Are any of the t-glottolization, th-fronting, h-dropping, etc. in English a phonological complex?

Wikipedia gives the following, with plenty others ommitted by me, as some of the features of Cockney English: > **T-glottalisation:** Use of the glottal stop as an allophone of /t/ in > various positions,including after a stressed syllable. Glottal stops also > occur, albeit less frequently for /k/ and /p/, and occasionally for mid-word > consonants. For example, Richard Whiteing spelt "Hyde Park" as Hy' Par. > > **Th-fronting:** /θ/ can become [f] in any environment. [mɛfs] "maths". /ð/ > can become [v] in any environment except word-initially when it can be [ð, > ð̞, d, l, ʔ, ∅]. [bɒvə] "bother," [dæɪ] "they." > > **H-dropping:** Sivertsen considers that [h] is to some extent a stylistic > marker of emphasis in Cockney. > > **Rhoticity** : A rhotic (pronounced /ˈroʊtɨk/, sometimes /ˈrɒtɨk/) speaker > pronounces a rhotic consonant in words like hard; a non-rhotic speaker does > not. That is, rhotic speakers pronounce /r/ in all positions, while non- > rhotic speakers pronounce /r/ only if it is followed by a vowel sound in the > same phrase or prosodic unit. My question is, are all these myriad features independent? Or do they form something of a phonological complex, where a dialect gaining one feature would predispose it to gaining all or some of the others? (I ask because I wondered if there might not be a simpler characterization of these accents in terms of only what the lips, teeth, and tongue are doing. For example, I feel like Cockney speakers tend to spend a lot of time with the tongue near the back of the throat; could that be a passable explanation for all the features of their speech? My simple method of generating my approximation of Received Pronunciation is just keeping my teeth more "stiff" as compared to my American accent. I was wondering whether such simple "rules" as above -- not likely to be correct, but the point still stands -- could generate all the differences between American and British dialects, which would require a phonological complex. I think.)


Is it true that Cockney English is disappearing? And being replaced with "Jafaican"?

I read a couple of comments to that effect on this Youtube video, which is basically a man ranting in Cockney from the movie _Football Factory (2004)_. The comments bemoan American ignorance about the actual frequency of Cockney speakers, and suggest that it's all but disappeared amongst the working class except in a few areas. Saddening, if true. Is it? (I'm not looking for a thesis, just "man-on-the-street" type opinions.)


"Dangling Participles"

My case here is that I was writing something for school, and my teacher explained an error which I really can't see. She referred to articles about "dangling participles", which was previously unknown to me. I find it hard to relate the examples I've found about it to my situation. So this is a text I've written and the bold part is where the problem arises: (You could read only the bold part if you please) > Wandering, and lost in his thoughts, there is a deep despair occupying the > mind of this man. He is barely aware of his surroundings, except for those > few moments when the loud blissful voices break through the protective > barriers, developed by his immense sadness and grave frustration, into his > mind. ”How can they all possibly be so happy?” he thinks to himself. Staring > blindly, with his head low, as he walks in a slow pace, whispering ”Mary, > Mary, my Mary,” over and over again. Yesterday was her funeral. She had > passed away from a severe type of cancer, at a relatively young age. It was > his wife. They had been together since high school and were greatly attached > to each other. **Having spent nearly half his life by her side, we cannot > but imagine his grief.** Indeed, he could hardly picture a life without her. > So, alone he roams in the midst of all the seemingly incessant cheering and > noises, drowned by his sorrow. Her comments on that part was: > _we_ is slightly out of place here – see my comment below > > These few sentences are about him and his emotions, so ‘we’ seems out of > place. If the sentence starts: ‘Having spent nearly half his life by her > side’, the reader expects it to continue: ‘he’. After all we have not spent > half our lives by her side. Is she right? If so, could anyone try to explain why?


Does this sentence use ironic quotation marks correctly?

> Women ‘sold, resold’ in name of tradition Selling is the real part, no? I find no irony or double meaning there.


"Reducing degeneracies of/from/in FKK transmitter"

As stated in the title, I'm trying to get correct preposition — _of/from/in_. The sentence corresponds to the title of my work that addresses degeneracies that occur in FKK transmitter. However, this "in" somehow does not sound correct, and I just wanted to consult someone, since this is a title, and should be correct. I suppose that "from" would work, right?


Keeping all parameters but one constant

It is a core scientific principle to only change one of the parameters in an experiment at a time, and keep all others constant, as opposed to picking random parameters (i.e. typically being unable to control the parameters) and performing a factor analysis afterwards. Is there a short term or phrase to express this concept? I was hoping to find the term in the Wikipedia pages about the Scientific Method or experiments, but both articles seem to deal in loftier terms.


Proper Phrasing of A Sentence using "Which"

I have a technology website "GymForGeeks" and one of our staff members had a creative idea to put several page icons and write "Which gym equipment would you like to use?" The idea is creative and I think it sounds good, but is it correctly phrased? What's a better way of putting "Which gym equipment would you like to start off with?"


What is the difference between "filtrated" and "filtered"?

The word "filtered" seems to be much more common than "filtrated". I know that these words derive from "to filter" and "to filtrate". What is the difference in meaning between these two verbs? The context I have in mind is a mathematical one. Here the words "filtration" and "filter" have fixed and different meanings. In addition, there is an invariant for certain objects which are endowed with a filtration (technically this isn't accurate but let's suppose so). This invariant is called "filtrated K-theory" by several people. Yet, some people insist that it should be called "filtered K-theory" because filtrated is hardly a word or at least sounds weird and artificial. Can native speakers confirm this, or would you go for the more logical(?) "filtrated"?


What's the origin of the idiom "don't give it the time of day"?

Twice in the past few hours, I've seen the idiom "don't give it the time of day". Now, I immediately knew and understood what the people using the phrase meant, but then I realized that I didn't know why that phrase means what it means. I Googled the phrase "time of day idiom" because I was particularly interested in the origin/etymology of the "time of day" part. I readily found the meaning (which I already knew), but was stymied as to its origin (which is what I wanted). Thus, I ask: what is the origin/etymology of the idiom?


Is present-day American English more like Elizabethan English than the British counterpart?

I heard so. Could anyone confirm this? If yes, I wonder why.


What is a euphemism for enforcer?

As in a bad guy, thug, hatchet man, etc. who "persuades" people to pay. I'm trying to think of something overly professional and comedic. Any ideas?


What's the meaning of "perceived distance"?

What's the meaning of _perceived distance_ in the sentence below? > Border perceptions vary depending on proximity to the border, nationality, > and the respective lenses through which the border is viewed (Morris 2005). > **The most innocuous example involves perceived distance from the border** , > as detailed below, while other perceptions (realistic or not) may lead to > governmental policy changes and action (i.e., terrorism reduction efforts).


Is "sans" a drop-in replacement for "without"?

I keep hearing people use the word _sans_ in place of _without_ which causes me to cringe. Can _sans_ really be used as a drop-in replacement? Examples: > "I prefer cheeseburgers sans pickles." > > "I went to the store sans my brother." > > "I typed my essay **sans** using a sans serif font."


Difference between the words of violent criticisms

What is the exact difference between:   * revile   * castigate    * inveigh   * asperse   * culminate   * vituperate   * vilify In what context are these words used?


Tower of Babel, what is the meaning of the following verse?

What is the meaning of the following verse from Bernie Taupin's _Tower of Babel_ as sung by Elton John on the album _Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy_? _Those hungry hunters   Tracking down the hours_ I cannot come up with anything except for a reference to the _Book of Hours_ , which would make some sense to me. Obviously, the lyrics deal with drug usage, and "hungry hunters" could be the police, "tracking down the hours" could then mean chasing after them. Help from a native English speaker would be really useful here. The lyrics can be found on Bernie Taupin's website here. Thanks a lot!


American term for "sparkling water"?

Carbonated water doesn't seem to be as popular in the US as in Europe as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) but I suppose some people in the US drink it. What is the most common American term for "carbonated water"? I've run across the following: "two cents plain," "club soda," and "Seltzer water." I also heard that the British term "sparkling" has gained popularity.


What does "unit" mean in "storage unit"?

What does _unit_ mean in _storage unit_? From OALD I looked up, is it: >   1. a single thing, person or group that is complete by itself but can also > form part of something larger or 2. a single flat/apartment or house in a > building or group of buildings containing a number of them (although this > describes apartments, I figured it could relate?) > Or does it mean something else that's not covered here?


Price per 100 pieces?

In business English, what is the correct way to say: > Price per 100 pieces? the context is a table listing unit price when the overall quantity is of 100 pieces. In short: if you buy 100 pieces, the price for every single piece is: [price here]


Who will say “Age before beauty” more often? Man or woman,  young or old?

We Japanese don't have the humourous and witty phrase like "Age before beauty," as you have. We only have simple and dry expressions, "Please" or "Please go first." However, I recently noticed disagreements among definitions of the phrase, “Age before beauty” in online English dictionaries as to the phrase being more often used in an exchange between a younger person and an elder. www.phrases.org.uk defines the phrase as: "Older people should be given precedence over the younger, and by implication more beautiful. This is normally used jocularly, often by the older person in order to flatter the younger." To me it sounds somewhat arrogant for the elder to manifest priority on passage to the younger, even if jocularly or in flattery. Wiktionary defines the phrase as: "Most often used humorously or lightheartedly, and usually said by a younger person to an older friend or relative out of mock pity. In most instances it would be considered rude for a younger man to say this to an older woman." UsingEnglish.com defines it as: "When this idiom is used, it is a way of allowing an older person to do something first, though often in a slightly sarcastic way." From this, I assume the phrase is more often given by younger person. There is no entry for “Age before beauty” in any of Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster, though Google Ngram registers continued growth of the usage of the phrase since 1860. Now the question: By which age (or sex) segment (whether older or younger, male or female) is “Age before beauty” being spoken more often? Or is this phrase being used commonly regardless of age and sex?


Synonyms of "caveat"

What are some synonyms of _caveat?_ Interestingly, I wasn't able to find any in the four (approximately) thesauruses which I searched. I'm trying to use it in the following context: > The emperor did further women's rights, however, his new laws contained > certain **___ __** (caveats) which favored men.


Term for the sense that something must be true because many people talk about it

Is there an English term for the sense some people have that something "must be true" because many people talk about it, for example, a politician being corrupt or the Mayan 2012 event? The closest I can think of is "herd behaviour" or "crowd psychology" but that describes more the effect than the cause.


What's the word for a tiny sharp piece of wood under your skin?

When you work with crude wood (or iron) without gloves, you easily _get injured with a tiny sharp piece of wood_ which remains under your skin and needs to be removed. What is the word for this small piece of wood used in that particular case? I've found several words in the dictionary but without the collocation: _splint_ , _splinter_ , _sliver_. And what is the whole phrase for the injury? Something like _to get a splint_?


What is ‘a bell-covered hat’?

> Harry looked up and saw, floating twenty feet above them, Peeves the > Poltergeist, a little man in **a bell-covered hat** and orange bow tie, his > wide, malicious face contorted with concentration as he took aim again. > (p172, Harry Potter 4, US edition) Would you get some specific picture from ‘a bell-covered hat’? A flop hat, like a bellflower? A clown hat, whose every horn has a small bell on its tip? A strange hat, which is encrusted with bells? I’d be happy if you could give me the right image of the hat.


What's the best resource for improving everyday speaking?

I'm having a job interview in _a month_. My writing, reading and listening are good. However, I have weak conversation skills. I need an efficient resource to improve my speaking. Any resource is acceptable (website, audio-book, online course, community, tests) and It'd be great if you had a successful experience with it yourself. I don't need to learn English, just the everyday conversation with fluency. The slightest improvement is good enough for me. I don't know if this is an acceptable question here but any help is appreciated.


Which is correct, "shot with an iPhone" or "shot on an iPhone"?

I have used one of these variations (with/on) in a published video. Now one of the industry critics is saying that it should have been the other. So would highly appreciate if the correct preposition is established for the benefit of the entire English-speaking human race for centuries to come. Thank you! :)


Active and passive verb with different prepositions for same object - commas?

I've got a sentence like this: > A will impose B on and further be affected by C The two verbs have nothing in common, they both just put A in some relation to C. As C is quite long I don't want to write two sentences. Is this correct English? If yes, were do I put my commas? Is there a nicer way to write this?


This was the first phrase to ...?... into his head

What verb best fits here, meaning it was the first form of words that crossed his mind?


How to pronounce "linearly"?

As the title states, how do I pronounce the word "Linearly"? I did some Google searching on this but I was not able to find any guidance.


Acceptable uses for "associated with" or "associated to"

I've read that both are acceptable but "associated **with** " is superior. Is there ever a time that "to" is acceptable? Does it matter at all? I'm writing copy for a public website and want to make sure I get this right.


an one "no not" to eat

> But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is > called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, > or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one **no not** to eat.   >  (1 Corinthians 5: 11) Would you please explain to me how **no not** works at the end of this verse?


How does one pronounce "nihilism"?

I have heard this word pronounced somewhat similar to [the River] _Nile-ism_ as well as similar to _Neal-ism_. The former is obviously because of the German or possibly Russian pronunciation, but how should it be pronounced in English?


If a word is coined / popularized / used only or mainly by second-language speakers of English, is it still considered to be an English word?

It seems that there are quite a few terms that look like English and are used in English spoken by non-fluent or fluent but nonnative speakers of English as a second language amongst themselves, but not by, or only very rarely by, native English speakers. Here's a few that spring to mind before I look for a resource:   * advices [1] [2]   * campings   * Handy   * infos, informations [1], [2]   * KTV   * touristic Also I know there is an English Wikipedia article on this phenomenon in which the preferred term is "Pseudo-anglicism". You'll find a lot more such terms there. Not only "incorrect" regular plurals of words that have no separate plural form that I was able to think up without peeking. The most surprising thing for me was that many of these words and strange plural forms have English entries in the English edition of Wiktionary - mostly without any kind of note suggesting they are anything other than normal everyday words any English speaker might make! I'm interested in both prescriptivist and descriptivist view on this topic. I'm also interested in both English native speakers view and non-native speakers.


Idiomatic currency exchange terminology

I am using a currency exchange announcement as an example in an article I am writing, and I would like to make sure I have the Russian/English vocabulary nailed down. The English glosses are not central to my example, but of course, it would be silly to just rely on my own (or rather Google's) approximate translations when there is probably an established terminology I should be using. This is a table of exchange rates for August 19 and 20 and it looks like this.                                      20 авг  19 авг     ---------------------- ------- -------     Курс доллара           176.100 176.100     Объем торгов ($ млн)      4,33    2,83     Начальное предложение     4,44    3,01     Начальный спрос ($ млн)   4,33    2,83      Google translate gives these as "dollar excange rate" (that one I could even manage on my own :-), "trading volume" (makes sense), "introductory offer", and "initial demand". I'm wondering about these last two -- are these correct, idiomatic English translations for these terms, and what do they mean?


Usage of "ladies and gentlemen" to address two people of diiferent sex

It seems to be not quite logical to use the traditional address "ladies and gentlemen" when there are only a single lady and a single gentleman in the room, not counting for the person who is speaking. What an address (in a similarly traditional style) would it be better to use in such case? Does it depend on the speaker's gender or any other circumstances?


"Accepted" not correct for legal document

Could someone suggest a good word to use in the sentence given below? It is for use in a legal operational protocol manual and should fit within context. I'm currently using "accepted", due to a lack of terminology. What I'm trying to say, is that something is automatically accepted. Before criticizing my word usage or syntax, please know that English isn't my language of choice. > The revision information at the bottom of the list below is **accepted** as > the latest review. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks!


Verb for having a seizure

Is there a word, medical or otherwise, for having a seizure? The best I can come up with is convulsing or flailing. Any better ones?


Can “womenomics” be considered a neologism?

It is not the first time I come cross the term **_womenomics_** used to refer to a wider presence of women in the economic activities of a country. In this case it refers to Japan, a country where women have traditionally little presence in the business and political life. It seems that the term _womenomics_ first appeared in 2009 as the title of a book which deals with this issue extensively. As of now in 2014, the term is absent from most dictionaries, and even in Google NGram there is not yet any evidence of it. Can we consider _womenomics_ a neologism? Or if we cannot, then what standard of usage does a new word generally need to meet for it to be considered a neologism?


"No, faith, not a jot, but to follow him thither with modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it."

Here are some lines from _Hamlet_ , Act 5, Scene 1 (The Arden Shakespeare edited by Harold Jenkins) > **Hamlet:**   >  To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why, may   >  not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander   >  till a find it stopping a bung-hole? > > **Horatio:**   >  ’Twere to consider too curiously to consider so. > > **Hamlet:**   >  _No, faith, not a jot, but to follow him thither with   >  modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it._   >  Alexander died, Alexander was buried,   >  Alexander returneth to dust, the dust is earth, of   >  earth we make loam, and why of that loam whereto he   >  was converted might they not stop a beer-barrel? I'm wondering about the following questions.   1. What is the structure of the sentence in italics above?   2. What does _it_ in the sentence refer to?   3. What is the meaning of the sentence?   4. How do you paraphrase the sentence in present day English? It seems to me the sentence is grammatically imperfect. For example, is the subject omitted? If so, what is it? Secondly, I wonder if "likelihood" is the object of the verb "follow" or that of "with". The meaning, or at least the gist , of the sentence is rather obvious judging from the context. The main problem is the grammatical structure of the sentence.


Is there an alternative way of saying "important stuff"

I want to write an email to my supervisor and ask him to provide me a guideline for _things I should be careful with_ , while I will be working on a project. Is there an alternative and shorter way of expressing the following: **"things to be careful with"** , **"things that should be taken into consideration"** , **"things not to do"** , **"things to avoid"**. I am looking for a single-word, simplistic version of the above-mentioned


Is this slogan proper English?

We are a group of web developers, creating our online presence ...   We chose this slogan, > "Web passionate young powers at your service"   * Is this proper English?   * Does this hold any "contempt" on our side when using "at your service" in western traditions?   * Any suggestion for a similar meaning one?


When do we use "went bowling," and when do we use "go bowling"?

In this dialogue what is the appropriate form? > A: Would you like to **go bowling** with me today? > > B: I don't think so. To be honest, I really don't feel like **going > bowling** today. I **went bowling** yesterday. > > A: That's too bad. I'm disappointed. > > B: I hope you understand, If I hadn't **gone bowling** yesterday, I'd be > very happy to **go bowling** with you today. > > A: Of course, I understand! After all, I suppose you'd get tired of **going > bowling** if you **went bowling** all the time. In our Oral Activity, we were supposed to follow the format below: > A: Would you like to **go on a picnic** with me today? > > B: I don't think so. To be honest, I really don't feel like **going on a > picnic today**. I **went on a picnic** yesterday. > > A: That's too bad. I'm disappointed. > > B: I hope you understand, If I hadn't **gone on a picnic yesterday** , I'd > be very happy to **go on a picnic** with you today. > > A: Of course, I understand! After all, I suppose you'd get tired of **going > on picnics** if you **went on picnics** all the time. So, my question is : Was it correct to use **_went bowling_** instead of **go bowling** in the last part of the dialogue and why? Also, on the format which we needed to follow why did they use **went on picnics** instead of **go on picnics**? Please help. Thanks!


What does this line mean : "The man's high tone spread throughout the spacious bar"

I am reading this light novel called GGO and in it I came across these lines: > "AGI (Agility) being all powerful is just an illusion." > > The man's high tones spread throughout the spacious bar. and I can't figure out what the second line means here.


Correct use of lie or lay in the following context

I based my final year project around web technologies where my strengths lie. OR I based my final year project around web technologies where my strengths lay.


"Over vs Above" and "Under vs below"

Is is possible to say that "Above" means "over" and "Under" means"below", but not the opposite? According to my grammar: Over - In a higher position (close or touching) Above - In a higher position Under - In a lower position (close or touching) Below - In a lower position Example: > There's a helicopter flying round above / over the school. I would interpret this sentence as "above" meaning almost touching the school or not. And If I hear "over", the helicopter is almost touching school. This makes me think about "over" and "on". "On" means that something is touching something, but if "over" can mean also "touch".Well, I would never use "over" to mean "touching something", I would use "on" instead.


Single word which means 'suffix' or 'prefix'

I would like to get a single word which means _suffix_ or _prefix_.   I am creating a database table, which has columns - 'suffix' and 'prefix.'   I would like to name the table in such a way that on seeing the table name one should understand that the table has a collection of suffixes and/or prefixes.


"Maybe one of A or C cheated" — is this correct?

I want to express an assertion that A cheated or C cheated. Can I say: >   * Maybe one of A or C cheated. >   * Maybe one of A and C cheated. > Or is neither correct?


Which one is correct and why?

Across the Chesapeake Bay from the rest of the state ........ , whose farms produce beans, tomatoes, and other garden vegetables. A. there lies Maryland's Eastern Shore B. lies Maryland's Eastern Shore C. Maryland's Eastern Shore lies there D. Maryland's Eastern Shore lies My teacher has already said that the correct choice is B. What is your opinion? PLease elaborate your explanations. I would like a REASON not just a YES or NO. Many thanks


"Franchise" as a verb

I'd like to know what franchise meas as a verb in the following sentence: > Catering in this school has been franchised to the company. The native speakers I consulted, both American, don't seem very sure of its meaning. I know the verb typically means (of a large company like McDonald's) to permit an individual or a smaller company to sell products or offer services in its name. But in the example above, I can hardly imagine a large "catering company" sold the right to sell its products in a school to a smaller company. Perhaps this is because I haven't heard of catering companies in connection with franchise agreements in my country. Could it be that it means the authority of the school gave permission to a company to provide catering? Could 'outsource' be used in this context to replace 'franchise'?


Did the CIA really introduce 'conspiracy theory' into popular usage after JFK?

I heard that after the JFK assassination the CIA, through assets in mass media, introduced the term 'conspiracy theory', with it connotations of something clearly ridiculous, and only believed by maniacs, into common use. Before this it was used, but was a rare phrase, and had no idiomatic baggage. If this is true, it's a really interesting conspiracy theory! However, I can't find any hard evidence one way or the other...


Paraphrase for "we need to be like the farmer who puts back into the soil what he takes out"

> I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the farmer > who puts back into the soil what he takes out. I don't understand "who puts back into the soil what he takes out". Please help me to paraphrase this sentence.


Difference between "patrimony" and "heritage"

I'd like to know if there's a difference in meaning and usage between the words "patrimony" and "heritage". I've noticed there's some overlapping between the two, but it's not clear to me how they differ. If I understand things right, heritage is not necessarily related to wealth. There's cultural heritage, historical heritage, natural heritage. I suppose the word "patrimony" isn't fit for these contexts, right? But when we are talking about wealth and money being inherited by someone, is it correct to use both terms? Are they interchangeable or is there a difference? Thank you!


Difference between squabble and bicker

From the free dictionary. squabble `To engage in a disagreeable argument, usually over a trivial matter; wrangle. See Synonyms at argue.` bicker `To engage in a petty, bad-tempered quarrel; squabble. See Synonyms at argue.` Does `squabble` stand for **argue** while `bicker` is for **sass** or do I get it wrong? Clarifying examples are highly appreciated!


Is there a single word to describe the belief that one's actions can affect unrelated outcomes, especially relating to luck. e.g. Every time I bet against Team A, they win. Or If I wear my blue socks, it'll rain.


Can a proverb be a short dialogue?

**What is the correct term for this kind of short dialog with a moral?** I heard this short story about a Native American woman and her grandson: > Grandma: There are two wolves in my heart. One is loving, the other is > vicious. They are at war. > > Grandson: Which will win? > > Grandma: The one I feed. When I read this, it was tagged as a "proverb". But I think a proverb is a statement, not a dialogue. That means "proverb" would be the wrong term for this.


Is it correct to say "don't let it trouble you"?

I am wondering if it is correct to use the sentence " _Don't let it trouble you._ " Would native speakers find it natural?


What is a sleeve?

p1 "I have a load of quarters but my bank doesn't have a coin machine and I don't feel like giving Coinstar a cut of my monies." p2 "Put em in the sleeves yourself."


What is the proper usage of the phrase "due diligence"?

I have encountered the phrase "due diligence" in the business world. The usage examples I have seen (mostly emails) cannot exactly be considered grammatical canon. An internet search produces lackluster results. Most usage examples refer to the "due diligence process". But in my business it's not a formal process, but an ambiguous obligation. The usage I am familiar with is similar to the following: _We need to do our due diligence to investigate this._   _We need to use due diligence to investigate this._   _We need to perform due diligence to investigate this._ Is any of that correct?


Which is more grammatically correct - "performance in" or "performance on"?

Which of the following is more grammatically correct? a. John's performance on the test shocked the teacher. (or) b. John's performance in the test shocked the teacher.


Question about Diacope and Inflections

1. "They will laugh, indeed they will laugh, at his parchment and his wax." ―Edmund Burke   2. "With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder." ―William Shakespeare I know the first sentence is an example of diacope, but what about the second? Can _feeding_ and _feeder_ be considered diacope even though the words have different inflections?


Is the phrase “Corporate Daddy” getting currency, or is it just a one-off coinage?

I was attracted to the word of the headline, “The Corporate Daddy: Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and the fight against inequality” of an article in New York Times (June 19), which was written by Timothy Egan, New York Times' co-editor. The article deals with Starbucks and Wal-Mart’s new labor incentive programs, in which Starbucks announced a company plan to reimburse the cost of college tuition for employees, and Wal-Mart known for its low labor wage, pledged to spend $50 million over three years to offset some of the cost for any employees who enrolled in a for-profit, online university in 2010. Timothy Egan summarizes such efforts and roles of big companies for assisting their employees in advancing educational career levels in the word, “ **Corporate Daddy**.” Is “Corporate Daddy” easily understood by English speaking people in absence of the context? Is it gaining currency? Or is it just a one-off coinage? If “Corporate daddy” applies to educational assistance of big business to their employees, can “Corporate mamma” be applicable to the companies who offer nursery assistance such as provision of in-house nursery facilities and services to their employees?


Was "book" to "beek" as "foot" is to "feet"?

"Foot" is a curious word in English because it is pluralized in an unusual way; the "oo" in the word is changed to "ee". Did this once use to be a standard way of pluralizing things in English (or a language that contributed to English), which would mean that the plural of "book" was "beek" instead of "books"? Or, is "feet" just a one-off?


I thought blah blah blah, and I was right. Is the comma correct?

This sentence is bugging me: > I knew going in that the orange flavor component of the cake was going to be > lacking, and I was right. The comma doesn't seem to be enough, but the semicolon just looks wrong: > I knew going in that the orange flavor component of the cake was going to be > lacking; and I was right. Which of the above is correct and why?


Name for the bumper at the end of a parking spot - is it a "turtarrier"? If so, why?

I was trying to find out if there was a single word to mean the bumper at the end of a parking spot. "Parking bumper" is a little unwieldy, and "wheel chock" seems to be more about airplanes or trailers than general parking spaces. A bit of googling got me the word "turtarrier", but I can't find it referenced in any credible source, nor any etymological justification as to where it came from. Is this the correct term, or should I use something else? Is it just someone making up a word about parking infrastructure on the spot (what possible reason would there be for someone to lie about this term)? If it is a real word, where did it come from and when?


"Improvement in/on/of/to something"

What is the correct preposition to use after _improvement_? For example, > The successful candidate is expected to contribute with an **improvement > of** the current calibration.


Acceptability and use of "to got"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “Don’t got” — how common is it in American usage? Recently, I've started to hear more and more often people use "got" as a present simple form (obviously originating from I have got -> I've got -> **I got** -> **Do you got?** -> **I don't got** ). Although it is without any doubt absolutely colloquial and not officially accepted as "standard", I'd like to ask you, native speakers of American English, whether it sounds acceptable in a normal conversation (would it be at a similar level as any of the following: I wanna, I gotta, I ain't got... ?), whether it is region based, what the third person of this would be (because of its nonstandard origin, I'd guess it should be **he got/he don't got** ), and whether it would be used even in the past ( **I didn't got** ).


Why did the word "Internet" change from a noncount to count noun?

I remember a time back in 1993 - 1994 for a couple months at our university the Internet was used as a noncount noun, so we would say: > Do you have **Internet** at your university? In fact, the Internet has a lot of similarities to electricity and we would say: > Do you have **electricity** in your house? But gradually other people just started to say " **the Internet** " and so our little group at the university followed suit and never thought about it again. **Does anyone remember any official journalistic decision on this, or was our group just an early anomaly?**


"these days" - what is the correct usage/meaning?

Recently whilst writing a report I typed the following sentence: > "Funerals still represent a celebration of the life of the deceased, but > these days families and friends often use the time to celebrate life using > popular music, film and media." The spell check immediately underlined the word 'days' and claimed it needed an apostrophe after the 's', creating days'.   I always assumed the term 'these days' referred to 'recent times' or what is commonplace at present. It seems the spell check takes it as the 'families and friends' that belong to the days being discussed. Which is correct?


Is "Please consider the seriousness of this offer" correct?

In Romanian language, there is an expression that would be translated to English as "I offer and request seriousness", that is usually used for example at the end of an offer/ad. What is the English equivalent for this expression? I thought about "Please consider the seriousness of this offer" but I'm not sure about the correctness of this. Also, what alternatives can I use?


What mnemonics help solve common linguistic issues?

Example: i before e, except after c. Are there mnemonic devices to help remember other spelling and grammar issues? Bonus points for pointing out exceptions to the rule.


Is "The City Beautiful" (Orlando's motto) grammatically correct?

I have always wondered why the motto of the City of Orlando, FL (USA) is worded as _The City Beautiful_ instead of _The Beautiful City_ : ![Orlando's city seal](http://i.stack.imgur.com/NrnCP.png) Is _The City Beautiful_ grammatically correct? If so, do you have examples of mottos or common phrases that use the adjective after the noun?


Plural of "talent"

In the context: > _We are always looking forward to incorporating new **talents** to our > team!_ Is it OK to pluralize it? Why?


Words without vowels and vowels pronunciation

i Like to list out the common English words which doesn't have following 1.words without usage of vowels(e.g sky) 2.words doesn't have vowel 's pronunciation(e.g sky comes with 'i' pronunciation) can anyone list out the common words?


How to interpret the phrase "no more" in "Don't love no more"(Craig David's song)?

How should I interpret the phrase "no more" in one of Craig David's songs? or "no more" in the lyrics of the song shall not be deem as a phrase? Lyrics \-- Don't Love You No More: * * * > I’m sick and tired of this silly game > > Don’t think that I’m the only one here to blame > > It’s not me who’s been going round slamming doors > > That’s when you turned and said to me > > I don’t care babe who’s right or wrong > > I just **don’t love you no more** * * * I've checked the answer from here, about usage of "No more", "no longer", "not anymore" , I could understand the meanings when those 3 phrase used in the examples. however I'm so confused about the "no more" used in this song, Is it used grammatically right? and how to interpret its meaning here in the song?


Is it right to say "my sandals are broken"?

I think the verb form **_broken_** is only used for fragile things. Can I use it in connection with something that is not _fragile_ , like sandals, shoes or clothes? If it's not possible, what shall I use in its place?


When can you start wishing people a good weekend?

In Belgian culture (and some others, I suppose) it is not uncommon to wish people a good weekend when you meet them on Friday. Not just when you go home after work, but also in the store around noon, or even in the morning. Is this common in english too? If you send a business e-mail on Friday, is it weird to end it with "have a good weekend"?


"Agree on" vs. "agree with" vs. "agree to"

What are the differences between "agree on", "agree with" and "agree to"?


What is the difference between "pulse" and "impulse"?

Let's say you have a title to write, I wrote something like "the [adjective] pulse". Here what I mean by "pulse" is the noun to describe a "will" that "comes suddently in you" and makes you feel like you have to do something, often creative or reactive. Now, in english, it seems that "impulse" would be more accurate, but it seems too that "pulse" can be used to mean exactly what I want. So I'd like to have an explanation about if there is a real difference between both "a pulse" and "an impulse", and if there are cases, like my example, where it does mean "a sudden will to do something". (I'm french, if that can help)


How to avoid needless repetition?

In German, repetition is frowned upon. For example: Instead of the disfavored repetitions > Der Professor betreut die Studenten bei der Ausarbeitung der > Bachelorarbeiten und Masterarbeiten. > > Der Versand ist zuständig für den Wareneingang und Warenausgang. it is recommended to shorten to > Der Professor betreut die Studenten bei der Ausarbeitung der Bachelor- und > Masterarbeiten. > > Der Versand ist zuständig für den Warenein- und -ausgang. I know that repetition in English is allowed but is it possible to shorten sentences in English the same way as in German, too? Are there any official rules on how to remove repetition if I want to? How do I avoid the multiple use of the same word in sentence like that: > The professor supervises the students working on their Bachelor Thesis and > Master Thesis > > The shipping department is in charge of receiving goods and outgoing goods


Difference between "give them a cheer" and "cheer them up"

Is it more common to say that way written on the left rather than those written on the right? If so, please let me know why.               give him a hug       hug him     give him a smile     smile at him     give him a cheer     cheer him up


What rhetorical device is "she wears mink all day and fox all night" using?

What rhetorical device is the following statement using? > She wears mink all day and fox all night. It's not a pun, it's not a syllepsis. Is there a word for false-puns of this sort?


About using singular as food

Consider the following : >   1. He likes dogs. >   2. He likes dog. > (1) would mean he likes dogs as pets and (2) refers to dog as food. My question is, does the same apply to nouns such as orange and oranges? >   1. He likes oranges. >   2. He likes orange. > Just wish to confirm that (1) and (2) are really both acceptable. If they are, do they have different meanings?


What preposition to use when fitting data?

Do we fit data _with_ , _by_ , or _as_ a linear function?


"for" or "because"?

Consider the following fill-in: > Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy, **___ _** she hadn't > practiced in weeks. > >   1. because > >   2. for > > The presentation I'm looking at indicates "for" as the correct solution. To me, "because" also sounds fine, but I would not use a comma after puppy in that case. Is that essentially the reason "for" is best here, because of the way the fill-in is punctuated? Is "...puppy because..." valid also?


"an example (how) to do something" or "an example about doing something"?

I will give you an example to write a CV.      or               I will give you an example how to write a CV.      or               I will give you an example about how to write a CV.      or               I will give you an example about writing a CV.      Which one of the above is right? If none, please, give me the correct one.


Is it “mat” or “matte” for the color around an image?

We are writing a program to add a “matte” around an image but the developers aren't sure whether to name the method _matte_ or _mat_. The Oxford American dictionary has _mat_ as an alternative spelling of _matte_. In this case, we think _mat_ is less ambiguous because _matte_ when referring to a color could mean either the glossiness of the color or to its purpose as a framing element. Any advice?


How to present the idea of "Same Month/Same Quarter/Yearly Comparison" in a less clumsy way?

I am thinking of the title of my chart, since the concept is there but the output is a bit too clumsy, I wonder if I can get any inspiration from here: The chart is about showing a trend of a certain kind of infection rate in hospital. The chart can be adjusted to show the bars of all "January", "February", etc... from 2007-2010, all "Quarter 1", "Quarter 2", etc... from 2007-2010, and the bar for yearly data (2007-2010). I know the monthly and quarterly bars can be grouped together, as their all refer to the "specific month/quarter" (I wonder if "specific" is the appropriate term here) across the years, but the yearly bars is a bit different. It is put here because of technical issue, they consider yearly bars as "specific year" across the years, but year itself does not include subsets of years. Currently I can think of "Same Month/Quarter/Year Comparison of XXX Infection", I wonder if this can properly deliver my message.


Can "prior" or "previous" be used to describe the same month of last year?

If I want to show the comparison between rate in 2010 Jan and 2009 Jan, which of the following should I use? >   1. Comparison of rate between 2010 Jan and its prior month. >   2. Comparison of rate between 2010 Jan and its previous month. >


Dilution of the word "hero" to include sports personalities

I have often wondered what makes sports personalities heroes. I have always thought of _hero_ referring to someone who risks their life to save others. For example soldiers and to a lesser extent emergency services. Is it accurate to describe athletes as heroes?


Is "along" correct in "You were the best along with person X and Y"?

> You were the best _along_ with person X and person Y. When I want to tell someone that he was one of the best in the group of people, but not the only one, can I use the word _along_? Or is _together_ or some other word more appropriate?


"You're missing the posts only available to members" — should there be a "the" in there?

Consider this sentence: > You're missing posts only available to members. I think it should actually be > You're missing the posts available only to members or at least > You're missing the posts only available to members The second sounds the best to me, but friends say the first one sounds best. This is going to go on a website for the people to see. I do not know how to justify it, but I think there should be a _the_ before _posts_. Does taking it out make it okay? If so, can someone please explain?


Single noun for "based on the previous experience with them"?

I have a sentence like this: > I've chosen them based on the previous experience I had with them. Now is there any noun that I can use to replace the last part of the sentence?


Why is "transferred" written with two R's?

Why is _transferred_ written with two R's? I am a native speaker of Dutch, and in my point of view this isn't logical; there are other words like _coloured_ and _endeavoured_ that only have _-ed_ added after the verb.


Using "compared with",  "in comparison with" or "than" to compare

Which one of the following sentences is correct and more appropriate? Please let me know. > The configuration-A produces higher error-rate compared with the > configuration-B. > > The configuration-A produces higher error-rate in comparison with the > configuration-B. > > The configuration-A produces higher error-rate than the configuration-B.


how to say recharging the battery and account

I have heard English use the term "recharge" for both account and battery. > I want to recharge my battery. > > I want to recharge my account. Are these sentences correct?


Fish fish fish

I have seen that buffalo buffalo... has been posted here before. However some sites claim also that the sentence > Fish fish fish fish fish fish fish. makes sense. Can someone confirm and explain?


Is "elegance is in the eye of the beholder" an idiom in this case

If someone tells you that a certain solution of yours in not elegant and you reply with "elegance is in the eye of the beholder", does this mean that you're using an English idiom or could this be viewed as just a statement about elegance? Or is it an idiom AND a statement at the same time? Another example would be "you have to walk the walk before you can talk the talk". This is a well known idiom when by walk you mean something else, for instance, writing a computer programmer. But if someone is talking about going for a walk somewhere and starts telling you all about this walk, without ever having walked this walk before, and you tell him "we have to walk the walk before we can talk the talk", then the literal meaning of the words been said here also apply to the context, so does it mean that you're not using an idiom in this case?


Adverb for "Cannot be topped"

What's a good adverb to indicate an attribute that cannot be improved upon? I wanted ' **untoppably** ' to be a word, but it isn't. **Optimally** and its synonyms come to mind, but it doesn't really have the best fit for the phrase I have in mind: > I’ve thought up a pretty neat method for completely eliminating dynamic cell > references. I wrote it down for later. You can look forward to an > [untoppably] fast version whenever I get a free week to implement it. (Could > be a month, could be a year)


English equivalent of a Malayalam saying

There is a saying in Malayalam which can be roughly translated as "In the land where noone has a nose, the broken-nosed one is the king". Is there a way to express the same sentiment in English?


Alternatives to "across the signal"

I am supposed to go to Point A which is some two miles from a traffic signal, on the other side from where I am. I have to give instructions for this. Can I say the following? > Go across the signal and drive down the road for 2 miles, it will be on your > right. Is using _across_ here right?


Use of "guarantee" in "What is the guarantee that..."

> A: Are you going to invest in that plan?   >  B: I dont think so, it seems confusing and vague to me. What is the > guarantee that my money will not be lost? Is _guarantee_ okay here? If not, what other word can I use?


What do ‘it’ ‘on’ ‘off’ mean in “it’ll be on with the old Invisibility Cloak and off to find out what he’s –“

I have trouble understanding the bold part. Harry has a magical map by which he can see where others are. He is looking at the map and paying attention to his enemy schoolboy, Malfoy. > ”Well, I’m keeping an eye on him (Malfoy) from now on,” he said firmly. “And > the moment I see him lurking somewhere with Crabbe and Goyle keeping watch > outside, **it’ll be on with the old Invisibility Cloak and off to find out > what he’s――** “ He broke off as Neville entered the dormitory. ( _Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (6)_ [US Version p.388]) If I’m not much mistaken, the general meaning is “I’ll put on the old Invisibility Cloak and depart with haste to find out what he’s up to.” However, I can’t grab the make of the sentence. The problem is ‘it’ on the top of the sentence and ‘on’ and ‘off’. I thought ‘it’ meant Harry’s plan to detect Malfoy’s conspiracy at first, but in that case, I guess ‘off’ means ‘cancel’ or something. I feel it doesn’t make sense. I’m completely confused. What do ‘it’, ‘on’ and ‘off’ mean?


Meaning of "makeshift dias"?

What is the meaning of _makeshift dias_ in this passage? > He had invited over a hundred guests, including members of the press. He > addressed everyone from a _makeshift dias_.


Indirect speech, past tense use

A member's post on another site has the structure:   _This a post I put on_ [site] _and_ [member] _suggested I **posted_** _here too._ (emphasis mine) It appears that being reported speech, _post_ is required to be in the past tense. However, the verb does not relate to action by the person being reported, rather the one reporting himself here. (Do we still need to use past tense?) I find the sentence not as clear as it would have been with a simple present (wrong, perhaps): _This a post I put on_ [site] _and_ [member] _suggested_ (that) _I **post_** (it) _here too._ Which would be preferable? Is the original grammatically correct and I am uncomfortable only because of being unfamiliar with the structure? Is the above alternative allowed?


Deriving a word for the activity of using a tool from the tool name ("grep")

In a discussion that involves talking about the program named "grep", the activity of applying the program to some data is often referred to as "greping". I was writing - still informally - about such a discussion, and was unsure how to write that word, and why.   * The activity of using or applying the tool "grep" is called "greping" when speaking. How to write this word, and why?     * What about the variants        * 'greping'       * 'grepping'       * 'grep'ing'       * 'grep-ing'   * Are there rules to derive such a word, at least partially?    * * * (This question was motivated by   Why is `tac file | grep foo' (piping) faster than`grep foo < <(tac file)' (process substitution)?,   specifically by the line   "This question was motivated by "Reverse **grepping** ", about **greping** a huge file from bottom up.".)


Can anyone explain the use of determiners in this passage?

Can someone explain the use of determiners (words like _some_ or _the_ ) for the word _beans_ in the following dialogue: > Aki: Lisa, here're **some beans**. > > Lisa: Why are you giving me **beans**? > > Aki: Because it's _Setsubun_ today. It means the "Coming of Spring". > > Lisa: OK, but why **the beans**? > > Aki: We throw **beans** on this day so that bad luck will leave and good > luck will come in. In particular, I'd like to know:   1. Why does Lisa drop the determiner ( _why are you giving me **ø** beans_) when she asks her first question?   2. Why does Lisa then introduce a determiner ( _why **the** beans_) when she repeats her question?   3. Aki also drops the determiner ( _we throw **ø** beans_) when she explains the custom. Is it for the same reason as 1, or for an entirely different reason?


Tag Question — Does it sometimes border upon a comma splice? I think it looks nice, _do_ you? (This is a comma splice, correct?) Shouldn't we technically use a period after "nice" in this sentence to avoid the splice? Correct would be: _I think it looks nice. Do you?_ But if we use _don't_ instead of _do_ in the sentence above, then I would think that we've eliminated a potential comma splice. (See below.) I think it looks nice, _don't_ you?


What is a more refined & formal way to say 'we eat our own dog-food'?

In some formal communication, I would like to use that phrase to indicate how reliable my product is, because we use it on a regular basis, and thus serve as a reassurance.


Correct use of year/years old

On my profile I wrote:               I'm 19 years old developer.      my friend respectfully corrected me and said that this is correct form:               I'm 19 year old developer.      Why is that so?


Meaning of "sensorily"

As a non-native English speaker, I am having a hard time understanding what the author means by _sensorily austere_ here. The quote is taken from _Man in the landscape_ , by Paul Shepard. > The desert is the environment of revelation, genetically and physiologically > alien, sensorily austere, esthetically abstract, historically inimical. > [...] I haven't found a dictionary that lists this word, but possible variations such as _sensory_. Could anyone give me an easily understandable definition for that context? (Is this perhaps an old-English word?)


What is the best way and what are the differences to introduce a "pause explanatory" phrase inside another one?

In this example: > bla bla bla _phrase such as **even if something like this doesn’t exist_** > bla bla bla. What can I use to inject my phrase in the middle of the sentence?   * ,phrase, (commas)   * ;phrase; (semicolons)   * —phrase— (dashes)


Is there a way to intensify "blooming" in "The flowers are blooming"?

In some languages, for example, in Korean, it is possible to intensify the act of blooming. For example, using the phrase 핍니다 would imply blooming, for example, simply "The flowers are blooming". However, it is possible to intensify this by using the phrase 많이 핍니다 which would mean something like "The flowers are blooming a lot". This however does not sound proper to me. Is there a way to intensify an abstract act like flower blooming (or any other), in English? For this particular example, are "The flowers are blooming a lot" or "The flowers are blooming very beautifully" proper ways to intensify the act of blooming?


Is it correct to write the telephone abbreviation as "Tel" when the number refers to a mobile phone?

Really, I don't know whether in other countries (English speaking) there is a difference between telephone and mobile phones numbers. If there is no such difference, then this question makes no sense. But if there is (as in Spain where telephones start by 9 and mobile by 6), is it correct to write **"Tel: mobile number"** or should I write **"Cell: mobile number"**? I'm particularly interested in formal writing, i.e. CVs, resumes, signatures...


Punctuation mark for the odd, weird or unusual

I have been writing a game monography where I put together the analysis of several computer games. In order to help readers, I decided to use some punctuation marks to bring their attention to specific games. So, for instance, I decided to put a star (or just an asterisk, *, in ASCII) on the games that I consider are good, two stars (**) on games that are really good and so on. I think this is consistent on how things are rated using stars. Now, every now and then I review a game that is really weird or unusual, even if it is not good at all. So I wanted to also bring the readers' attention to these oddities by using a different punctuation mark on these games titles. So far I have been using the tilde (~), but this is not consistent with the usual usage of this symbol. After searching for a while I have been unable to find a symbol that is used on this sense. Probably it doesn't even exist. So my question is, is there any symbol that is used on this context? if not, what is the best way to get around it? Should I use another well known symbol by indicating what its usage mean in the text? Should I use a not widely used symbol to avoid confusing people?


"Them" as a plural definite article

> _Hey, teachers, leave them kids alone!_ Intuitively "them" here sounds like it works like a plural "the". **Which varieties of English is this usage found in?** When it occurs, does it encode a semantic difference (sort of a demonstrative, perhaps?), or is it just a drop-in replacement for the usual definite article? I'm particularly interested in its occurrence (or lack of same) in Southern American dialects. To what extent would (American) listeners classify it as belonging to AAVE?


Is "glass cannon" a generally recognized phrase?

"Glass cannon" is a popular term in gaming (especially online-gaming), where it refers to a character class that has remarkable offensive power, but has low defense. Urban Dictionary also defines this as: > Refers to a person, weapon, or vehicle which has a high output, but a low > defense, life, durability, etc. link However, I failed to find any references other than the above one. "Glass cannon" actually sounds pretty intuitive, so one can guess the meaning even when hearing it for the first time. Is this phrase generally recognized outside of the gaming world (i.e., could I use it in a general conversation and be understood), and if it is, what is its etymology?


What is the correct present continuous form of "thunder" and "lightning"?

While describing monsoon conditions, what is the correct way to describe the ongoing action of thunder and lightning flashes? > It is thundering > > It is lightning Are the above sentences correct?


word for A question that needs to be asked again?

This is to name a section of bullet points in a status report. The section basically contains questions from the previous days status report that haven't been addressed yet.


What is the etymology of "Pasifika"?

What is the etymology of the term "Pasifika", which can mean the Pacific Islands, people of Pacific Island heritage (in a New Zealand context), or a festival held in Auckland about Pacific Island culture?


Bonus points, only negative

If you’re critiquing something, you might say that you’re giving it “bonus points” for an aspect that wasn’t essential or part of your original grading scheme, but you liked and consider to add something to the work. Please suggest a similar phrase to use for an aspect that, as with bonus points, wasn’t essential or part of your original grading scheme, but that you _disliked_ and consider to detract from the work. I’ve tried “negative bonus points,” “bonus penalties,” and “penalty points,” but none of them sounds quite right.


Is "I've seen a lot (of them) using..." grammatical without the object?

During a conversation about programming, I meant to say: > I've seen a lot _of programmers_ using that pattern. I accidentally omitted the object and wrote: > I've seen a lot using that pattern. For some reason that doesn't sound wrong to me. From context it is clear that I'm talking about software engineers without explicitly mention them, thus I don't need it for understanding. Quite the contrary, it would even be fine without repetition. However, is that sentence OK without the object or should I use one of the following sentences? > I've seen a lot of them using that pattern. > > I've often seen the use of that pattern.


Gotta equivalents

I have done a **bad** classification of the **oral** use of these expressions. Been the most used 1 and the less 5. What is the most used in spoken American English?   1. I gotta   2. I got to   3. I've gotta   4. I've got to   5. I have to   6. I have got to


Usage of "implicate" and "imply"

Looking at what's reported in the NOAD, one of the meanings of _implicate_ is the following: > convey (a meaning or intention) indirectly through what one says, rather > than stating it explicitly; **imply** : _by saying that coffee would keep > her awake, Mary implicated that she didn't want any_. Is _implicate_ used as a synonym of _imply_ , or are the two words used in different contexts?   If they are used in different contexts, could you provide examples that use _imply_ and _implicate_?


What's the origin of the word "geezer"?

From Oxford Dictionaries: > **geezer** noun   >  1\. a man (British informal)   >  _he strikes me as a decent geezer_   >  2\. an old man (North American informal , derogatory) I think in British English the word has connotations beyond meaning simply _man_. Etymonline raises more questions than it answers: > **geezer**   >  1885, variant of obsolete Cockney guiser "mummer" (late 15c.; see guise).


"In this year" versus "this year"

"In this year": Can anyone argue that the preposition _in_ is unnecessary here, maybe even a hypercorrection? (Are there any situations where _in_ is necessary?) **Edits** Some examples:   * How many days are left _in this year_? How many days are left _this year_?    * _In this year_ , Tommy has grown 12 inches. _This year_ , Tommy has grown 12 inches. To stir up some debate, is _in this year_ a prepositional phrase with _year_ as the object? If so, how does this change with the phrase _this year_? A construct such as " _In this year's_ [some event], [this occurred]." makes sense because the phrase automatically becomes prepositional: _in the [event]_ while _year's_ becomes some kind of adjective. I'm not asking about this situation. I suppose I'm interested in knowing whether _in this year_ is grammatically correct. Can every sentence containing the phrase _in this year_ be shortened to the one containing _this year_? (Do any grammar rules govern this?)


What does "and then some" mean and why is it used that way?

It seems that a good explanation of "and then some" is: > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/and+then+some > > and then some   >  (Informal) With considerably more in addition: This project will take all > our skill and then some. Is this a quite accurate definition? (with the stress of "considerably more"). Why is it like that, I wonder -- is it a short form of something, such as "and then some more" or "and then some considerably more amount"? Actually, just from the word "some", it seems it is a little more or somewhat more, without the meaning of "considerably more".


It's "1 degrees" or is it "1 degree" outside?

Is it grammatically correct to say it's _1 degrees_ outside or is it _1 degree_ outside? (Talking about the weather in Buffalo, New York.)


'enact' vs 'reenact'

> We [re]enacted Hamlet on the stage. In the context of performance, I've only ever heard 'reenact' used. However, dictionary.com lists the above example with 'enact'. Are they both correct? Is it just a regional difference? I'm from Canada, so my guess is that American English uses 'reenact' where UK English uses 'enact'. **EDIT** \- I looked at a few more examples. It's possible that 'reenact' is used only for events that actually happened (e.g. civil war battle, events of the day), and 'enact' is used for performances. I've still only only heard 'enact' in a legal context, and 'reenact' used to refer to performances, but the latter might have just been an incorrect usage.


pronunciation of "yeah"

I have always pronounced "yeah" as /yε/, i.e. as "yes" without the last sound. Recently a friend told me he pronounces it /yæ/, i.e. it rhymes with "nah." This came as a shock to me. Even worse, another friend agreed with my second friend. Is this a regionalism? I come from the American South, and the friends in question don't.


> But few realize **that we are all adversely affected by a pollutant so > common that it tends to be overlooked**. What is the grammatical name and function of the bolded part?


Position of "now" in a sentence

What is the correct position of "now" in the following sentence. What is the rule for this?   1. We now consider the second case.   2. We consider now the second case.   3. We consider the second case now.   4. Now we consider the second case I found on http://www.wordpower.ws/grammar/gramch24.html that it should be after the verb or at the final part of the clause, but what is wrong with the other cases (1) and (4)?


should articles be used after conjunction?

Which one is correct?               He is an amateur and/or/but a hobbyist photographer.      or               He is an amateur and/or/but hobbyist photographer.      I'm asking this as different articles are used before **amateur** and **hobbyist**. Does it depend on the conjunction?


What's the meaning and the origin of "skewer a sacred cow ?"

I've read this idom from an article, and it seems that the phrase " **skewer a sacred cow** " mean "to criticize" but I am not very sure. Does anyone know the exact meaning and the origin of this idom?


Why does 'I'm with stupid' have a positive connotation?

I see the phrase ... > I'm with stupid ... used in many occasions, especially on forums using a smiley similar to this one: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/UFZwz.gif) It's almost exclusively used with a positive connotation, in the meaning: "I agree with the poster above". But I just don't get why you'd call someone you agree with 'stupid'. What is the origin and true meaning of this phrase?


Difference between "run into", "come upon" and "come across"

These phrasal verbs have a similar meaning (please correct me if not):   * run into   * come across   * come upon Are there any nuances to choose between them? For example, I might be wrong but I mostly see _run into_ used for meeting a _person_ unexpectedly. **Update:** My understanding of responses so far:   * _come upon_ is not very common any more   * _run into_ is the most frequently used one    * _run into_ might or might not have a negative connotation (No consensus as I see it) Perhaps working on some concrete sentences might give a better result. For example, which one would you use for (in parentheses are my first thoughts):   * Unexpectedly meeting a dangerously fierce pack of dogs on the street (run into)   * Unexpectedly meeting a very beautiful girl whom you don't know on the street (come across)   * Unexpectedly finding a book that you had lost (come across)   * Unexpectedly finding a grammar mistake in a blog that you'd love to point out (come across)   * ... Maybe I should've mentioned _stumble upon_ too. By the way, sorry about the length of the post. I had to expand it to clarify the context.


Term for misspelling used as pun of another word

What is the term for a common or potential pun of another word using a misspelling? For example, I thought the made-up word _bikery_ was a funny sort of play on the word _bakery_. What, therefore, would _bikery_ be called in relation to _bakery_?


Is “knife-in-one’s-teeth (woman)” frequently used English? Can we use it for a man as well?

I saw the word “knife-in-her-teeth daughter” in Maureen Dawd’s article, titled “Darth Vader Vents” in New York Times (August 27). The article deals with former Vice president Dick Cheney’s new memoir, “In My Time,” and Maureen introduces the book; > “His _knife-in-her-teeth daughter_ , Elizabeth Cheney, helped write the > book. The second most famous Liz & Dick combo do such an excellent job of > cherry-picking the facts, it makes the cherry-picking on the Iraq war > intelligence seem picayune.” As I was unfamiliar with the phrase, “knife-in-one’s teeth,” I checked the definition of it on Cambridge and Merriam-Webster online dictionaries, without finding entry of the phrase on neither of them (though there was a difinition of 'kick in the teeth'). Although I can guess it means “bellicose” or “defiant,” from the nuance of the word, I wonder if “knife-in-one’s teeth” is popular English phrase or not. I also have a feeling that it's better applied to woman than man, because man is considered to be bellicose creature from the beginning.


Is this statement, where the same pronoun refers to two entities, grammatically correct?

I had this conversation with a friend earlier: > Friend (to a group): If you don't like [this show], there's something wrong > with you.   >  Me (to friend): Or you're just a little more mature than you and me. In my statement, _you_ switches from the other members of the group (or maybe people in a general sense) to the person I am talking to. Is this okay from a syntactical perspective? I can't think of any other examples where the same pronoun switches people without using a noun in between. Is there something in this statement that makes it obvious the pronouns have switched what they're referencing from a pure grammar perspective? Edit: To clarify, what I was trying to say in my response is "We both like this show, but that's probably because we're both immature. The other people in this group might not like this show because they're more mature than us, not because there's something wrong with them."


Why prefix a request with "I'm going to have to ask you..."

Say you are in a nice restaurant and, at the table next you, a gentleman lights up the most offensive cigar you ever smelled. You mention it to the manager and then the manager goes up to the gentleman and says "Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to put out your cigar." rather than "Sir, please put out your cigar." It seems the second statement is the preferred way to say it (e.g. no passive voice, contractions, not wordy). However, I hear the first statement more often. Why would you put all those words in front? Does it come out less offensive that way?


When someone asks, "How are you?"

When someone asks, "How are you?" are you supposed to answer, "Good," or "Fine," and ask back?


Proper polite response to "How are you doing?"

This is more of a culture question than a language question, but the two can't always be separated, can they? For me, one of the most shocking things about the United States was how often people ask "How are you doing?" The first thing the cashier in a shop says to customers is this. So obviously, this is a form of greeting, and not a genuine interest in one's wellbeing. It reminds me of "How do you do?" from my very old fashioned (British) English textbooks, which taught us that the correct response to this is simply "How do you do?" So, what is the correct and polite response to "How are you doing?" in the United States?   * Can I just say, "How are you doing?", or do I need to reply with "Good." first?   * Or just say "Good", and leave it at that without asking the other person the same question?   * Can I just simply say "Hello"? It still _feels_ like a genuine question to me, so it's hard not to reply. But it also feels very awkward to say it so many times each day.


What's the appropriate response to the question "How are you doing"?

Would like different quotes on "How are you doing"?


Is it always appropriate to reciprocate when asked "How are you?"

This question is related to When someone asks how are you, are you supposed to answer, "Good," or "Fine," and ask back?. There, the answer by z7sg Ѫ claims it is sometimes appropriate not to reciprocate when asked "How are you?". I guess the following situation would fall under the category of "being asked by a shop assistant": > A little while ago I was visiting a US agency in a European country. There > was an American man at a counter serving people. Each time a new person came > in, the man would greet him/her with something like "Hi, how are you?" and a > smile. Most people responded with just "good" or "fine". When my turn came, > I responded with "I'm fine, thank you. How are _you_?". I could see the man > was a bit surprised, but quickly recovered and replied he is doing fine. When someone asks you "How are you?", he is probably not genuinely interested in how exactly are you doing. Why is it then _not_ appropriate always to ask the same question back, or is it? Can it sometimes be too friendly?


Word for "nuance" of movement

I understand the word _nuance_ means a very slight/subtle difference specifically applies to meanings, sounds, colours, feelings, and expressions. But what about movements, is there a word that denotes a very slight difference in somebody's movements that is not very obvious? For example, if I'm in a room next to another room and the rooms are so silent that I could hear virtually every movement/action that the person on the other room makes, not only do I hear him walking, moving objects, him eating/drinking, writing/typing, etc., I could also hear the not so obvious/noticeable movements such as maybe him scratching his arm/leg, rubbing his eyes, to him squirming in his chair, just every subtle movements imaginable. An example sentence maybe, _he has extraordinary trained sense organs that could detect a person's every [?] of movement. Or I could hear every [?] of movement he makes in the other room._ Is there a word that could replace _nuance_ in this case to describe movements instead?


"Paraphrasing" an equation

> Three Laws of Thermodynamics (paraphrased): First Law: You can't get > anything without working for it. Second Law: The most you can accomplish by > work is to break even. Third Law: You can't break even. I stumbled across the above joke (from the webmaster's viewpoint, but see jwpat7's comment) and it made me wonder if "paraphrasing an equation" can be used in a more formal context. The construction I have in mind is > First, I consider the relation between mass and energy, which, paraphrasing, > says that ... Is this construct acceptable? In the second quote, _relation_ stands for _mathematical relation_ in specific reference to an equation. A more accurate example is the following > First, I consider the equation relating mass to energy, which, paraphrasing, > says that ... Bonus question: which or that?


"A smile cures the wounding of a frown"

I found the following on a poster of a professional photographer: > A smile cures the wounding of a frown The sentence seems awkward and wrong to me. I think something can _cure a disease_ and _heal wounds_. So, the object should be _wound_ and not _wounding_ , and the verb should be _heal_ and not _cure_. But if I say, "A smile heals the wound of a frown", is this still correct and does it sound right? (I am assuming that a lot of things may be grammatically correct but will sound awkward and weird, and so should not be used.). Or should it be "A smile heals the wound **s** of a frown"?


"Thanks" or "thank you"?

Which one is correct — "Thank you Jim" or "Thanks Jim"? If I start an email with the sentence "Thank you Jim" in Outlook, it shows grammar error while if I begin with "Thanks Jim" it doesn't.


"Referrer" versus "referral" versus "referer"

Which word is correct and what do they mean? I've seen `$_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER']` (PHP), but I have also seen _referrer_ in can I forward “referrer” information to other address? and _referral_ on the Wikipedia article about referral marketing.


Do we need to repeat "no" to represent without for a list of items?

I want to say "This book comes without page numbers, footnotes and cover.". But if I use "with no" instead of "without", should I repeat the word "no"? > A: This book comes with no page numbers, footnotes, and cover. or > B: This book comes with no page numbers, no footnotes, and no cover.


'Packing list' vs.'What's in the box'

Which one is more English when you describe a product to tell people what is included in the packing? And is there any difference between these two phrases?


What's the opposite of a "round number"?

A round number is defined, informally, as one with lots of zeroes at the end, or one that ends with a 5 (perhaps because it's easier to give change to). What would you call a number that wasn't "round" in this way? I'm less interested in the mathematical definition (where a number has considerably more and smaller factors than its neighbours). For example, consider 1000 to be a "rounder" number than 1024.


King Jr.'s letter from jail

> Begun on the margins of the newspaper in which the statement appeared while > I was in jail, the letter was continued on scraps of writing paper supplied > by a friendly Negro trusty So when the author was in jail, the letter was published little by little? Is that so?


meaning "upon which the system depends for"

In sentence "A system’s trust model defines the set of software and data upon which the system depends for correct enforcement of system security goals." I don't understand the mean of "upon which the system depends for".any idea? Thanks.


Preposition for "to be qualified"

Would you please tell me whether the following fragment is grammatically correct? > ...led me to **be qualified in** various science Olympiads. For instance, I > ranked 21st among... I know that "qualification in" is correct, for example "we are looking for graduates with qualification in maths". But what about "be qualified in"?


Multiple Instances of Same Noun: Does the use of "that" distinguish between them?

Consider the following sentence taken from some co-operative housing rules: > "Any costs of repairing a suite are the responsibility of the owner of a > suite, which could be a different suite from the suite repaired, if the > damage was caused by the owner or guest of that suite." There are two different instances of _"suite"_ in this sentence: The suite that was repaired, and the suite whose owner or guest caused the damage. Does _"that suite"_ refer unambiguously to one instance or another?


Is there a more specialized word for "expedite" for the case where the thing was not making any progress at all to begin with?

For a process which isn't moving quickly enough, one can do things to expedite it. But for something which is a sluggish bottleneck and is not making any progress whatsoever, is there a more specialized word for "expediting" it?


Singular vs Plural

I saw something like "Kinds of Art" "why is orange juice good for you" when I was surfing the internet.My question is why they don't have "the" in front nor have "s" behind?


What does "hoodwinked" mean in this context?

> The former headmistress of the school said she had been "hoodwinked" by > Savile, but described some of those who had brought the allegations as > "delinquents". Source: Wikipedia article (permalink to section "Background")


Use of as good and as well

Are these two sentences correct?   1. This is as good as ...   2. This works as well as ... Edit:   1. This one is as good as the other one.   2. This one works as well as the other one.


What is the meaning of "up and kicking"?   Is it similar to "up and running", but with the former one describing people and the latter one describing machines?   Thank you!


"Open to opportunities" vs. "open for opportunities"

I want to know which sentence is correct and why: >   * I'm open to new opportunities. >   * I'm open for new opportunities. >


Can we put the adverb of time on the present perfect tense?   _i have just moved here last month._


Present perfect vs. passive voice

Here are two sentences that look pretty similar: >   1. The book **was written** by Hugo. >   2. The book **has been written** by Hugo. > Each of them says that the action has been already performed in the past in passive voice. What I can't understand is the exact difference between the meaning of these two sentences. When is it better or more suitable to use passive voice of past simple versus passive voice of the present perfect?


What is the opposite of "emerging markets"?

I'm writing a corporate presentation in which I explain how our sales and operations network across the globe enables us to benefit from the opportunities offered by both emerging and "old" markets: > We have developed our network into a strong global presence, adding further > partners in key areas across the globe. Our strategic production and sales > footprint grants us a vantage position to tap into the exciting potential of > both emerging and ??? markets. What word should go in place of "???"? Developed markets doesn't sound right, also Consolidated markets means something slightly different. Any idea on what the "consensus definition" is for this?


Adjective NOUN1 AND NOUN2

If someone says "Today I bought trendy shirts and shoes.", does he imply that even the shoes are trendy? In general, if you have sentences of the form ADJECTIVE NOUN1 and NOUN2, does the adjective apply to second noun as well? Well, here it is not a big deal but I have come across some legal, technical documents where this can make a big difference.


Is there any rules of the 'th' sound in phonological?

I know well, the tongue is exactly going to the teeth in between(upper&under) when sounded. Yet, my point is that Do I have to place the tongue at there all the time? For example, "Whats' the matter?" and "What's that?" these two are not so easy to do sound exactly (a /s/ and followed by a /th/). When sounding them, the tongue is only placed behind of upper teeth. Either it has obviously to be placed in between or that doesn't matter in speaking, I am really in curious. Thanks


Can the verb 'send' take a person as its object?

On Saturday morning, I was in the office working on my PC. At the time, a message popped up on GTalk, where the person had written "Send Martin" (who sits behind me) — my colleague wanted to talk with him, so told me to send him to his desk. So my question is, is "send" appropriate to use for a person in this case?


What is the name for right-aligning a citation on the last line of a paragraph?

Is there a term for when you layout a paragraph with a right-aligned citation on the last line, like this:               Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.     Phasellus quam mauris, tincidunt eget volutpat sit amet,     placerat vel justo.                             Citation      I ask because I've seen this in a book where space was at a premium. I'm working on a layout engine where I need to be able to do this, and I'd like to to be able to learn more about it if this is a thing.


Can "pussy" be pronounced with /ʌ/ (uh)?

My friend insists it can be. Here is a video he provides as a proof (watch it cautiously, brain damage is possible). Is this nonsense or not? Maybe it is a _local_ phenomenon? Or just a speech defect?


"Various" - "Different"

Please, help me to understand the difference in meaning between "various" and "different". Example sentence: > Various methods of inter-process communication are available in Windows. Is it possible to build this sentence like: > Different methods of inter-process communication are available in Windows. Is the second sentence correct? If yes, what would be the difference between the two?


"Currency rates" or "currencies rates"

What is the correct form when we have a rate for each currency in a list of currencies. For example if currencies are EUR, GBP and USD there will be a rate (buy and sell) for each one of these currencies.


Can something be a parent or child "to"/"of" something?

I am writing some software documentation. There are data structures that are organized in trees and every element in the structure can be child or parent "to"/"of" every other element. I am not a native speaker and my instincts are pretty divided on the matter themselves, so I guess I have to turn to higher powers to answer that question. Hence, I turn to you:   Is it "to" or "of" in that case?


Meant for only some people

The word is used to refer to a thing which is meant for only some people. For example: _theoretical physics is a subject that is meant only for some people_. So the word can be used here instead of "meant for only some people". (The word starts with "p" I feel"). **The original, very first version of this question:** _A happy coincidence The word is used to refer to a thing which you happen to come along , you are not looking for it ...but in this case "co-incidence" doesn't seem right 'because only one event is happening which is favourable to the other event (without deliberate effort or thought),there is no "co- incidence".The events are not coincident(they don't occur at same time)._


Is "likes nothing less" or "likes nothing more" correct?

>   1. He likes nothing less than an extremely sophisticated life. >   2. He likes nothing more than an extremely sophisticated life. > Both look meaningfully similar. In the first one, 'less' appears to act on the object while in the second line, the word 'more' appears to act on on the verb. Which one is correct in terms of grammatical accuracy?


Is "could've" or "should've" standard English?

As the title says — is "could've" or "should've" standard English or is it slang and should correctly be spelled "could have" and "should have"?


What is the word for a person who worships but never helps others?

There is a person who is always worshipping God, and also never harms a soul. But he never helps others or explains what he knows. What could I call such a person?


What is a word for someone who engages in both activities in a two-activity environment?

I am studying a simple educational environment where there are two types of activities (call them A and B). There are three types of students: those who only engage in A, those who only engage B, and those who engage in both. It's easy enough to name the first two categories (I name them after the activity types, e.g. "viewers" for those who view lectures), but I'm struggling to come up with a good way to refer to the third type of student. What is a relatively common word that roughly means "student who engages in both types of activities", but doesn't connote that he/she is particularly good at them?


Can "was" be abbreviated as "'s?"

Is it possible to write "'s" instead of "was" in a sentence or is completely wrong? For example: > She was at home yersterday.   >  She's at home yesterday.


Etymology of "binky" -- three questions

Definition 2 of _binky_ at wiktionary is "(rabbit behavior) A high hop that a rabbit may perform when happy." This definition is consistent with that at rabbitspeak, and not inconsistent with "A kind of twisting jump made by a rabbit at play" given in wikipedia. What is the etymology of this term? The three quotations given in wiktionary date from 1996, 2003, and 2009, while ngrams shows the incidence of _binky_ near zero in the 1970's and rising steadily since ca. 1995. In web searches, I don't know how to disambiguate _binky_ as a high hop from its other common-noun usages or its more-common use as a surname; can one do so? Note, I found no results for _binky_ at word-origins, at etymonline, at dictionary.reference.com, or at learner's dictionary and other dictionary.cambridge.org sources. The nicest illustration I've seen of a binky appears in the opening seconds of this video. (The sharpish "Aht!" and "Ech!" sounds (can someone transcribe these more faithfully?) near the end of the video are warnings from the owner to the rabbit, to make it cease chewing the furniture, which -- in the video -- it does.)


Correct usage of 'but for'?

Does 'but for' mean: 'If we had X (but we didn't), Y would have been the consequence'? Or can it also mean; because we had X, as a result Y happened? Some different examples of **_but for_** : (Case 1) > But for a cup coffee, it was to be a productive day of writing. > Unfortunately, I'd run out, and spent the day craving. (Case 2) > But for the glass of wine I had dinner, the house work didn't get done. (Case 3) > But for the glass of wine I had for dinner, I would have got the house work > done **What is the correct usage of "but for"?**


What happened to King Canute

I was watching Downton Abbey season 4 episode 2. The conversation goes like this: > Violet Crawley: Now I asked Branson to come here because I have an idea.   >  Mary Crawley: Granny, you must call him Tom.   >  Violet Crawley: I thought I could call him Branson again now that he's the > agent.   >  Mary Crawley: Well, you can't.   >  Tom Branson: I don't mind.   >  Violet Crawley: No. I see I'm beaten but, oh, how I sympathise with King > Canute. Tom Branson was initially the family chauffeur, so was called Branson. Later he married Mary's sister Sybil, so Violet had to address him "Tom" as a family member. Tom became the estate agent helping Mary's husband Matthew. Both Sybil and Matthew died before this conversion. In a sense Tom is again "working for" the family, so grandma Violet was trying to call him Branson again. But, how come the whole thing is related to King Canute?


Is "Jew" gender-neutral?

I had thought that _Jew_ was gender-neutral, until I heard somebody who was asked if their mother was a Jew and responded, "of course not; she's a Jewess". Is _Jew_ a gender-neutral form, or does one need to distinguish between _Jew_ and _Jewess_?


said no one ever

Can anybody explain to me the gist of the phrase " **said no one ever** ". Yes, I read urban dictionary definition but still I don't get it. Looks like it is said with sarcasm. E.g. _"Pam Anderson's boobs are too small" said no one ever._ Ok, everybody knows she has large boobs. So the meaning here is boiled down to: _of course I'm not the first who noticed it and spoke it out._ Am I right? Probably I need a good example to grasp it.


What does "subtle" mean as a single-word reply?

I am watching US Open these days on its website. There are advertisements by a company called "esurance", where a man showed to a woman a huge check and started to introduce "esurance", and then the woman replied "Subtle!", if I am right about what I heard. I can understand some usage of subtle as part of a sentence. But I was wondering what "Subtle!" means as a reply generally?


What does "a sock full of pennies" mean?

I watched Seinfeld S09E12 The Reverse Pipehole, there are lines like this: > KRAMER: Newman and I are reversing the peepholes on our door. So you can see > in. > > ELAINE: Why? > > NEWMAN: To prevent an ambush. > > KRAMER: Yeah, so now I can peek to see if anyone is waiting to jack me with > a sock full of pennies. and this: > JERRY: So, Silvio ambushed Joe Mayo? > > ELAINE: Yeah, he was waitin' inside his apartment for him with a sock full > of pennies. > > JERRY: He should have had a reverse peephole. What does "a sock full of pennies" means? Is it an idiom or slang? Does it really mean a sock full of pennies?


I was raised being called "sister" by my family. What's the background on this usage?

I was called "sister", as a replacement for my name. (Oddly, my brother was not called "brother.") I never questioned this growing up in the 50's in a rural area. It says much about the culture I grew up in. Yet I cannot explain it well, to younger people or to those not from a rural upbringing, in the 50's and prior. This was reflective of my role in the family, not any sisterhood. A friend was confused by this, only understanding sister as in sisterhood. I haven't been able to find any background or etymology on any website. It's simple but I'm interested in cultural aspects as well as any fiction reflecting this.


Word for "a person who quickly gets interested and quickly loses interest"

I have googled but didn't find. "A person who gets interested in anything very quickly and loses interest in it sooner." What is such a person called?


What does James Joyce in Ulysses mean by “blood and ouns”?

> ...body and soul and _blood and ouns_.


"By the way" in formal writing

Can I say "By the way" in an official document or professional meeting and other important/formal times? I never saw any film which would include these words.


Is the word "single" necessary to be added when specifying a thing?

I think the word _single_ is not necessary because the article _a_ or _an_ has done the job. So the phrase "a single object" should be simplified as "an object". What do you think?


Where does the "busman's holiday" expression come from?

I understand the expression to mean doing something on a holiday that you would normally do at your job. So, am I to understand that the expression simply refers to a bus driver going for a ride on the bus on his day off?


Then or Than, Which to use when comparing time?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is it absolutely necessary to use "than" over "then" in a comparison? Which sentence is grammatically correct? > "I have been here for less then six months." or > "I have been here for less than six months."


What construction should I prefer with "assumed"?

Which of the following sentences should I prefer? > All widgets may be assumed perfect. or > All widgets may be assumed to be perfect. To my eye, the first seems a little terse and the second rather verbose. What would you suggest?


Is it correct to use a single object phrase with multiple verbs, when the phrase only partially applies to each of the verbs?

In order to construct a shorter, more efficient sentence, I am combining multiple verbs with a single object phrase. Take the following sentence, for example: "Sally discusses an automated system having an apparatus for scanning and transmitting bar codes from a remote location to a central computer." This is more compact than the following sentence: "Sally discusses an automated system having an apparatus for scanning bar codes at a remote location and transmitting the scanned bar codes from the remote location to a central computer." But is the first construction grammatically correct? It seems that there is some problem, as "scanning" an "transmitting" do not connect with the object phrase "bar codes from a remote location to a central computer" in the same way. That is, "scanning" applies to "bar codes" but "transmitting" applies to "bar codes from a remote location to a central computer." Is this a problem?


A word to describe "work that is ready to be done"

I'm writing an application that generates a spec sheet for a publication. At the top there will be a list of the various components (ads, articles, etc.) and how many there are for each status type: * * * ### Pending (pending content) These elements are missing the content necessary to begin working on for a few different reasons:   * It is an ad space that hasn't been sold yet   * It is an ad space that has been sold, but the advertiser hasn't decided what to do with it yet   * The content depends on something that hasn't happened yet (eg. an interview that's scheduled for some time in the future)   * The copy text and/or photographs for the element haven't been provided yet ### ??? (ready to be worked on) These elements are ready for placement into the publication, but they involve a bit of touching up.   * If photographs are provided, only the best can be chosen to appear in the publication as space is limited   * Some photos require alteration   * A place must be found for elements without a predefined page number   * If the element is an ad and the advertiser does not provide an ad design, we design an ad for them If there's too much content for the number of pages that have been allocated to the publication but not enough to justify adding additional pages, then non-advertising elements need to be trimmed down. If there's too little content or we've decided to add additional pages, then non-advertising elements need to be fluffed up a bit (extra photos chosen, pull-quotes added, etc.). ### Published (laid out for publishing) These elements are locked into the publication and cannot change. Once all elements reach this state, it goes to the printer for publishing. * * * I'm looking for a word to say "these elements are ready to be worked on". It would be extra awesome if it could be used interchangeably to say "mark this element as ready to publish". The word their current application uses for this state is _Approved_. The _Approved_ state is really only relevant to ads where we're doing the ad design (ie. the advertiser has _approved_ our ad design) and not a general label for all elements on the spec sheet. Words I've considered:   * Processing (makes sense as a label for a collection, but not much sense for changing the state of a single element)   * Completed (sounds too similar to "Published")   * Queued (sounds weird on a design document) A single word would be best since spaces require extra work to deal with in the application, but if there's an exceptional short phrase I'm willing to make an exception.


Is "close proximity" a tautology?

I was rooting about in the OED and one definition is "The fact, condition, or position of being near or close by in space; nearness." Then in the citations for that definition they had: 1872 H. I. Jenkinson Guide Eng. Lake Distr. (1879) 286 Owing to the close proximity to the sea.


Punctuation following “along the lines of ”

When the phrase “along the lines of” introduces an indirect quote, what punctuation, if any, is used? This is the original sentence that brought up the issue: > I heard replies along the lines of “must be nice to have the time for a > vacation.”