fairly easy question: When the beginning of a sentence includes a parenthetical phrase, is it necessary to use more than one comma? Take this sentence for example: > "But yeah, the astronauts made it safely into their spacecraft." Is that fine, or would there need to be another comma before "yeah"? I'm sure there are more intricate examples related to mine, so extra knowledge would be much appreciated. Thanks.


Why is it called a "bank balance"?

When describing how much money is in a bank account, we'll often say that the account "has a balance" of a certain amount, as in: > Your bank balance is currently £13,550. Why do we describe this as a "balance", though? If anything, it seems like an account _imbalance_ , because more money has been paid into the account than has been taken out. The only time an account would be "balanced" is if it was at zero. So why the term "bank balance"?


Is this sentence correct?

> I ain't heard no word to let me know you **wasn't** just eating hay. Should the wasn't be weren't?


Adverbs + Present Perfect

Here's my problem: I've been confused about the placement of adverbs in present/past perfect phrases. For example, which sentence would sound better: > "We had been slowly drifting down the river when a bear attacked." > > or > > "We had slowly been drifting down the river when a bear attacked." Personally, I'd go with the former, and this led me to believe that if the sentence contains both "had been" and a verb, the adverb should be placed after "had been"--if the adverb is indeed modifying the verb. This, however, led to me to think of other uses of the present/past perfect, where another verb isn't present. The is the best example I could formulate: > "He has always been an academic and a charitable person." See, right there, _always_ \--an adverb of frequency--was placed in between _has_ and _been_. Does this mean only adverbs of frequency (e.g., _always_ , _usually_ , etc.) should be placed in between such constructs? A final example to put this topic over the edge is "He had been either sick or exhausted." Now, if you were to move "either" in between "had been," would the sentence be grammatically incorrect? I've noticed that the former is used more frequently, but the sandwiched version doesn't sound wrong either. Thanks!


Style Question: Use of "we" vs. "I" vs. passive voice in a dissertation

As I'm not a native speaker and just finishing my dissertation in Computer Science, I wonder what style I should be using. In German (my native tongue) most dissertations, school-books and scientific writing use third person or passive voice to sound 'objective'. I know that passive voice in English should be avoided. In most of my publications I use "we" (e.g. "we can improve the recognition rate by ..."). For the dissertation, as it is my work, should I prefer "I" over "we"? I don't like the idea too much, as it sounds pretentious to me. Currently, I want use first person singular for the contributions section and first person plural for the rest. I try to avoid passive as often as possible. Is this acceptable?


“We”, “I”, “this author”?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Style Question: Use of "we" vs. "I" vs. passive voice in a dissertation   >  Use of “I”, “we” and the passive voice in a scientific thesis For my thesis project, I have decided to always use "we" instead of "I". What do you think of this decision? To me, it seems more common out there to use "we". In addition, using "I" sounds somewhat ... egoistic. However, there are cases where I want to stress that I myself, the author, has to do with something. For instance. It would seem rather unnatural to say "It is our opinion that...", because in many cases when using “we”, it is really both the author and the reader that are doing something together. Do you think it's okay in these cases to say "It is the opinion of **this author** that…"? So the question is basically twofold:   1. Is using “we” throughout, to mean interchangeably myself, or myself and the reader both together?   2. When I want to stress myself, can I use “this author”? Feel free to add further thoughts.


Pronoun to use in a one-person report ("I", "we", something else)

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Style Question: Use of "we" vs. "I" vs. passive voice in a dissertation When I am writing a report I usually use _we_. What if the project is done by only one person? Should I use _I_? It sounds a little bit arrogant.


Is there a shorter synonym for "extra-curricular activities"?

I always find the expression "extra-curricular activities" very clumsy.