Can all transitive verbs take to-infinitive clauses?

> Yet it would be your duty to bear it, if you could not avoid it: it is weak > and silly to say you cannot bear what it is **your fate to be required to > bear**. — _Jane Eyre_ It seems ‘your fate to be required to bear’ is a to-infinitive clause (or non- finite-clause by Bas Aarts: “They would hate [Jim to sell his boat].”) and the object of _cannot bear_ ; _what it is_ means ‘whatever it is’ and can be put in brackets. Can all transitive verbs take the clauses as their objects? If you see the object of _cannot bear_ as what-clause, would you let me know just the last question?


Is "I have Asperger syndrome" grammatically correct?

I'm trying to write my first book. In it, the protagonist has Asperger syndrome. It was going well until I encountered this sentence (the boy is confessing to another person) and became confused. Is it a coherent sentence? Are there any other appropriate ways to say this?


Why is it "yours faithfully" and not "your faithfully"?

I've been taught to write "Yours" ever since I started writing letters. But today I realised that "your" is an adjective qualifying the person who is writing the letter. Now, since the adjective for _you_ is _your_ , why is _yours_ always used?


"I'm sorry for" vs. "I'm sorry about"

Can I use _about_ and _for_ interchangeably? If not, when should I use either? Which is more common? >   * I'm sorry for/about yesterday. >   * I'm sorry for/about my bad English. >   * I'm sorry for/about that. >


How to identify the sound of an "A" without altering the spelling of the word?

I have the word "Carr" (short for the name Carrie). Is there a way to write the 'a' so that a person reading the word 'Carr' would pronounce it like _care_ ('kær), opposed to pronouncing it like _car_ (kɑr)? Something like Càrr, Cárr, Cãrr, etc...?


Adjective association

Is there a rule that states what word adjectives in a sentence will link to? If I say > I have a big cookie jar it's still a correct sentence. The word "cookie" isn't an adjective, but "cookie jar" is a common term that represents a jar explicitly used to contain cookies. In the phrases "dark green box" and "dark, green box" I know that with the comma, the box is dark _and_ green, while without it, the box is dark green. In the cookie jar sentence, is the jar explicitly used to contain "big cookies" or is the "cookie jar" big?


A conditional with present tense vs. the subjunctive?

I may just be in my own head, but I'm trying to figure out how these two sentences differ: >   1. If you walk down the street, you'll see an oak tree. >   2. If you were to walk down the street, you'd see an oak tree. > Is it that the first one describes something hypothetical that you could do now, while the second one describes something hypothetical that you could do in the future? (What I'm trying to say is, "If you hypothetically do X, whether now or sometime the future, then Y happens.")


When two titles are separated by “and” how do you show “and” isn’t part of the titles? For example, if I'm on a swimming team named _Jaguars_ and a rowing team named _Cheetahs_ how would I remove the ambiguity from sentences like “The Jaguars and the Cheetahs always win”? It could be incorrectly interpreted as one team name.


Good dictionary software

What is good dictionary software? I am asking about the ones that can be downloaded and used on Windows machines, and not online websites. I thought Word Web is a good one, but are there any advanced and good dictionaries?


Is the adjective “nothing loath” still in common usage?

Google Ngram Viewer shows a decline in the use of “nothing loath” since the 1970s unlike its antonym “loath” which is still widely used. Would it be appropriate for me to use it or has it become obsolete?


Where do you put the suffix when listing the last name first?

When listing names with the last name first, where should you put the suffix if there is one present? For example, if given the name `John Doe Jr.`, which of the following would be correct?   * `Doe, John Jr.`   * `Doe, John, Jr.` _< \- My guess is this one_   * `Doe Jr., John`   * `Jr., Doe, John`


How does "so to speak" mean "in a manner of speaking"?

I understand the phrase's meaning and its usage, but I don't know how it could have come to mean what it does. Similar phrases like "in a manner of speaking" and "in a sense" make more sense. A sentence like "he's a parrot, in a sense" would mean "there exists an interpretation of the statement that he's a parrot such that the statement holds true". "He's a parrot, in a manner of speaking," would mean that one might speak in a particular colloquial in which "he's a parrot" has an appropriate meaning. On the other hand, I don't even know how to parse the phrase "so to speak": "so, [if I were] to speak, [I would say ...]"? Or is "so-to speak" a kind of speak? Or does the "so" mean "true", as in "make it so"?


What does 'Not to order' mean?

I came across this line in one of Nina Bawden's works: > I have only once written a book, not to order, exactly, but to please a > particular audience; a girl of seven who was, as she put it, 'a little bit > blind'. I'm trying to figure out what the writer means by 'not to order' in this context. I'd appreciate any help! EDIT: Here's a bit of context: The author mentions in the same extract that the girl suggested an idea for a book to be based on jewel thieves and a blind girl who does something brave. Also, the author writes that she's impressed by her ability to navigate through dark corridors even with limited eyesight. Both these factors formed the inspiration for the book.


How to describe word with many syllables

How do we describe a word that has many _syllables_? For example, what's the correct way to rewrite the sentence below? > However these names end up being very long both visually and > pronunciationally.


Origin of the expression 'hard by'?

There's an expression "hard by", which I understand to mean "nearby", "close by". I don't know if it could be called an idiom, but it baffled me when I first encountered it in the translation of Historia Calamitatum ( _“the castle of Corbeil, which is hard by the city of Paris”_ ). Back then I thought it an archaism, but since then I've encountered it in modern contexts, e.g. _“In a bar hard by P.P. Layouts, Richard Hnatt sat sipping a Tequila Sour”_ (Philip Dick). What's the origin of this expression? Etymonline mentions: > O.H.G. harto "extremely, very," in the etymology of 'hard', and I can see some connection, but it's vague. Also, aside its rarity, can it be used interchangeably with "close by", or is there a small semantic difference I can't percieve?


/u/ and /uː/ in pronunciation

What is the regularity of appearance of /uː/ and /u/ (or /ʊ/ in RP)? How can I be most sure deducing from spelling alone, that, say, "ooze" is pronounced /uːz/ and "wool" as /wul/? I know that English vowels are peculiar, but I don't want to look up the pronunciation of words in the dictionary that often.


Are “Pick up your socks” and “Have your socks bronzed” popular expressions as the antithesis?

I found the phrase “Pick up your socks” and “Have your socks bronzed” in the following sentence of Maureen Dawd’s article in today’s New York Times: > “When Barack is cocky and looks at Michelle, he might see her thinking: > “You’re no messiah. Pick up your socks.” But when Newt is cocky and looks at > Callista, he sees her thinking: “You are the messiah. We’ll have your socks > bronzed.” As the sentence is followed by the line, “Where Michelle sees herself as the puncturer of delusions, ‘the Department of ‘Let’s Get Real,’ as an aide called her,” I can guess “pick up your socks” means “know yourself, be realistic” and “have your socks bronzed,” means “make you glorious/ grandeur” Is my understanding right or off the mark? Are both of the phrases popular expressions as the antithesis?


Is word "homological" homologous?

Homological mean the word describing itself (like "word" or "written"). Is word "homological" homological? Thank you very much and sorry for my ignorance.


Microsoft Word Complains me this phrase is wrong - Is it right?

> A programming craftsman having hands on knowledge in Web development > (Including user interaction), Software Development Life cycle, and database > programming How should the sentence be formed so that it is correct( I am not sure this is wrong).


Engineering from or Engineering in

Should i write > Bachelor of Engineering from [Place] or > Bachelor of Engineering in [Place] Seems both sound right to me, or might be i am not good in my English language usage.


Is there any general rule of thumb that can be followed for where and when to add commas and full stops?

I always mess up with my writing by adding commas and full stops (periods) in the wrong places. Is there any rule of thumb or some other way that I can follow to avoid this problem?


Word/phrase for nationally owned company

Is there a word/phrase for a company whose owners are all from the U.S.? When I search for "nationally owned company", Google returns "Government-owned corporation", which is not what I am after. Would it be "fully U.S.-owned"? ("Fully" for emphasis.)


What does 'arra' mean?

I read it in a book but can't remember what topic now. Google just brings up a list of place names, but I'm sure it's not that. It's not in my Oxford dictionary either and I'm fairly sure it's not an abbreviation.


what's the meaning of “Fpfit. ”

what's the meaning of “Fpfit. ” in following pic ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/h7hSB.jpg)


Quis? Ego! (Child's phrase)

In British private schools children shout "Quis?" and the person to shout "Ego!" in reply first gets whatever was on offer. The Latin derivation is clear but I have two questions. First, when did this practice start? Second, there is an extension where the respondent shouts something that sounds similar to "ego de to my liking". This means that the child will accept the gift if they like it. This is to prevent the first child from giving a rotten egg or black eye or similar. When did this first appear?


These vs those before nouns

I have been tutuoring a Chinese boy in English, and I am having trouble explaining to the kid why he shouldn't be using the word, "those", as much as he is. **The kid:** _Those two strategies help Churchill to get to his goal: to express the anger towards those terrorists._ Personally, if I was going to write this sentence, I would probably write: "These two strategies help Churchill get to his goal: to express anger towards terrorists". I've changed "those" to "these" and dropped "those" completely in the second clause. **The kid:** _However, those people who watched the hanging were like a dog, which means they had less humanity but more brutal. Those human beings, compared with dogs, seemed to be much more cruel and cold-blooded._ Again, if I were writing this sentence, I wouldn't really be using "those" in any of the two cases here. I would have written "the people who watched..." and "These human beings, compared with dogs..." The kid is trigger-happy with "those" -- I feel like he's wrong, but I can't say why, if he indeed is. Any insight would surely be appreciated.


what does it mean: "Lowess smooth"

what does it mean: "Lowess smooth" in following picture ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/KpyJa.jpg)


What's the adjective form of "sauce" as "salty" is to "salt"?

_Saucy_ has a totally different meaning. When I describe food having too much sauce, I would like to use an adjective, however _salty_ is not really applicable here.


Meaning of 'constantly' in 'everything is fluid, is constantly changing...'

> Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly > changing, constantly coming into being and passing away. If 'constantly' means 'no stop in every little seconds' then this is of course wrong, for example, our name may change but not change in every seconds. If it means 'may stop in some times, but in a long-term view, never stop', then it's acceptable. I ask what exactly CONSTANTLY means in English. IF it means like a river flows and not stop in every seconds or it means like heartbeat, you heart beat in a lifelong time, but surely it stop beat in a little time and beat again in another seconds. **there are one state in river and two states in heartbeat**


Give permission without authority

How can I give someone permission to do something, go along with their plan even if I do not have the authority to tell them to do so or stop them from doing so anyway. "You have my permission ..." sounds like the other person needs to ask me first.


What part of speech would "color" be in, "Mercury is the color red"?

> Mercury is red. > > Mercury is the color red. _Red_ is describing Mercury. What part of speech would _color_ be?


"Move slower" vs. "move less"

What is the proper word to fill the blank? > The more cars there are on a given road, the ___ _ the traffic will move. The answer is _slower_. But I wonder whether _less_ is incorrect.


Why/When need some kind of short spelling or pronunciation?

In regular usage, nowadays we use short spellings of words in speaking or writing. For example:   * They are in the cinema. => They're in the cinema.   * We have been waiting for me. => We've been waiting for me.   * etc... I know it makes our vocabulary and understanding easier than the real spelling of words, but my question is: why do we need that type of change and how should it be applied to our regular usage? Most importantly **when should we use this kind of short word when writing or speaking?**


In which accent does Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) speak?

I don't know if Stack Exchange is the right place to ask this question but I am very keen to find out: Which accent has Brad Pitt adopted in the movie _Inglourious Basterds_ for the role of Lieutenant Aldo Raine?


Can the em dash replace both the semicolon and comma in these?

Can the em dash replace the comma and semicolon in these sentences? For example, instead of "The original sign did not have terminal punctuation; thus, the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence", can we do this? (See below.)   * The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – _thus_ the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.   * The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – _hence_ the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.   * The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – _therefore_ the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.   * The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – _as a result_ the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.   * The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – _consequently_ the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence.


Expression for "someone who's clueless of their surroundings"?

What is an expression or saying you could use to describe someone that is totally clueless of their surroundings?


"It worths it", "it worth it" or "it is worth it"?

Which one is correct and why? I think "worth it" is an adjective phrase. So what is "worth" then? Example: > You should try spending money on her. **It worths it**. > > You should try spending money on her. **It worth it**. > > You should try spending money on her. **It is worth it**. Which one is right? The last 2 are not condemned by grammar checker.


How can I re-word this sentence?

"With computers integrating people’s life increasingly these days in the era of information processing and computerization, more and more people need to read online information." Should mentioning the result first be better or mentioning the 'digital era' to introduce the topic first?


Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs

I am very much hoping that I have punctuated all of the following examples correctly per BrE punctuation. And I'm hoping that my bracketed explanations adequately and logically explain my reasoning to punctuate them as I have done. That being said, are all correct per BrE?   1. _The sign said 'Handle with care.'_ [The original sign had terminal punctuation – thus the full stop goes inside the quotes, correct?]   2. _The sign said 'Handle with care'._ [The original sign did not have terminal punctuation – thus the full stop goes outside the quotes to end the sentence, correct?]   3. _Pete said, 'The sign said "Handle with care." '_ [The sign contained terminal punctuation – hence the full stop goes inside as exampled here, correct?]   4. _Pete said, 'The sign said "Handle with care".'_ [The sign did not have terminal punctuation – hence the full stop goes outside the double ending quote marks as exampled here, correct?]   5. _"The sign said 'Handle with care'," Mike said._ [The ending punctuation to this one is '," regardless of whether or not there was terminal punctuation on the sign.]


How to say you did two things, but separately?

When describing an experiment (inside a thesis paper), I want to explain that we took a sample and did two things to it, but not together, rather as two separate experiments. One way to write it is : > We took the sample and either did X to it, or did Y to it. Another way is: > We took the sample and did X to it, and separately did Y to it. Frankly I'm not happy with either forms. What's a good way to write this?


Is it clear in the following sentence the distinction between the "individual" and the "whole"?

Is it clear in the following sentence the distinction between the "individual" (a single person), and the "whole" (nature, universe...everything around, etc)? "People want to be eternal as an individual because they forgot how to be eternal as a whole." I wrote that as an indirect way of saying: People created the soul to be eternal because they forgot that they were already eternal with nature, the universe.


"Southernmost point in" vs. "southernmost point of"

Which of the following is correct? Or are they both wrong? >   * The southernmost point **in** Ohio. >   * The southernmost point **of** Ohio. >


word request: antonym of try-hard, who does not try to impress

What is a good word to use as an antonym of 'try-hard'? Somebody who does not try to appear highly in another's eyes. A word close to indifferent,aloof, detached...


Agreement of articles and prepositions

Which of the following sentences would you consider most acceptable, and why? Please assume knowledge of the difference between the definite and indefinite articles here and that they are used intentionally. The question specifically relates to the choice of article with respect to the preposition which follows - in these cases, of/about. A - I want to tell you **a** story **about** Mark.   B - I want to tell you **the** story **about** Mark. C - I want to tell you **a** story **of** Mark.   D - I want to tell you **the** story **of** Mark. My instinct, as a native speaker, is that A and D are more acceptable than B and C, but I can't explain why.


"Intent" vs. "intention"

How are _intent_ and _intention_ distinguished in terms of usage? My guess after checking my pocket dictionary is _Intent_ is used to mean a bad purpose. > Their intent to kill the boy is crystal clear! _Intention_ is used in other cases. > Their intention is to enjoy seeing the cashflow.


Phrases to describe different conditions

For example, I measure test scores for different groups of students. When I present the results, should I say: > Here are test scores with respect to different student groups. Or: > Here are test scores differentiated by student groups. In fact, neither seems natural to me. Is there any better way of saying this?


"Difference to" or "difference with" or "difference from"

When we use word difference to compare two things, we say for example, 'Difference between Intel and AMD'. However, how can I use word difference with only one thing, for example, what will be correct:   1. Difference with AMD   2. Difference to AMD   3. Difference from AMD


What does this quote mean

What does this quote mean? > I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices > whatsoever.


what's the meaning of "stations in life"

What is the meaning of ' _stations in life_ '? Does it mean religion? ' _stations in life_ ' as in: Nonetheless, seams can make borders “semi- permeable membranes,” relatively more or less porous to people, depending upon their nationalities and **stations in life** , to economic exchange, to the passage of ideas …


How is 'transparent' used in this context?

> ERP system has become important because it uses IT to integrate information > of all operations of an entire company. Ketikidis et al. (2008) conclude > that ERP system improves the competitive advantage of a company. The major > operations are combined in a single software module (Kalakota and Robinson, > 1999; Bingi et al., 1999). Matolcsy et al. (2005) **show that it is > important to follow and control logistics to reduce unnecessary costs when > the process is transparent enough.** Davenport (1998) recommends ERP system > can help the management control operations to raise the competitive > advantage of a company. The operational performance of a company using ERP > system outshines that of a company without it (Hunton et al., 2003). I can't really seem to understand how the word 'transparent' is used in the above context. How can a process be transparent?


What does "a drifty car" mean?

What does "a drifty car" mean? Does it refer to capability of instant change in the speed of car?


31th or 31st is correct?

I just realized that I’ve never needed to use 31th or 31st in my four years English study. So which one is correct, and what about other alternatives? > 31 _th_ or 31 _st_   >  101 _th_ or 101 _st_   >  1001 _th_ or 1001 _st_ Can I also use that way everywhere in the same way (for example, ordinal numbers in math)?


English phrases created or popularized through Seinfeld

_Seinfeld_ has been very influential in transforming how Americans (and possibly other English speakers) speak, see: What does "yadda yadda" mean? What sayings or phrases in common parlance can be traced back to their use on _Seinfeld_? _NB_ I am not looking for a list of all the funny phrases that people have compiled elsewhere. I am looking for a list of words that don't have to be referential to the show to be useful. The "yadda yadda" link from above is a good example.


'Whereas' as conjunction between main clause and subordinate clause?

I am wondering if I can use 'whereas' as a conjunction between a main and a subordinate clause, with the subordinate clause following and giving a reason supporting the statement in the main clause. For example: > As a model system we consider a mutant zombie hoard, whereas the vast > majority of zombie hoards fall into this category. I realize that there is another use of 'whereas' to contrast two things; it's the third entry in the OED Online: > 3\. Introducing a statement of fact in contrast or opposition to that > expressed by the principal clause: While on the contrary; the fact on the > other hand being that. (The principal clause usually precedes, but sometimes > follows as in 2.) That's not what I mean. What I want is the second entry in the OED: > 2\. In view or consideration of the fact that; seeing that, considering > that, forasmuch as, inasmuch as. (Chiefly, now only, introducing a preamble > or recital in a legal or other formal document.) However, in the OED, all of the examples for case '2' have 'whereas' at the beginning of the sentence, not in the middle. So, is it valid English to write "As a model system..." as above, or not?


Do I capitalize or write out 'first' if I write: "Her birthday was May First."?

I'm writing a story in which a character's birthday (May 1st) is significant. A characters notes in conversation that, "Her birthday is May first." Should I write out 'first' or refer to it as '1st'? If I write out 'first', is it capitalized or not?


What is the word for "to go back (of time)"?

What’s the word for “to go back” of time? I’m trying to say that time cannot _go back_. For example: > I wish I were a child again, but time does not “go back”.


What do you call a person who is regionally biased?

What do you call a person who is regionally biased and has an unreasonable hatred/dislike for people from other regions of the country/world? Something like a racist, but the point of discrimination here is the geographical region and not race.


Does the noun 'hand in' exist?

I know that there is a verb "to hand in" (see Merriam Webster). Is there a noun which means the action of "handing something in"? Is this also called the "hand in"? Does a sentence like "When is the hand in of your thesis?" make sense? Or what other noun would you propose?


Is there a word to describe the state of being the only one of something?

I need a word to describe the state of being the only one of something. For context, it's for the UI of a scientific device that detects and analyzes cells. In this particular case, we are talking about a particular cell that the device has judged to be the only one there. The phrase needs to be short, so I want to use "Judgment of _*_ ". "Singularity" would appear to be the perfect word for what I am looking for -- if it hadn't already been taken for a very different meaning. Any other suggestions? I really think there must be a word for this; it seems a pretty basic concept. I have a feeling that maybe I am simply not seeing an obvious choice...


What does "as in any number of other endeavors" mean?

Below is the context. > All the information in this book comes with a fair warning: **As in any > number of other endeavors** , the solutions we discuss can be done in more > than one way. You should also be aware that the software world could have > changed slightly or quite a bit since the book was printed. I know what **endeavors** mean but I don't know what does "as in any number of other endeavors" mean. Anyone can help to explain?


How do you use ellipses in conjunction with semicolons in MLA quoting?

Here is a line of text from Willa Cather’s _My Ántonia_. > There was only—spring itself; the throb of it, the light restlessness... I wish to end the quote at the semicolon. Eg: > "There was only—spring itself;..." Jim says (Ln 5). Is this correct?


Is this past participle to be changed to present participle?

In this sentence, is the past participle of ‘clasped’ in ‘with his hands clasped over his fat bottom’ to be changed to ‘clasping’? > He brought the umbrella swishing down through the air to point at Dudley — > there was a flash of violet light, a sound like a firecracker, a sharp > squeal, and the next second, Dudley was dancing on the spot with his hands > clasped over his fat bottom, howling in pain. When he turned his back on > them, Harry saw a curly pig's tail poking through a hole in his trousers.


Using "?:" after a question

I find myself using the dual punctuation marks "?:" when I want to say "I have a question about the thing that follows". For example: > Is it possible for the following sentence to be translated into French?:   >  "Hello, nice to see you." Is using "?:" incorrect? If so, what would be the correct way to do this? Which would take precedence: the colon, or the question mark?


Is the ACA nickname capitalized “Obamacare” or “ObamaCare” or “Obama Care”?

I’m writing a term paper and need to know the appropriate acceptable case for “Obamacare”; preferably, I’d refer to it as “The Affordable Care Act”, but the subject of the paper warrants the nickname. I’ve seen articles referring to it as “Obamacare”, “ObamaCare”, “Obama Care” and “Obama care”. For now, I'm going with “Obamacare”. Had there been a _Legal Questions Stack Exchange_ , I’d have asked this there instead.


What does “new to the beat” mean?

“Today’s Quote” of Washington Times (February 1) picked up the answer of White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney to a reporter when he was asked by the reporter whether the White House was planning a concerted effort on job creation just as it has on immigration reform and gun control. : Carney replied: > "I know you're kind of **_new to the beat_** , but this president has been > focused on this issue more than any other, and that will not change." What does “the beat” here mean? Is it situation, place, trend, or movement? Apparently the questioner seems to be a cub reporter to Press Secretary. Doesn't Carney's answer carry a derogatory tone? I can’t find the usage of ‘beat’ in this form in English dictionaries at hand.


Meaning of "self-patronage"

Someone said he was not a fan of self-patronage. I was wondering, what does that mean? I have looked up the meaning of patronage.


What is a word for assigning a number to a value?

I am undergoing world building for a story I am writing. In this story, the school system is level based, where there are no grades(as in grades 1-12), just accomplishments in terms of level. \--Example Clarification; Mary is nearly ending her first year of schooling:   \- She has taken and passed Basic Arithmetic( +,-,*,/ ) exams, granting a 4th year Math level   \- She has taken and passed Algebraic Arithmetic exams, granting 7th year Math level   \- she has also passed Precalculus exams, granting 10th year Math level   \- so by her second year of schooling, she's allowed to take 11th year Calculus classes \-- however, because her parents insisted on a mathematics focus, she has yet to pass all other class's examinations:   \- she has passed and taken Elementary Science granting 2nd year Science level, and so she can take 2nd year science in her 2nd year   \- not enough time was invested in Social Studies and she must take 1st year Social Studies in her 2nd year So what would that system be called? It is a system where each student's accomplishments are accumulated throughout their life as a student; and ability/competence is based on the amount of knowledge a student has at any point in time. It prevents students who already know their stuff from getting held back and it allows students who struggle to catch up when they are more mature. If it isn't clear, think in terms of an RPG: instead of ATK, DEF, SPD having different values; MATH, SCIENCE, and GYM are the names of the stats, and their values increase when a student completes a class. "Meritocracy" is what I'm leaning towards, but perhaps there is a different term? If so, **what is the term for this system?**


Is there an expression that means something bad as a precursor to something good?

If someone is the bearer of bad news you might say, _Don't shoot the messenger_. If you have something that seems unfortunate at first but ends out wonderful you might say it's a _blessing in disguise_. I'm looking for a word or phrase that is a combination of the two - a bad experience that _is_ actually bad, but ultimately heralds something good. For example - if a couple is trying to get pregnant, and the wife gets morning sickness. There is nothing fun about vomiting and nausea, but it potentially heralds wonderful news for the soon-to-be-parents. Is there an expression to describe the morning sickness?


Does ‘Yo’ in ‘yo mama joke’ actually refer to “Your” mother? Why couldn't it simply be (stupid / fat / ugly) "mama joke"?

I find “Top 10 Yo Mama So Fat Stupid Joke List” including ‘Yo mama so stupid that she got hit by a parked car’, “Top 10 Yo Mama So Fat List” including ‘Yo mama so fat she put on her lipstick with a paint-roller,' and “Top 10 Yo Mama So Ugly List” including Yo mama so ugly when she died she went to Heaven and God said I didn't creat you,' on an website. Based on Google Ngram, the word, ‘yo mama’ and its counterpart, ‘yo papa’ came into use in circ 1935 and their currency started to show a sharp rise from around 2000. Although none of Cambridge, Oxford, and Merriam-Webster English dictionary registers the word, either ‘yo mama,’ or ‘yo momma,’ Wikipedia defines it as the alternative form of ‘ ** _your_** mother.’ However, when ‘Yo mama’ is used as in ‘yo mama jokes,’ it appears to me that the meaning of ‘ ** _your_** mom’ drops off,’ and turns into a generic, any (fat, stupid, ugly, ---) woman-related jokes. Am I right? Is it possible to extend ‘yo mama (papa) ’ to other subjects such as ‘yo mama (papa) episodes,’ ‘ yo mama (papa) lessons,’’ yo mama (papa) saying,’’ yo mama (papa) blunders / guffes’ than ‘yo mama’ jokes?


Is there a word to describe the state of believing you know something that is false?

When you do not know a fact you are ignorant. My question is what would you call the state of believing you know something that is false. For instance suppose I see a black box and having opened it earlier, I know there is a rabbit in it. Some time later unbeknownst to me someone removes the rabbit. I still 'know' there is a rabbit in the box. What do you call this state?


Is it common to use "Amen" to show agreement?

Instead of using "Amen" as Christians finish their prayer, is it also common in English-speaking churches (I'm from a Chinese-speaking church) to say "Amen" whenever believers feel strongly like to agree with others as they pray? I'm talking about this use as a response to other's prayer, and after a person's own spiritually encouraging sharing, as in:"We finally got a chance to talk about God there. _Amen!_ " Thanks for the answer.


How are Japanese words spelt in English?

When they are writing material in English, I sometimes see native speakers of Japanese misspell English words that were derived from Japanese. For example, I've seen "tunami" written instead of "tsunami", and "ninjya" instead of "ninja". I've also seen "geisya" instead of "geisha", and "Kyusyu" instead of "Kyushu". My suspicion is that they know how these words are spelt and pronounced in Japanese, and that they convert it into the latin alphabet in a way that is different to how the word is spelt in English. For example, with "tsunami", they've taken the first syllable, つ, and rather than converting it to "tsu", they converted it to "tu". Possibly because in certain ways of writing Japanese using the latin alphabet (romaji), the way that つ would be written is "tu". Are there general rules about how English words that are derived from Japanese words are spelt? For example, are they generally spelt in a way similar to Hepburn romanization, except often without the macrons? Even if the rules don't apply 100% of the time, rules that apply 90% of the time, with just a few exceptions may be preferable to some than memorizing all such words by rote. An exception here is for wasei-eigo words such as "salaryman". When converting made up English into English, the English words that were used in the wasei- eigo are used ("salary" + "man", rather than "sararyman") **Any possible answers that a person who is not a linguist can easily understand**? _Meta:_ I previously asked this on English Language Learners, but it was closed there (currently with one re-open vote), and in this comment on Japanese Language & Usage (not my fault!), it was suggested I ask on English Language & Usage.


Should one say "for forever" or "forever"?

I've always wondered about this. When describing an exaggerated amount of time should one say "for forever" or "forever"? As in: > I have been waiting for forever. or > I have been waiting forever. The argument being that the word "forever" is in itself a period of time, or it isn't.


Is "things such as this" singular or plural?

Which of the following is correct? > Things such as this make me happy. > > Things such as this makes me happy. Is the subject "things" or "this"?


Does the word "units" have a valid abbreviation?

Is there any precedent for abbreviating the word _Units_ , and if more than one, is there any standardized prescription (no pun intended on my example) for which abbreviation to use in which context? The question came up because I'm making a user input form with a field for units and the framework optionally specifies an abbreviation for the input field's label. So, in a medical context, this               Prescription: [Hydrocodone]      is as valid is this               Rx: [Hydrocodone]      But can this               Units: [Milligrams]      be correctly substituted with something like this?               U: [Milligrams]      (NB, I'm not asking specifically about a medical context or about the accuracy of `U`, it's merely an example) Note that the meaning of _units_ as a synonym for _pieces_ (pcs.) may be a different answer. In this case, I'm asking about _units_ as a category including _kilograms_ and _miles_. (Bonus points for also providing the answer for that other meaning.)


What is the difference between disseminate and distribute

The original confusion arose when I read the following sentence. \--> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. In this context, how do meanings of dissemination and distribution differ from each other? I look them up in dictionary, they both seem to mean "to scatter", so I am confused. From dictionary: Disseminate To scatter widely, as in sowing seed. ;To spread abroad; promulgate: disseminate information. ;To sow and scatter principles, ideas, opinions, and errors for growth and propagation, such as seed Distribute To deliver or pass out; To spread or diffuse over an area; scatter


When to use the plural of "nature"?

Someone told me that the word _nature_ should not be plural in my sentence. I would argue, however, that it is obvious that it requires an "s". The problematic sentence is as follow: > We must exploit constraints of different natures (temporal, logical, etc.) > [...] If I replace the word nature by _type_ , type would be plural. However, if I am correct, the word _nature_ is a case similar to the word _information_. In French, I would put an _s_ to the word information in this sentence: > There is a lot of information to process Can someone help me clarify this? Is there a simple and general rule for the words like _information_ and _nature_? When must they be plural?


What's the word for the condition where you need to defecate?

"hungry" describes the condition where one craves intake of more food. what is the English name for the condition where one needs to expel the end result?


Using a possessive apostrophe with an initialism

Should you write "some of the UK's longest tunnels..." or "some of the UKs longest tunnels..."?


"cheaper price" or "lower price" / "cheaper rate" or "lower rate"

English is not my first language, but I strive to speak it at its best. Somehow it really grates me when people say that something is at a "cheaper/more expensive price" or "cheaper/more expensive rate". My understanding is that prices and rates can be _lower_ or _higher_ , whilst products/services can be _cheaper/more expensive_. I lived by this rule for a while, however today I spot a phrase "cheaper rate" even in an article on BBC website. Look it up if you fancy, search for " _Sony is set to sell the PlayStation 4 for a **cheaper price** than Microsoft's rival Xbox One._" Argh! Please correct me or affirm my understanding. Thank you.


When to capitalize words such as "lake", and when can the whole word be omitted?

Which of the following sentences are correct? > "He gave two examples of large lakes, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior." > > "He gave two examples of large lakes, Michigan and Superior." > > "He gave two examples of large Lakes, Michigan and Superior." > > "He gave two examples of large lakes, Lakes Michigan and Superior." This question is primarily about what variants are formally correct, not which one sounds the best. I think that the question should be valid for several words of the same kind, such as mountain (Mount), figure (Figure), table (Table) and so on.


One argument, multiple paragraphs?

How do I structurally split up an argument into multiple paragraphs? Let's say I'm using two texts as evidence for one argument, and I want to devote one paragraph to each text. What would the introductory and concluding sentences of my body paragraphs look like? How would I connect the first paragraph to the second? Note: I need to follow MLA 7 format, if that makes a difference.


When did we start talking about "going viral"?

I am trying to determine when the phrase "going viral" was first used. Similarly, when did the phrases "viral video" and "viral marketing" get their start? I have looked online at various sites, but none really address this question (other than saying "recently").


What do you call bags for sorting travel stuff?

What do you call those small bags that are used for sorting things inside a travel bag? Usually used for toiletries, socks, underwear etc.


Word to mean 'seek through, one element at a time'

I'm looking for a word to describe the process that a computer program performs when **searching through a dataset bit by bit**. I had believed the word _parse_ ('to parse through the data') was correct. However, it seems that the word _parse_ actually means 'to split into pieces'. I'm thinking of something along the lines of _trawl_ , _seek_ , _step through_ etc. I just wonder if there is a more elegant word/phrase that I could use.


"Two substances with plasticizer contents of B and Z, and C and Z respectively"

I have a problem with the word "content". I wish to describe two mixtures of substances:   * M1:A with plasticizer B, and   * M2:A with plasticizer C. Both mixtures contain a common third component, plasticizer Z. Can I say "two substances with plasticizer contents of B and Z, and C and Z respectively" to underline that the plasticizers are different?


What is the English equivalent to the Japanese word 学者バカ, "Scholar’s fool"?

I’m interested in the words “instant omniscience,” which Calvin Trillin, a former editor for Time magazine, used in a New Yorker magazine article (March 20) entitled "Time Edit": > “There were some enjoyable aspects of being a floater. When I settled into > the desk chair of, say, the Education writer, someone who presumably pored > through the education quarterlies and lunched with school reformers and kept > abreast of the latest disagreements about how best to teach reading, I could > feel myself imbued with the authoritative tone favored in those days at > Time; I called that ‘ **instant omniscience** '." The expression “instant omniscience” made me think of the Japanese word, “学者バカ- -Gakushabaka," the literal translation of which is “scholar’s fool” or “expert’s ignorance.” A "scholar's fool" is ignorant of everything but his area of specialty (e.g., quantum physics, aeronautics, neurology--you name it). The expression "instant omniscience" also triggered this question: What is the English equivalent of “学者バカ- scholar’s fool”? In other words, how do you characterize in two or three words the person who is an expert in one area but seemingly ignorant in all other areas?


Should I replace "It would be possible that" and if so, why?

At the end of the Wikipedia article on Jerusalem Colophon, it reads (regarding whether a text was written in Jerusalem vs. Greece), > According to Caspar René Gregory it would be possible that the manuscript > Tischendorfianus III was written and corrected in Jerusalem. This is probably because on page 360 in the cited reference, Gregory wrote, > It would be possible that this manuscript itself was thus written and > corrected in Jerusalem. Gregory should have written > Thus, it might be true that the manuscript was written and corrected in > Jerusalem. (He could have been mixed up. Although born in the U.S., he was the German army's oldest WWI volunteer.) Two questions arise:   1. Should the article's last sentence be revised to a more-direct form?   2. If I make this change, what is the justification? It seems weak to say it sounds bad, and vague or perhaps wrong to say it misuses tense, case, or subjunctive mood. Is there a proper grammar-based explanation for changing it?


What is a "travel validation"?

I'm currently trying to understand the DS-2019 form that I need to fill for a J1 visa. One thing I don't understand is this: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/KFagQ.jpg) What is a "travel validation"? What does it (in this context) mean to be "in good standing"?


Is a single-word sentence like "No" an independent clause? And semicolons

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Comma or semicolon after "No" when responding to a question It started because of this: "No; I found the behavior off-putting."   1. I believe "no", as an answer, can stand alone.   2. I believe a semicolon is more appropriate than a comma, because of my intent. Therefore, I ask:   1. Is the semicolon okay?   2. What is "no" called here? It expresses a complete thought, but doesn't fit the textbook definition of an independent clause. Is it clausey?   3. If the semicolon is okay, how would its usage here be described (in grammatical terms)?


Which is proper usage: "What I've Learned" or "What I learned"?

I'm having argument with a colleague of mine over which statement is more correct. I figured the English language gurus of StackExchange would be able to set us straight.


What's a gay transsexual woman?

I know how it sounds but it's a serious question. I saw an article title about it on the Guardian today. If someone tells you that a person is a "gay transsexual woman", is it possible, logically, to know who exactly this person is?   * Is it a man who became a woman, then turned gay and started liking other women?   * Or is it a woman who likes other women (thus is gay), and then turned into a man?   * Or conversely? This confuses me and I wonder if the English language can tell us, logically, what the answer is? Or is it completely meaningless?


Is there a word for positive distraction?

The word "distraction" has generally negative or frivolous connotations, but shifting your mental focus can often be positive (you go on a walk and solve the hard problem, you spend a few days away from the office and you gain a new perspective, etc.). > You should get away from it all, that will [insert the word] you.


Origin of 'fairer sex'

I've seen the term 'the fairer sex' being used in a number of areas to refer to females. How did they get that title? What does 'fairer' refer to in this case?


The solution to all problems

I used to use _deus ex machina_ but recently found out that it's an unexpected solution to a problem (used in movie plots when someone swoops in and saves the day when all was supposedly lost). I'm looking for a phrase which embodies the following concept. " _XXX_ is a theory which has been abused as a _YYY_ ", meaning that due to the nature of _XXX_ , it can be used to explain away several hypotheses without real justification.


"Awoken" vs. "awaked"

I understand that the verb _awake_ has two different past participle forms, _awoken_ and _awaked_. Checking Google Ngram I saw that the former has become more popular than the latter in the last century. I want to know two things:   1. Which one would be more used in a casual conversation?   2. Why did this change take place?


Answering past simple question with past continuous

For example, > — What did you do yesterday?   >  — I was working. I presume this is not grammatically correct; however, I often reply in this way (I'm English). Also vice versa: "What were you doing yesterday?" — "I worked." Does it matter?


Is this typical for the Present Simple?

I have noticed that there are some phrases which are typically found used with the Present Simple while it is not impossible to use them with the Present Continuous. And I am talking about such instances when the action is occurring at the moment of speaking _only_. For example, >   * Mom, what are you doing _while I sit here_ watching waves? >   * _While I sit here_ eating a sour piece of candy, I think to myself, how > I have allowed my world to change from sweet to sour? > My question is: Do you find it idiomatic to use Past Simple in my example or would you use Present Continuous? I would also like to know whether this usage comes down to the word _while_ or the specific verb used. I've heard that for the three verbs _sit, lie, grow_ it is typical to be used with Past Simple even when the action is temporary. Is that right? Would the following be grammatical? > Mom, what are you doing _while I lie here_ watching waves? And would it be okay to use other verbs too? > Mom, what are you doing _while I talk here_ watching waves? Don’t know a good example with _grow_ though.


Another word for man-of-all-work

I am looking for another word for the phrase in a crossword puzzle " man-of- all-work. 8 letters to include these blank A blank T blank T blank M. Can you help?


Awkwardness around 'go live' phrase

Context: software company training documents. We commonly use the phrase "go live" when talking about making a system operational. I'm fine with using it as two separate words, but it becomes awkward when it's an adjective. E.g. _Preparing for your go live transition._ Am I focusing on this too much, or is that potentially confusing? I've seen this phrase written as go live, go-live, Go Live, and Go-Live (all in one Microsoft article, actually). I'd appreciate some opinions.


Do I use a forward slash or comma for my title and designations? I see both uses throughout my industry but which one is the correct usage, or could both be correct? Broker/REALTOR®, CRS®, ABR® Broker, REALTOR®, CRS®, ABR® Thank you, EM


He had not understood vs He did not understand

I'm a native Portuguese speaker and some time ago I heard someone say that it is **grammatically** wrong, in despite of everyday speaking, to construct sentences like "He had not understood" or "She does not made that", once in those cases it would be more correct to spell, respectively, "He did not understand" and "She did not make that". This confused me a lot because I read those first constructions everywhere I see English, as well as the second ones, therefore I would like to know the sight of English native speakers about the correctness or wrongness of those sentences.


Are sentences starting with "that" (conjunction) standard English

In Dutch one could say things such as Dat hij dat durft!   _That_ he that dares! (An exclamation of astonishment) Which would be roughly translated as: **_that** he dares to do that_. Is that initial _that_ standard English? If not, how would a native English speaker translate that sentence?


What is a word for a question that has no answer because it is seemingly invalid?

A friend of mine posted a riddle on Facebook involving adding money and then subtracting money. It ended with a question asking where $1 went, but the trick was that there was no discrepancy, so the $1 didn't exist. > The question: Three guys walk into a hotel, and they're going to split the > cost of a room. The room is $30. They each kick in $10 and head up to their > room. The manager gets wind of it and tells the clerk the room is only $25. > He hands five $1 bills to the bell hop and tells him to go refund the guys' > money. On the way up to the room, the bell hop gets to thinking, as bell > hops are wont to do, and says to himself, "No way can three guys split $5, > I'm going to help out." He stuffs $2 in his pocket, knocks on the door, > gives each guy back a buck and heads back downstairs to the desk, glowing in > the warmth of a job well done. So now each guy has paid $9. $9 times 3 is > $27 plus $2 the bell hop stole--only $29! **Where is the other buck?** (I bolded the question) I said the question was invalid, but my friend pointed out that every question is valid to ask. What would I call this question that has no answer? (If I understand correctly rhetorical is when you can answer the question, but it is not meant to be answered, so by that definition "rhetorical" would be invalid here.)


Why do we use a French term for a currency-exchange office?

In British English and across Europe, the term **_Bureau(x) de change_** is used to describe what US English speakers would call a Currency Exchange or Foreign Exchange (office). Why do we use a French term - or 'loan word' - for something which doesn't appear to be intrinsically French in nature or origin and is a relatively new concept, so has no historical significance or tradition? I find it hard to believe that English speakers in Europe struggled to succinctly describe the concept of an office where you can exchange currencies and had to adopt the French term instead?


Question about "how many"

Why don't we use the auxiliary _do_ in the following question: > How many people study there?


intro- vs. intra-

I recently found out that “extrovert” is a misspelling and that it’s actually written _extravert_. That makes sense, because other words use the same prefix, e.g. _extraordinary_ , _extradite_ , etc., but nothing I can think of begins with _extro-_ (1). However, _intro-_ and _intra-_ seem to be two different prefixes. There is _introduce_ and _introspect_ on the one hand, and _intravenous_ and the more recent neologism _intranet_ on the other hand. What is the difference between _intro-_ and _intra-_ and what are their origins? ((1) Even the end-credit section of a movie, the opposite of the _intro_ , isn’t called an _extro_ :) )


Researching the real origin of SNAFU

I know the wiki origin puts SNAFU as appearing during WWII as the first in a long line of military slang, BUT, years ago I recollect reading in an electronics magazine, likely 'Wireless World' from 60's-70's (hence inclusion here), that this term was one of several similar acronyms which originated in US telegraphy around the time of the Iron Horse, Indian raids etc. A telegraph operator, on arriving at the scene of a break, might find that the local American Indians had pulled down telegraph poles. 'Situation Normal' meant that the raiders had gone and 'All Fouled Up' referred to the state of the wire. The engineer on scene would hook up his telegraph set and report, via Morse, certain terse messages to indicate state of play. There were other related messages; though I don't recall which they were. This all makes some sense, as when the US joined in WWII there was a chronic shortage of trained telegraph operators and history records that retired operators (otherwise too old to meet draft requirements) were initially brought in to perform telegraphy duties and training on Navy ships. Working backwards these gentleman would have been present during the peak of US telegraphy operations and would have been steeped in the traditions of the service going back to its introduction in the mid 1800's. Can anyone identify the provenance of this article? I think it is too old to have found its way into public domain via PDF. It paints a great story so _please_ don't tell me it was dated April 1st! More importantly it highlights a problem with google/wiki 'knowledge' as relates to topics where there exists little knowledge. Once the received wisdom finds its way onto the net, it becomes 'truth' even though it may be incorrect. Any ideas anyone?


"For/during/on/in the first two nights"

> He slept very well for the first two nights, but on the third night, he did > not. Can I say “in the first two nights”, “during the first two nights” or “on the first two nights” instead of “for the first two nights” in the sentence above? Why or why not?


Does the term "page responsible" make any sense in English?

Each page on my organizations web site is assigned a person that takes responsibility for the content of that page. E.g. in the page footer               Page Responsible: John Doe      The current term used to denote this person is "Page Responsible" which does not sound like something you can say in English. English however, is not my native tongue. Therefore, I ask you English Language & Usage, does the term "Page Responsible" sound ok to you? Or should something else be used, e.g.   * Responsible for page content: John Doe   * Responsibility for page content: John Doe   * Page owner: John Doe


Word or phrase for mere coincidence that brings happiness

I wish to state that my exposure to a certain area was a mere coincidence, and I am happy about the area. Moreover, I want to convey the idea that the incident was like a fairytale, something no one would easily believe, but because of it I ended up where I am. The same incident happening to someone else might go unnoticed but it rang the bells for me. Stating this idea as above is too long and boring, and such language seems childish or out-of-place in a statement of purpose. I want to make it succinct. Is there any word or phrase that conveys the same idea?


"Go a long way to" + gerund vs infinitive

Which one is correct? If they all are correct, which construction is the most preferable? Why?   1. The fund will go a long way **to solving** their problem.   2. The fund will go a long way **to solve** their problem.   3. The fund will go a long way **toward(s) solving** their problem.   4. The fund will go a long way **in solving** their problem.


"Would have" instead of "will have"

In the sentence "I went to the bank to ensure that I would have enough money for my trip," why is "would have" used instead of "will have"? "Would have" seems to be conveying the subjunctive mood, but if I went to the bank already, wouldn't I use "will have" to express certainty about having enough money?


What's the opposite of Proof of Concept?

From an Information Technology perspective, what's the opposite of Proof of Concept? I need to ask my client if they want us to build them a Proof-of-concept (app in its basic form) or a full-fledged version of the concept. Now, am looking for a better word for "full-fledged version". Or, do you think "full-fledged version" is OK?


avoiding an oncoming vehicle -- what is the specific term for this in English?

Is there a specific term to refer to what you need to do in the following situation? > You are driving on a road and an oncoming vehicle is moving towards you in > the same lane you are using. If neither changes course, you will collide. > You need to change lanes/avoid the oncoming vehicle to avoid the crash. What is the most idiomatic way to describe what you need to do? "Steer clear"? "Veer clear"? Some other term? thanks!


Origin of the term "understudy"

I've recently seen a musical and, on the night I went, three roles were being played by **understudies** instead of the regular actors. This term has always puzzled me, partly because I've never found a satisfactory translation for it in my native tongue. However, while I well understand its meaning and although I've researched various dictionaries, I haven't found clear indications of its origin. The Online Etymology Dictionary deals with the word in one line and the OALD, normally so generous with references to the origin of terms, doesn't even try. Can anyone tell me how this word came into existence?


The use of "for" and "of"

Are _for_ and _of_ interchangeable in these circumstances? Is the meaning affected at all? > He was the Minister **for** Education. > > He was the Minister **of** Education. > > The Institute **of** Medical Research. > > The Institute **for** Medical Research.


"This October I will have been xxx yrs in this country"

I'm new so please excuse if I'm asking something that had been many times before. I'm a foreigner living in UK, who loves English language so I strive for perfect use every time. Sometimes people ask me how long I have been in this country. I like to round the number of years to the month in which I came, which was October. Therefore if someone asked me today I would have said: > I will have been 7 years in the country this October. or if today was sometime in December I would have said > Last October I have been 7 years in the country. So simple question: are these forms correct? Or should I just do the simple _"I will be 7 years here this October"_?


"Take a look at" vs. "look at"

I am not a native speaker. Could you please explain the difference between the phrases "take a look at" and "look at"? For example: >   * Take a look at this issue. >   * Look at this issue. > What is the difference? Or are these phrases equal?


Where can I find a reasonably well recognized free style guide that is online?

I don't like prefixing all my answers and pontifications about English usage with IMHO. Where can I find a reasonably well recognized style guide that is online that I can refer people to? My first choice, chicagomanualofstyle.org, is for paid subscribers only. (Emphasis on well recognized, personally, I mostly do technical and office writing)


What is the difference between "’ll" and "will"?

Is there any difference in the meaning when we use _'ll_ or _will_? For example, >   * I will go to university tomorrow. > >   * I'll go to university tomorrow. > >


What's the difference between prepositional phrase and adverbial complement?

> “I try to give ‘em a reason, you see. It helps folks if they can **latch > onto a reason**.”   >  (Harper Lee, To Kill A Mockingbird) When we say ‘prepositional verb’ and ‘adverbial complement,’ are they two points of view for one occasion: the former sees ‘latch onto a reason’ as [prepositional verb: latch onto]+[a reason], and the other [latch]+[adverbial complement: onto a reason].’ Or does the example show only the prepositional verb?


Was "their being followed" replaced by "they're being followed" over the years?

I was reading A Study in Scarlet yesterday and noticed the following sentence: > They must have thought that there was some chance of **their being > followed** , for they would never go out alone, and never after nightfall. I'm not a native English speaker, when I first saw "their being" I thought it was a typo, and the correct spelling would be "they're [they were] being followed", then I realized the word being was actually the noun, not the verb, that made sense, but I couldn't recall ever seeing this "version" of the expression used. I mostly see "they're being followed", "he's being followed", etc. With the story being over 200 years old (first published 1887), I assumed this was an old expression that was replaced in later years with the common "they're being", Google Ngram viewer shows a general decrease in use of "their being followed" over the last 300 years, vs a slight increase of "they're being followed" since the 1960's, with the latter form overtaking the former during the mid-1990's. My question is, is the latter form basically a "mistake" emerging from a typo that was later "accepted"? Or was this caused because th common usage of the word "being" changed from a noun to a verb over the years?


Is this contraction of 'there is' acceptable to native speakers of English?

In the _Slate_ article, _The Curse of “You May Also Like”_ , the following sentence has a contraction of **there is** that doesn't sit well with my ear for American or British English. I wonder whether any of our native English- speaking users find it acceptable and grammatical. I think it's not idiomatic, is ungrammatical, and is unacceptable, but I may just be too old and ornery to cozy **_down_** to this level of change in language usage. NB: I first coined the phrase _cozy down to_ and then found an apt example of _cozy down_ on the Internet. > Amazon's knowledge, however, goes deeper than Netflix's: Since it also runs > a site where we buy books, it knows everything that **there's** to know > about our buying behavior and the prices that we are willing to pay. Is this acceptable?


Which sentence is correct?

Consider this below clause(or whatever it is called) > This is correct grammer. My friend and I are having an argument about the correctness of the below two sentences which refer to the above clause. >   1. I see only a spelling mistake. >   2. I see only one spelling mistake. > She says both are correct, but I feel only the second one is correct. Who is right? Edit: Is a spelling mistake also a grammatical mistake?


"How to..", "How do you.." or "How do I.." when asking a practical question

As the title says, I'm asking because you can split the StackOverflow questions to three groups according to their openings, for example:   1. "How do I serialize an object...",    2. "How do **you** serialize an object...",    3. "How to serialize an object...",  And asking questions quite often myself, I'm curious which is the proper way.


Suffixes for verbification: -ify, -icise, -ificate

The suffixes   * -ise/-ize   * -ify   * -ificate are all used for verbifying nouns and adjectives. What are the differences in meaning/connotation/usage between them? (This is generalising from the sinification/sinicisation question, and is partially answered by @Garet Claborn’s answer there — an expansion of that answer would be great for this as well!)


"Today I've darkened 59 appropriate circles"?

Is this a proper past tense? > Today I've darkened 59 appropriate circles.


"'n'" as an abbreviation for "and" as in "rock 'n' roll"

I wonder if there are other cases where _and_ is abbreviated in writing as in _rock 'n' roll_.


Is addendum synonymous to supplement?

What's the difference between _addendum_ and _supplement_? The way I see it they both mean pretty much the same thing. It's something added to something else to complete it. I think _supplement_ can be used in a wider, more general sense, while _addendum_ is used in published works like books, more or less. In a way, it seems to me that they overlap each other. But does that mean that they are synonymous?


Is an implied proper noun *really* a proper noun?

With reference to the following sentence: > I am returning **to University** in a few weeks. Given that the person stating this is referring to a specific university through implication (for example, because they are returning for their second year of study at the university they studied at during their first year), is this still considered a proper noun, or should it be treated as a common noun? In other words, should the spelling of _University_ be capitalised in this context?


Is there a business phrase for whack-a-mole?

In my company, I've been asked to generate reports about accounts (for example) that have abnormal traits (less than 1%, for example). They want to know where these abnormal cases are so they can go fix them, but it's too time consuming to manually check until they find them. So they asked me to find these cases and report on them. Some people try to call it exception handling; but exception handling is already a well-define phrase in computing, so it can't be used. I'm trying to come up with a phrase to describe this type of hunt. Is there a better phrase than "whack-a-mole" or "exception handling"? Also, I'm new here, so I don't really understand which tags go where. Thank you!


'Drop us a line' - letter or phone call?

According to the Free Dictionary, dropping someone a line means sending them a short message. Is this correct? I always thought it meant phoning someone, the line referring to a telephone line.


a silver knife smeared with butter

He came in, big and smiling, with his right eye completely close. “Your mother put a silver knife smeared with butter on it last night. Quite a person, Mother.” (He had a black eye, after struggling with a murderer.) Is it a sort of folk remedy in America? Or is there another meaning to its expression? (It's from 'Lipstick' by Mary Roberts Rinehart.)


What do you call a person who is willing to be a reference for someone?

Joe asks his ex-boss Mary if she is willing to be contacted by future potential employers. What do we call Mary? "Referee" is one word used for this, but that means "sports umpire" to most people. "Reference" is another ("Will you be a reference for me"), but "reference" to most people means the action or the text of the recommendation, not the person. Also, "Will you provide a reference for me?" might mean "Will you write a recommendation?", not "Are you willing to (interactively) vouch for me"? (e.g., by phone or email conversation) What word do we use for this willingness to interactively vouch for someone?


Words about words: When an old word describes a new thing

I'm wondering if there is a name for words which describe a function where the thing described doesn't relate to the reality of the function anymore. Examples:   * dial, as a verb. "Dial the phone". Dial phones are largely unused now.   * footage, used to describe a video recording. Large digital now.   * filming, used to describe the act of making a video recording. This is almost like a retronym, but is kind of the other side of that coin. Any ideas? This might be a duplicate of Word that means "outdated name"


"You can add more at the end of this list BUT before making a new entry make sure its not already present"

This is a tip that is being included with an Excel form, which requires the end user to fill some technical information. In the given scenario, the end user would not be very tech-literate, so we want to keep things clear, compact and easy to communicate and so we added tips like: > _**“Gena provides this default set of information. You can add more at the > end of this list BUT before making a new entry make sure its not already > present.”_** But we the team feel some things missing in it. We want to make this tip more ‘usable’ and easy to understand for the user. **I seek your precious suggestion over how this tip can be made more clear, compact and easy to communicate.*** _PS: ‘Gena’ is the name of our product, to sound it like more direct and personalized so we used it as a communicating entity here._


The main verb of the second clause

> The energy source on Voyager2 is not a nuclear reactor, in which atoms are > actively broken apart, but rather a kind of nuclear battery that uses > natural radioactive decay to produce power. What is the main verb of the clause followed by the coordinating conjunction _but_?


Is insurance coverage that you won’t “see a dime” a frequently-used English expression?

I saw the statement, “there are so many restrictions on (insurance) coverage that _you won’t see a dime_ ,” in the following sentence in the article of Time magazine (August 18), titled “Things you should stop buying now.” > “Credit-Card Payment Insurance: This “protection” can cost a few hundred > bucks a year, and there are often so many restrictions and caveats on > _coverage that you won’t see a dime_. Even if your claim is accepted, the > insurance only pays the monthly minimum for a period of months.” I assume “you won’t see a dime” means “you won’t be covered (compensated / remunerated) at all”, but I’m not sure. There is no entry of “(don’t / can’t / won’t) see a dime” in any of Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster dictionary. Is such expression as “coverage (deal, agreement, transaction) you won’t see a dime” frequently used in conversation and writing? Why can it be "won't 'get' a dime" or "won't 'recover' a dime," instead of "won't 'see' a dime"? Why is it 'see'? Are there any other usages of “you won’t see a dime” than reference in financial context?


"...FDA, who...." vs "...FDA, which..." - relative-pronouns of authorities

I'm referring to the following sentence: "Observes express their concerns whether the FDA, which/who is already overrun with work..." My question is: Are authorities in the English language treated as a thing or as a person regarding relative-pronouns?


What is the meaning of vice in "as in a vice"?

I'm having trouble finding a definition of vice that explains its usage in the following NYTimes article: > The Monarch, no less boldly than her compeer, dashed among the rebel fleet, > and singling out the Lovell, under full speed struck her fairly near the > wheel, her prow crashing far into the hull, and remaining for a moment > fastened as in a vice. The closest meaning I could find is "vise" ( _British_ vice), which in the Oxford Dictionaries means: > a metal tool with movable jaws that are used to hold an object firmly in > place while work is done on it, typically attached to a workbench.


Is this construct correct? "This one something..."

After criticizing some whole category of blog posts as fake news, biased or undercover advertising, I was about to add: > That being said, I must admit that _this one article_ is quite interesting. Is this construct correct? Should I use "this article in particular" instead?


How can you make "to be" explicit and simple in this future conditional sentence?

I can say "Jerry's been a bad pussycat this morning" or "Hey, Jerry, you be a good pussycat now" or "Jerry's been active all morning so he's being a good pussycat now". All these involve the use of the verb _be_. Now if I said "if Jerry bes a bad pussycat, put him in the laundry," I'll sound ungrammatical. How else can you say this without being specific about the verb? I understand the future tense of **to be** is **is** but then it sounds like present tense rather than future tense. I don't want to say "if Jerry behaves badly" because it's too complex. And I don't want to say "if Jerry is bad" because that implies current state rather than future state. Should it be "if Jerry would be bad..." or "if Jerry should be bad" perhaps?


"At day five", "on day five", or something else?

When considering a set of days and writing about them in a 'diary mode', what preposition should I use in the following example: >   * He died at day 5 of the treatment. >   * He died on day 5 of the treatment. >


make sure + subjunctive

I'm wondering if "make sure" can take the subjunctive mood of a verb. Take this sentence for example: > Loki would be disappointed in me if I did not make sure this **was** the > true casket. What if I said: > Loki would be disappointed in me if I did not make sure this **were** the > true casket. There surely is a feeling of uncertainty, it could, hypothetically, not be the real casket, that's why he has to "make sure", although I'll be the first one to admit it sounds weird, but most constructions with the subjunctive sound weird.


English expression for "ascribing negative intentions to someone"

There's a French expression that means "ascribing negative intentions to someone with no factual base" (prêter des intentions). It's practical, as the English sentence "stop ascribing negative intentions to me based on your interpretation of my words" is quite a long way to say something that is quite simple in some other languages. Is there any similar expression in English?


Inconsistency in Strunk and White regarding serial comma

From Strunk and White's _The Elements of Style_ , Chapter 2, Lesson 2: > In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma > after each term except the last > > Thus write, > >   * red, white, and blue >   * honest, energetic, but headstrong >   * He opened the letter, read it and made a note of its contents. > My question is: Why isn't there a comma after _read it_ in the third example?


What does "by heaven" mean?

What does "by heaven" mean here? > I should be far enough from imagining, he replied, that I knew the cause of > any of them, **by heaven** I should;


"As shown in from Table 1 to Table 5", is this correct? Or should I remove "from"?

I'm writing a research paper, and trying to show something in 5 tables. "As shown in from Table 1 to Table 5", is this correct? Or should I remove "from" or "in"? It seems for referring to tables and figures in papers, usually they use the word "Table" and "Figure" with the first letter in capital. So usually they use "Figure 1" or "Fig. 1", depending on how the template defines the format of the titles of the figures. I just don't know how to deal with this when it comes to multiple tables/figures.


How do I have to refer to God?

I am always wondering about the proper way to conjugate the verbs when it comes to "God". Do I have to add the "s" to the verb?


Can you find a noun for the word "diminish"?

What I meant by "diminish" is the reduction in value of something abstract. For example: > The purpose of the principle is to set a standard of morality according to > the promotion or __ of happiness among the individuals. The blanks above should be filled with the noun of the verb "diminish". Based on what I found on several sources on the internet, I found the noun: decrease & decline. But I cannot replace the blanks with "decrease" or "decline" because it seems to match in more concrete context such as numbers, graphs, etc. (If I don't sense it wrong).


Words based on the names of gods

While the word christen means "to baptise" or "to make Christian", in another sense, it has shed its religious connotations to simply mean "to name" or even "use for the first time". Is there any other word which is based on the **name** (or epithet) of a _god_ or _prophet_ , (or possibly some other _significant_ religious figure) with _at least one of its definitions devoid of religious connotations_? [Words like _good_ (from _god_ which is too generic), _august_ (from _Augustus_ , a senate-approved god), and other similarly borderline cases are to be excused.] **Edit:** I'm not looking for _synonyms_ of the word _christen_ or words in common usage which come from religion. They have to be based on _names_.


Can we call something a "word" if it doesn't have a vowel?

It seems self-evident to me, but in the heat of a Scrabble game (no surprise), my opponent claimed that "sh" was a word. I think it's a diphthong, but the printed dictionary definition of "word" didn't resolve the issue. I know that Scrabble-related questions on this site are generally regarded as _infra dig_ , but the event really did cause me to wonder what truly qualifies as a "word" and what doesn't. [I also understand that this question sits just atop the divide between meaning and orthography, but hey, whtvr.]


What is the difference between "vocabulary" and "word"?

Why does my English teacher usually point out my mistake when I wrote the following sentence?   * I learned a lot of new vocabulary. -> I learned a lot of new vocabulary words. Why do I have to put the word "words" after the word "vocabulary"? and what is the difference between them? How to use them correctly?


Need a word that describes a biweekly publication

Our company publishes an internal e-newsletter that we call the <Title> Weekly. We're now going to publish every other week, so the title needs to be changed. The first solution that came to mind was <Title> Biweekly, but a few questions on this site have pointed out that "biweekly" is a troublesome word, and we didn't really like the word anyways. What is a good word to describe a publication that is now publishing less than it used to? Searching around on this site yielded "fortnightly" as an idea, but that doesn't fly as well across the pond. I just learned about the existence of "hebdomadal", but I doubt that "bihebdomadal" would get approved. Any ideas? It doesn't even have to be a synonym of biweekly; in fact, it'd probably be better if we went in another direction. The publication is publishing less frequently so the idea of scaling back could be in play, but the new format opens the door for a more focused and relevant publication, because we won't be struggling for content week after week. So, a word like "condensed" could be on the table as well. Or, even a word that's better than "regular" to indicate that while it's not as frequent, it's still a regular publication.


What do you call a disk drive that is not solid state?

I tried searching for things like _opposite of solid-state_ , but most of what I've found suggest things like _liquid-state_. I'm pretty sure a drive that is not solid-state contains no liquid to speak of. Is there a one word antonym for the use of _solid-state_ in this context?


Is it correct to use quotes before a comma when not representing spoken text?

In another question I asked, I used quotes to demark specific terms, but after I posted the question, I wondered if I'm doing it right. Usually, when quoting something a person says, the quotation mark goes after the comma or period, like so: > "This is my opinion," she said. However, I sometimes use quotes not to represent something said by anyone, but instead for delineating a set term or phrase to make it clear that those words go together and none of them should be mistaken for a part of the rest of the sentence. Like this: > Should I say "stand up", "standup", or "stand-up"? This looks weird to me: > Should I say "stand up," "standup," or "stand-up"? ... but maybe I'm wrong about the rules. Is it correct to use quotes in this way? And if so, are the quotes positioned correctly relative to the other punctuation marks? Are there other alternatives for delineating terms without the use of quotes?


Which one is correct "I think he like it" or "I think he likes it?"

I am confused if I need to use 3-person verb from with a sentence like "I think he like/likes it." What is it called in English?


Is "Implement Improvement" awkward English?

Do native English speakers use **implement** with **improvement** directly? I found that _to implement_ means 'to carry out (something concrete).'      Is **_implement improvement_** awkward English?


"I hope this could help you" vs. "I hope it can help you" vs. "Hoped this may help you"

Which of the following is grammatical when giving someone something they want? >   * I hope this could help you. >   * I hope it can help you. >   * Hoped this may help you. >


Is there a word or phrase that means both the answer and the question?

I am exploring how to create a game that generates metaphors or concepts that could be created outside of a linear thinking of past, present and future. Simultaneous revelations that occur spontaneously in right brain thinking.


A synonym for "again" that is widely used today?

I wrote the following: > She nodded to her dad, smiling again. His words made her feel like a child > again. That period of time when she felt absolutely safe. As you can see, it reads awkward because two sentences end with _again_. I searched on Thesaurus but none of the words seem to be widely used in cases like the one above (maybe _one more time_ but then I would have repeated _time_ twice.) Anyone has another suggestion?


General Purpose Antonym for "Ago"

I'm refactoring a function I had to show relative dates like StackExchange does, eg.: > _relative unit of time_ (second/minute/hour/day/week/month/year)[s] > (ago/from now) However, I started wondering if the expression "from now" is the most logical / appropriate for general purpose futuristic use - perhaps "to go" (this kind of makes me imagine a space shuttle launch...) or some other expression would be a better choice?


What is the difference between "in ascending order" and "in an ascending order"

If "an" is required here? All records in the dataset are sorted in [an ?] ascending order, based on their distances to the hub node. If it matter or context sensitive, please let me know about the difference. Thanks


What is Etymology of Munkustrap etc

These bold words are from _Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats_: > Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,   >  Such as **Munkustrap** , **Quaxo** , or **Coricopat** ,   >  Such as **Bombalurina** , or else **Jellylorum** -   >  Names that never belong to more than one cat. See also the Wiki entry "Munkustrap".


A century ago vs. century ago

I would like to know which one is correct and if both are correct what is the difference. I want to say that some work was done more than 100 years ago. Do I say "This was done more than a century ago." or "This was done more than century ago." ? Somehow, I feel that the option including an article is correct in this case, but I am curious whether the other might be correct as well.


What is a more positive word for "competition" or "competitor"?

Particularly in the context of business. I don't like the word _competition_ or _competitor_ in this sense because I believe in an expanding pie, rather than a fixed pie that everyone is competing to get as much of a slice of. What is a word I can use that is more positive than _competition_ and _competitor_? I was thinking _peers_. Suggestions? **Edit** My answer clearly states the context of business. _Player_ satisfies my question.


Which version of this sentence with a linking adverb is grammatically acceptable?

I am unsure if the word "therefore" is called a linking adverb. I have the following sentences. Which version is grammatically acceptable?   * My preference, therefore, is to travel by train   * My preference is, therefore, to travel by train. Should "therefore" be separated by a comma? (I want to use "therefore" in the middle of the sentence. I know it can be used in the beginning and end of a sentence.)


"For both our sake" or "for both our sakes"

Should _sake_ be pluralized in this usage? > For both our **sake** , I'm going to leave now. > > For both our **sakes** , I'm going to leave now.


What does "leaves you wanting more" mean?

For eg. Sony Z1s: It's Got the Look, But Leaves You Wanting More.


In this sentence, does the word "as" make it sound like the speaker was the leader?

> Oh, to illustrate the frustration as the leader, for the fifth year changed > the rules; I could barely nod my head!


What does "E-Z" mean?

Is it an abbreviation or is it used instead "A-Z"? I have seen it being used multiple places:   * E-Z cook oven   * E-Z Hiscores


Alternatives to "layman"

Is _layman_ a gender specific term or can it be used like college 'freshman'? Is it still appropriate to use, or has it been superseded by some other term? Specific to IT, it seems more appropriate to say _user_ instead of _layman_. However are the two equivalent or are there any subtle differences?


Etymology of fatuous

_Fatuous_ means stupid. Does its etymology relate to _fat_? Are _fat_ and _stupid_ correlated?


Is “harebrain” used commonly as a verb or adjective?

I found the word, “harebrain” used as a verb in passive form in the following paragraph of today’s _New York Times_ ’ editorial titled “How not to plan for future”. > The agreement between Congress and the White House to virtually eliminate > money for high-speed rail is harebrained. France, China, Brazil, even > Russia, understand that high-speed rail is central to future development. > Not Washington. As I was totally unfamiliar with the word _harebrain_ , I checked online dictionaries, and found the following list of the synonyms of this word in Define.com dictionary: > birdbrain, crackbrain, crank, cuckoo, ding-a-ling, featherbrain, > featherhead, flibbertigibbet, giddybrain, giddyhead, kook, lunatic, nut, > rattlebrain, rattlehead, and so on. Then here’s my question, what is the exact meaning of “money for high-speed rail is harebrained”? Is _harebrain_ used as a verb in passive form or an adjective in the above text? Is it common to use this word, which I thought to be a noun, in this way? Incidentally, we have a phrase “a person with the brain in a match box size” as a Japanese counterpart to “harebrain,” which was actually applied to one of our former Prime ministers.


What is a word that means "the state of having an organic nature"?

Consider the following paragraph: > Gramsci believed that languages created in a laboratory (i.e. Esperanto) do > not develop organically in the mind of a nation and its individuals. The > imposition of externally derived rules and language that have no 'organic > nature' ( _Italian: organicità_ ) was tantamount to putting the mind in a > straitjacket. What word could be substituted for 'organic nature'? _organicity_ & _organicness_ seem like possibilities, but I've never come across either of them.


What does "you will want to" mean?

I often find people (mostly American people) telling to me _"you will want to do this"_ or _"you will not want to do this"_. Does it mean they are telling me that I should do something (in the sense of being _authoritative_ ) or are they just _requesting_ that I do something?


A question about the Ancient Greek word 'πνρ' in Arher Machen's "The Shining Pyramid"

Has anyone read this novel? I am quite puzzled. _πνρ_ is the derivation of _fire_. Has _fire_ anything to do with _Pyramid_?


Is "not eating or drinking" equal to "not eating or not drinking"?


"This fine-looking, commanding man had become a shadow of his former self.", I don't know how to underatand this sentence. Help me please

> "This fine-looking, commanding man had become a shadow of his former self." "a shadow of his former self" means he was not like what he once had been, right? Then, I am wondering if "this fine-looking, commanding man" was fine-looking and commanding and his former self had been much worse before, or he had been handsome and imposing but then lost almost all his merits? What happened to this man first? Was his "former self" good or bad? How can I paraphrase this sentence?


Should Short Story Titles be italicized or put in quotes?

I've googled this, and found conflicting answers. Should the title of a short story be italicized or put in quotes? It will be both in the title and the body of a paper discussing the story.


What is meant by the (slang) word "tool," when used to refer to a person?

Etymonline.com gives a lot of definitions regarding an implement or instrument, specifically inanimate objects. But the word has crept into English slang in reference to people, as in "he is a total tool." Would this mean that he is someone's "puppet?" Or if someone said, "He is a tool of IBM," would this mean that he was a (blindly loyal) company man? Could this refer to a kind of soldier (e.g. a Japanese during World War II) who would jump off a cliff if ordered to do so by an officer?


The definite article "the" in "under water"/"under the water"

> How can it float in the air ? > > The balloon is filled with helium gas which is lighter than air. It is > similar to when we blow air **under water**. The bubbles filled with air > **under the water** would go up because air is much lighter than the > surrounding water. My question is about the phrases "under water" and "under the water". Is it okay to leave out the "the" in the first usage? And what are the rules to include or exclude "the" in this situation?


Expression for two people whose similar personalities makes it difficult for them to get along?

I am aware of the concept of "personality clash", when two people can't get along because their natures are too different, but what is it called when two people can't get along because their personalities are too similar?


Choosing “with” vs. “in”

While doing some formal writing at my office, my friend told me that _in_ is more apt than _with_ in the following sentence. However, my understanding says when we talk about tools of action, we generally use _with_. > A gazetted officer is required to sign **with/in** green ink. So which is more apt here?


Can I use “Etch A Sketch” as a verb to mean ‘flip flop one's words?’

Today I saw an instance of a proper noun (Google) being used as a verb in the following question on EL&U: > I read an article recently where the author used "substract" instead of > "subtract". I'm more familiar with the latter word but after doing a bit of > _googling_ , it seems that both words are being used, … This reminds me a bit of the story made by Mitt Romney’s campaign in March. He made a slip of tongue by likening the shift of his boss’s political tactics to an "Etch A Sketch." > “Despite Mitt Romney's big win in Illinois, his campaign is on the defensive > after one of his senior advisers told CNN: "I think ... It's almost like an > Etch A Sketch - you can kind of shake it up and we start all over again”. – > NPR Mar 21, 2012 I saw the case of _Blackberry_ being used as a verb too. Can I use “ _Etch A Sketch_ ” as a verb to mean ‘flip flop’ in such a way as “My boss always etches a sketch his words”? Is it understood by many or few Americans?


What does this mean: "Avoid oral calcium, dairy products, shark cartilage & exercise during the medication."

I found this behind a medicine. At first thought, the sentence looks like it suggests avoiding exercise during the medication. However, I remember reading somewhere that in US English, when there is a list of items, the last item is NOT preceded by "and" unlike in British English. E.g.: >   * American English: "item1, item2, item3 are the items in this list." >   * British English : "item1, item2 _and_ item3 are the items in this list." > This being an American medicine, should I infer that I should avoid oral calcium, dairy products and shark cartilage, and _do_ exercise during the medication? I know it sounds trivial, but something like this on a medicine, I better get the facts right. And for the record: The medicine is not for me. I was asked this question and was wondering myself. **Edit:** The original text was "Avoid oral calcium, dairy products, shark cartilage & exercise during the cleanse". I had to change "during the cleanse" to "during the medication" to give the question's title sufficient context.


What is the opposite of “Could you talk a little louder”?

In a conversation, when I don't hear someone, I usually say: > Could you talk a little louder please? However, what should I say if:   * Someone is being very loud in the other room when talking on the phone.   * Someone is making too much noise. I am looking for a polite expression. Any suggestions?


Word to describe short bursts of running?

Is there a word (in the context of exercise) to describe short bursts of running? My first thought was to use the term "running circuits", but that involves other activities in between the running, whereas I'm looking for a term to describe short bursts of only running. Example: Sprint for 60 seconds, walk for 60 seconds, sprint again for 60 seconds, etc.


What do you call those stuff published in craigslist.com?

I was thinking about the word of those things which are published in craigslist.com and whether if I should call them ads? list? commercials? notice? promotion? flyers? or something else. To clear what I say, where I live, there some daily extra pages published with newspapers in which people and organizations publish their needs or what they can offer other people, as one sells a car or another needs a teacher etc. What are these kind of things called?


Meaning of "pushing it"

What's the meaning of _pushing it_? > Is a 19 year old too young for a 28 year old? > > Yeah 9 years is kinda pushing it, 'specially when the delta is like half her > life.


What is a word that means "someone who pretends to be your friend but is actually your enemy?"

What do you call someone who pretends to be your friend but is actually your enemy? A friend suggested _spy_ for me, but that does not nearly describe the word I need for an English project. The character is very good at manipulating how people see him. He's a good liar. And pretends to be your friend but actually is your enemy.


Proper usage of the word 'thunk'

What is the proper usage of the word _thunk_? According to Merriam-Webster, it is > _dialect past and past participle of think_ Can it be used in a formal context? Is _"Who would have thunk?"_ different than _"Who would have thought?"_ Any examples from news, literature or other known references is welcome.


Should I say I "post a post" on a forum?

If I want to say > I wanted to create new post (topic, question) but I forgot to do so. should I say > I wanted to post a post but I forgot to do so. or should I say > I wanted to post but I forgot to do so.


Why Do Tennis Commentators Talk So Passively?

I've watched a lot of tennis and heard a lot of commentating. The various commentators consistently say something like: "The forehand of Federer" instead of "Federer's forehand". Why would they do this? They must receive some sort of coaching/training for commentating, so I assume this is part of the training, but why? It's not to say that they always speak like this, but they do it far more often then is heard in normal conversation.


Can "look" be transitive in the meaning "look at"?

For example: > He examined the body indifferently, much like one would look a dead animal > on a roadside. I would like to know if _to look_ can be employed transitively like this. I'm sure I've read it used in this way before, but my search was inconclusive. (I know I could write "look at" or "look over", but I'm curious about that particular possibility in the example.)


Is 'petrichor' the only noun in English that means a specific scent?

I heard that 'petrichor', which is defined as _a pleasant smell that frequently accompanies the first rain after a long period of warm, dry weather_ , is the only noun in English that means a _specific_ scent. Is this true?


Word for an interjection made when drinking

Is there a word to describe a traditional interjection (in any language) made before drinking? Examples include:   1. _Cheers!_ (English)   2. _¡Salud!_ (Spanish)   3. _Prost!_ (German)   4. _!לחיים_ (Hebrew) A close fit is **toast** , but this can also be used to describe any form of speech which is made before drinking, including long-winded soliloquies. I'm looking for a word that's more specific to traditional one- or two-word interjections.


Where did the phrase "used to" come from?

I used to wonder about these usages a lot:   * Why does "used to" mean "accustomed to"?   * Why is "used to" used to indicate a recurring past event? > I used to be used to using it. In that example, there are three meanings of "use". The etymologies of the first two are the ones I am interested in knowing.


Which is most correct of these 3 phrases?

At the top part of the front page of my trading journal website, I have a phrase that I don't know whether is correct or not. Here's what it says:               Online trading journal software including trade planning and money management.     The smart way to plan, journal and learn from your trades     You get a structured approach to becoming more profitable. For free!      I am in doubt about the third line. Is any or more of the below phrases correct? If yes, which one(s) is (most) correct? If not, help in re- writing/re-wording the phrase would be highly appreciated.   1. You get a structured approach to become more profitable.   2. You get a structured approach to becoming more profitable.   3. You get a structured approach for becoming more profitable. English is not my first language so I would appreciate any help on this. Thank you :)


"the" is in my business name, capitalize it or not?

I'm starting a new business and recently decided on a name. The problem is that the name has the word "the" stuck right in the middle, like so: _**___** the **___ _**, LLC My question, should the "the" be capitalized or not? **Edit/addendum:** I believe the following capitalization rule should be used, but am unsure for this specific case and if my business name constitutes a "title". Rule: Do not capitalize short prepositions, conjunctions, or articles unless they are the first word of the title. From this, I'm guessing the "the" should stay non-capitalized. Anyone care to verify?