Word for "requires a crew"

Is there a single word to describe an entity (for example a boat, ship or power station) that requires some crew, staff or manning in order to function? This is subtly different from using the words _manned_ or _crewed_ to describe an entity that is currently staffed, since this does not mean that it must be staffed to operate.


What does "zingo" mean?

I'm doing some maintenance work on some software - whose original developers are unknown. There is a report called the "All Zingo Report", which basically dumps all the data for the primary "entity" in the database (the primary entity represents a person that has been referred to a government-associated medical program). Why would the word "zingo" be used to describe such a report?


Is it correct to say "Getting out of schedule" or "Going out of schedule"

Let me put some context: We have a day of tech sessions, so what I'm trying to say to a partner is that he better prepare well his time (about 60 minutes per session) so he won't run out of time because we don't want the sessions to overlap. So, instead of saying > We don't want the sessions to overlap is it correct to say > We don't want to get/go out of the schedule Many thanks.


Is this correct usage of the word "spoil"?

Is the following statement appropriate? > A concerned expression starts to slowly spoil his looks. I am trying to say that a person's expression saddens within a minute or two while pondering over something, but not instantly as would be the case when caused by shock


What's an accurate easy-to-understand way of referring to the brown outer part of a fried egg?

![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/eL5bX.jpg) The outer brown part. What's a good/easy-to-understand to refer to it?


Expression "I can / can't tell the things"

I'm French and have sometimes/often difficulty understanding certain expressions. Presently, I'm not sure of the sense of the following phrase: > I can tell the things that lies in this sentence : > I am learning Python and so far I can tell the things below about `__new__` > and `__init__` I wonder if the phrase in it is correct or if it shouldn't be : > I can't tell the things I would understand the second one as meaning "I'm completely confused about `__new__` and `__init__`" , but like it presently is, I'm not sure how I must interpret the phrase hence the sentence. Also, is the word **below** part of the phrase? or not, as I did in the above line with **can't**? In fact, I also wonder if the phrase is an idiom or not.


Inhabitants of Vatican City would be referred to as ____

Keep that blank clean. No religious flaming. What I mean is this: inhabitants of America are _Americans_ , inhabitants of Ohio are _Ohioans_ , and inhabitants of Cincinnati are _Cincinnatians_. But what demonym would you use or have you seen used to refer to a resident of Vatican City? This site doesn't have one in its list, and the example for Sioux City, Iowa, found on this Wikipedia page would seem to suggest that maybe it's _Vatican Citian_ , which just sounds awful. Maybe it's one of those places that has never had a demonym. After all, "demon" does appear in the word…


"while I am dancing" vs "while I dance"

Which are more frequently used? > 1A - I will be discussing the details while you are researching the data. > > 1B - I will be discussing the details while you research the data. and > 2A - I was cleaning the garage while you were preparing a snack. > > 2B - I was cleaning the garage while you prepared a snack. Is there any wrong?


Are there any cases where the Scottish English "outwith" has unique meaning?

It seems that the Scottish English word _outwith_ can be replaced in (almost?) all contexts by one of the following:   * outside   * outside of However, to ears familiar with the word, the meaning of _outwith_ is nuanced and perhaps more elegant than _outside_. Are there any use cases where _outwith_ conveys a specific or distinct meaning, not adequately expressed by a simple substitution as above?


Variations on “a [technical term] is said to be [adjective]” suited to scientific publications

(I'll use “spooky-graphoid” as a randomly made-up technical term and “saturated” as a random adjective from the scientific vernacular.) First, when it comes to the definition of a “saturated spooky-graphoid”, which of the following phrasings are grammatically acceptable?   * A spooky-graphoid is said _saturated_ when/if…   * A spooky-graphoid is said a _saturated_ spooky-graphoid when/if…   * A spooky-graphoid is said to be _saturated_ when/if…   * A spooky-graphoid is said to be a _saturated_ spooky-graphoid when/if…   * (something I didn't think of, or something that involves a rephrasing. E.g.: A _saturated_ spooky-graphoid is a spooky-graphoid such that [rephrased part].) Then, which is the most advisable, considering criteria such as grammaticality, reading ease, and space occupation (which, for scientific publications, possibly _does_ matter)?


Exact word when we throw a rope in english

What's the exact word for throwing a fish hook or a rope whose one end we are holding. Any help is appreciated.


Countable vs. Uncountable Nouns

What is correct: "too much people" or "too many people"?


Is it appropriate to use "so much so" at the beginning of a sentence?

She is terrified of flying…so much so that often she has to fight an inner turmoil even to step on the plane. So much so that Lenin commissioned a leading party organizer and Georgian, Josef Stalin, to write a counter-attack (Both are from BNC). I favored "so much so" in the first sentence more than that in the second. I think it is not good to start a sentence with "so much so".


Referring to my husband as my son's dad?

I received an invitation for a session at my son's (John) school. The teacher had asked us to confirm our attendance for the event. I wrote the following > John's Dad and I will be attending the session. (And signed my name below the note). Is this usage correct? Does it in any way imply that we are not living together?


What is the "so" in "I love you so"?

> I love you so. What does this _so_ mean here?


Is it appropriate to omit some part of a sentence in scholarly writing like this?

> It is tempting to suppose that the traditional mountaineer had a civilizing > sense of proportion that is lost on his modern counterparts. Tempting, but > perilous, I think. **Less perilous,I hope, to suggest that a sense of > proportion is characteristic of the best mountaineer of every epoch.** (Is > mountaineering a sport? in Philosophy and Sport, ed. by Anthony O'Hear) The last sentence in this paragraph, obviously, is not a complete sentence, is it appropriate to omit some part of s sentence in scholarly writing like this?


Is there a saying like 'those who find faults with other people tend to be blind to their own faults'?

Is there a saying that could be explained as 'those who find faults with other people tend to be blind to their own faults?' As with people who are picky; their criticism of others often applies to themselves.


Problem in adjective clauses’ grammar

I have read some grammar points about adjective clauses, but I still have problems recognizing the right choice in questions requiring them. For example:   * _All the students ____ do well in writing._   Correct answer: _Dr. Freeman teaches_   Why isn’t _" **that** Dr. Freeman teaches **them** "_ correct? And this one seems similar too:   * _The problem ____ never occurred._   Correct answer: _I had expected_   Why isn’t _" **which** I had expected **it** "_ correct? Can someone please provide information or resources to get better answers?


Is it correct to say "We will be arriving into <station>"?

Often, when getting the train to work in the morning, shortly before arriving at our terminus the conductor will announce "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, we will shortly be arriving into London Euston". This sounds **_so_** wrong to me, but so many of the different conductors say it that I'm now starting to doubt myself. Is what they're saying correct? As far as I'm concerned they should say "We will shortly be arriving **_at_** London Victoria". I know that similar questions have been asked (e.g. When do we use "arrive at" versus "arrive in"?), but they don't deal with this specific usage of arriving at a train station.


Is there an adjective form of Jubilee?

With the Queen Elizabeth II's 60 years on the throne approaching, I'm seeing the word Jubilee more frequently than normal. Is there a word to describe the people celebrating with the same root as the word Jubilee. > Everybody involved in the celebrations was (jubilee adjective). On a similar note, what other words might fit there? What describes the feeling of general well-being, neighbourly feeling one might also experience at New Year's celebrations?


Who's "Her' in Joseph Addison's Cato's Soliloquy?

This is a Soliloquy from Joseph Addison's Cato, also known as Edgar Allan Poe’s Cryptographic Challenge, the whole play could be found here. > The soul, secured in her existence, smiles at the drawn dagger, and defies > its point. The stars shall fade away, the sun himself grow dim with age, and > nature sink in years; But thou shalt flourish in immortal youth, unhurt amid > the war of elements, The wreck of matter, and the crash of worlds! My question is very simple ,who is **Her**? What's her name, and what's her story?


Can "On a second look ..." be used in a sentence?

Is "On a second look, I thought / I felt" a correct usage? The complete sentence will be like this: "On a second look, I thought that the IP address you provided belongs to another network range which is already allocated".


The usage of "think" followed by an object and an objective complement

If you can say "I think him a great man.", can you also say "I think him great."?


Capitalising the second word in a compound role-title

When a title, made of two hyphenated words, is followed by a proper noun, is the word after the hyphen capitalised? Eg. I understand that the following statement is correct: > He killed King Ravan. But, which of these is correct? > He killed Demon-king Ravan. > > He killed Demon-King Ravan. British English rules are what I, as an Indian, would prefer. Thank you. :)


"as well" instead of "and"

In my university publications, I notice that many enumerations use "as well" [1] instead of "and" [2]. Is this just to make the text look more sophisticated or is there a real semantic difference? When should I use one or the other? [1] "The algorithm can process text as well as binary files." [2] "The algorithm can process text and binary files."


'Upgradation' not universally accepted?

While copy-editing an article for a journal, I came across the word 'upgradation' underlined red by MS Word (It's underlined red even as I type it in Chrome). The publishers of the journal recommend following the Oxford dictionary. Now, strangely one of Oxford's sites returns 'No results found for “upgradation”' on searching, while another defines it as 'the fact of upgrading something'. The Cambridge dictionary site also has an entry for the word. Both, Oxford Learner's Dictionaries site and the Cambridge Dictionary site are complete with US as well as British pronunciations. As far as I know the word is very much in use at least in Indian English. I am unable to make sense out of these findings. Please share if you have any idea as to why there is such predicament over 'Upgradation'.


I can speak a little bit of German

I was asked to introduce myself and what languages I spoke. So I mentioned all the languages I know and in the end, I added " ** _... and I can speak a little bit of German_** " After I said that, I was wondering if I used the correct expression. Should it have been:   1. I can speak some German   2. I can speak a little German   3. I can speak a little bit German   4. I can speak a little bit of German   5. All 1-4   6. None of 1-4 Please provide your comments.


Etymology of certain words ending in "-en"

Tchrist's comment here on my answer to an etymology question brought the following to mind: _Ox_ (from Old English _oxa_ ) maintains the same vowel in the plural _oxen_ that it has in the singular. But _child_ has a different vowel (an English short vowel) in the plural. _Brethren_ , an archaic or specialized form of the plural of _brother_ , is a similar case; it changes its vowel in the plural as well, through _i_ -mutation. (Yet _brothers_ does not.) I've looked at http://etymonline.com to find these two words, as well as looking briefly in an introduction to Old English published by the Medieval Institute at Western Michigan University, and discovered that _child_ has an older plural, which might be _childer_ in Modern English. But I'm still not entirely clear on its history; and I'm confused about what the text says about _brother_. Why do these two words with (standard, archaic, or alternative) plurals ending in _-en_ have vowel changes in the plural, when _ox_ does not?


Why are the same words translated differently into English depending on their meaning?

I've seen it several times before, but only have one example at hand right now. This Forbes article mentions _Russia_ as country's name, but _Rossiya_ as the bank's name, despite that these words are exactly the same in Russian, where they are translated from. Is there some kind of rule for this?


"Initialising" is to "initialisation" as "enabling" is to what?

Is there a valid word for the act of enabling? I want to say "enablement". It is listed in the dictionary, but is it in common use? I've never heard it before. Is there a more apt word?


"Hopefully you’d make some time for me."

It's a never ending barrage of doubts about a difference in meaning using auxiliary verbs **would** as opposed **will**. I've just written this sentence, and once gain was unsure whether I should have used would as opposed to will. (BTW,is this sentence correct: " _I've just written this sentence, and once gain was unsure whether I should have used_ " ?)


What rules of English allow the first t in “patient” to make an sh sound?

What rules of the English language allow the first _t_ in _patient_ to make an _sh_ sound? Why is it `/ˈpeɪʃənt/` and not `/ˈpeɪtənt/`? Are there any other words where t behaves in this way?


What do you call a novel that is mostly made up of non-fictional stories?

Say you have an author who has a lot of random personal stories from their life, all interesting, but don't stand on their own to be an interesting, single story. The author decides, "why not combine them all into _one_ story?" Well, that _sort of_ becomes an autobiography, I guess, if you actually tell the story in a more chronological way that follows the timeline of their life. What if the author decides _not_ to do everything chronologically? Basically, taking these non-fictional stories, reordering them a little, and placing them all into a _fictional_ character's life, somewhat shortening the timespan in the process? Basically, the story itself and the character would be fictional, but each separate story within the fictional story is non-fictional. Does the fictional part of the story trump the non-fictional parts of the story and just classify the entire thing as fiction, or a novel? Or is there any special word or perhaps genre that would be used to better identify something like this? Ultimately, is there a word to identify a **fictional story made up of non-fictional stories**? I've seen this similar question, but it talks about historical settings in a novel, mainly the non-fictional location a book is set in. I can't imagine that's really the same thing, as the situation I'm outlining is kind of the opposite. The stories themselves are non-fictional, but the setting, location, characters, etc are all fictional.


Is "dissatisfactorily" the correct adverb for not satisfying?

I want to express something like this: > She had asked him why he had done it, but he had replied dissatisfactorily; > he said that he didn't know. I also thought, maybe "dissatisfyingly?" I'd like to keep the stem "satisfy" to express this.


What does "double down" mean in this particular context?

Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, said this in an interview: > We're going to double-down on secrecy on products. I know this phrase is from Blackjack and it means to take more risk and expect higher return. But it doesn't sound like what it means by Tim. Could somebody please give me a hint? (There is a similar question about "double down", but I don't think its explanation applies here either.)


The meaning of the sentence about relative clause and the word usage

A manuscript that lay unnoticed by scientists for decades has revealed that Albert Einstein once dabbled with an alternative to the Big Bang theory, proposing instead that the Universe expanded steadily and eternally.   1. What is the subject for "proposing"? Is that "A manuscript" or "the Big Bang theory"? Is there a rule to distinguish?   2. What does the word "instead" in this sentence mean? If I omit it, will I change the main idea of the sentence?  Thanks!


Should 'First Lady' be capped in all references?

Should _First Lady_ be capped in all references? •I spoke with the _First Lady_ , Michelle Obama. •Do you want to speak with the _First Lady_? •Former _First Lady_ Barbara Bush attended the ceremony. And what about _the First Couple_ and _the First Kids_? •The _First Couple_ [Barack and Michelle] arrived in Washington. •The _First Kids_ [Barack and Michelle's kids] arrived with their parents.


"Pain in the neck" and similar expressions

Are there any other expressions equivalent in meaning to "pain in the neck" that mention another part of the body (e.g, "pain in the ass")? How would you rate each of those expressions (including the ones just mentioned) in a scale of being offensive or vulgar? In other words, which ones would you use in an informal context, but without going too far? _(this question is probably mistagged)_


Which is more correct: "burgled" or "burglarized"?

Which is more correct: > We were _burgled_ yesterday. or > We were _burglarized_ yesterday. I'm from the U.K. and never use _burglarized_ but my friend from the U.S.A. seems to think it's OK.


Shouldn’t "Heaven" and "Hell" be capitalized, as they are the names of places?

Shouldn’t _Heaven_ and _Hell_ be capitalized, as they are the names of places?


Does "lesser" as in "lesser man" refer only to moral strength and goodness or can it encompass physical and mental stamina?


Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities, Chap. 2: what does "shy of being confidential on a short notice" mean?

> In those days, travellers were very shy of being confidential on a short > notice, for anybody on the road might be a robber or in league with robbers. I understand the meaning in general which describes the fact that people didn't trust each other, and were confidential about their privacy. But Dickens uses "shy of being confidential" that seems contradicted to me, because people wanted to be confidential, then why does he use "shy of being confidential"? Also, does "on a short notice" mean people greeting each other at the first time they meet?


What is a "one-note joke"?

What is the definition of a "one-note joke"?


Are sentences that have multiple "WH Question" words considered grammatical?

Are sentences that have multiple "WH Question" words considered grammatical ? For example, is the following sentence grammatical: > Tomorrow, where are we meeting at what time to do what ?


"Don't put your life on hold for anybody vs. nobody"

I am wondering, which form is correct in this phrase? Don't put your life on hold for _anybody_. OR - Don't put your life on hold for _nobody_. The meaning I want to get is that - "You" should live your life and just don't "care" about anyone else/ You shouldn't wait for nobody (same problem - nobody/anybody?) Please, help me..


Stone in the middle?

When I read a Children's Illustrated Dictionary, I found an example sentence as this, **Apricot** An apricot is a soft round fruit. It has a big `stone` in the middle. How to replace the `stone` with another better word in the example? _core_?


Does “to flatline” only means “to die”, or can it refer to an actual flat graph?

I was looking at this ngram which features a flat line meaning absolutely no usage of the word I was looking for. I thought about describing it in these terms: > The Google ngram clearly flatlines But then, I checked the _New Oxford American Dictionary_ , which says: > **flatline** (verb intrans., informal)   >  [of a person] die. So, can _flatline_ be used to denote an actual flat line on a graph, or is it only used figuratively?


Resident advisor: an advisor who resides or someone who advises residents?

Google assures me that there's a position at various postsecondary institutions called "resident assistant", "resident advisor", or "resident adviser". This is a student who lives in a dormitory and assists/advises its other residents. When this phrase (whichever saw earliest use) was starting to be used, was it intended as   * residentadjective advisor (i.e. a local advisor, an advisor who resides in the dorm) or as   * residentnoun advisor (i.e. someone who advises residents, à la "stamp collector")? Any evidence would be most welcome.


How can I describe see-through clothing vision?

When asked about my superpower I wish I had, I answer, with a little perversion, the power to see through clothes. Now, I'm looking for a word that describes "see-through clothes" in one word, coupled with vision. X-Ray vision isn't exactly the same thing; to me it implies seeing through to the bone (hence X-Ray). Is there a word that can aptly describe this superpower? I looked for word synonyms of see-through, like transparent, or crystalline, but "transparent vision" or "crystalline vision" doesn't really sound close to what I'm trying to say.


What does "to have a little form" mean?

In the article, "Not nein...but TEN reasons why we should love Germany", the following phrase is being used: > LET’S face it, Britain and Germany **have a little form** over the past > century. Obviously being some kind of typical British humour (I suppose), what does "to have a little form" mean exactly, where does it come from and is it also used in the US?


What's the difference between a tune and a melody?


Why did this Brit say "took a punt"?

Recently listening to a podcast, I heard someone (of unknown British origin) use 'take a punt' in the sense of 'take a chance.' Perhaps this is due to punting in American English referring to American Football, I am at a loss as to why punting would be risky.   * Is this phrase common in the UK?   * How did this phrase come about and is it related to a sport? (I assume it's not American Football, as punting is the 'safe' play for fourth down, as opposed to "going for it.")


why is there a difference in the usage of "neither...nor" in similar sentences?

look at these two sentences: neither the coach nor the players are going to the beach. neither the players nor the coach is going to the beach. why does one sentence use "are" while the other has "is"? does it have something to do with the arrangement of subjects or is there any other reason?


What does "In any sort of time" mean here?

I saw this sentence in the _New Yorker_ story "Paranoia" by Shirley Jackson: > Much as Mr Beresford disliked the subway, he might still have to take the > subway to get home in any sort of time. What does it mean?


A phrase to describe a "collection of false exaggerations"

I am looking for a phrase to describe a "collection of false exaggerations", something that can fit well in the following line: > I am really shocked to see this, it seems that everything you told me before > was just a collection of false exaggerations. I don't think "collection of false exaggerations" is a real phrase. "Bag of lies" is a similar phrase but not with the same meaning. I am looking for a phrase that can directly replace mine in the above sentence or otherwise any other way to say the above sentence while keeping the feelings same. The feelings here being that my expectations were set too high due to a lot of exaggerated information fed to me.


Better way to say "cover our a***s"

I'm looking for a couple of good coined phrases that I can use in front of business people, apologies if the one I had in mind offends anyone. I'd use "can sleep at night" but I want the phrase to imply legal liability if we don't do something.


Is prefixing "old" before the word "adage" correct or not?

Is it correct to say "old adage" or simply the word "adage" itself is enough because most of the adages are old


Meaning of "hazzas"

In a steam engine museum I came across the word "hazzas" and, although I can guess its meaning from the context, I could not find a definition for it. A description portrayed a train whose first arrival would be greeted by "loud **_hazzas_** of the multitude only overpowered by the louder blowing of the locomotive steam whistles."


"At" vs. "in" followed by a city name

Is it correct to use "at" followed by a place name (city, town, village, etc.)? I've been seeing phrases like "a hotel at Las Vegas" or "she was living at London" quite a lot recently. Is this a difference between British and US English, perhaps?


What does "plenary intervention" mean?

What does "plenary intervention" mean, for example in the following sentence? The country chose to provide a record of its plenary intervention on the agenda item for the informational annex to the report.


Commas and Partial Quotations

What are the rules for comma placement when it comes to partial quotes? My intuition is that a comma should be placed outside of the quotations marks if the comma is related to the overall structure of the sentence. However, the various sources I have looked to (APA, MLA, and others) have stressed that commas (and periods) should always be placed within quotation marks. For purposes of illustration, would the second comma go within or outside of the quotation marks below? > As Andrew argues, peanut prices “can be ridiculously overpriced", leaving > many Americans to resort to jelly sandwiches. or > As Andrew argues, peanut prices “can be ridiculously overpriced," leaving > many Americans to resort to jelly sandwiches. An explanation of the general rule would be lovely as well.


What is a term for someone who prohibits the importation of foreign words into their language?

I was thinking about how when the Italian Fascists were in power they often turned loanwords into Italian words. They wanted to conserve the Italian nature of the language: > Under Fascism an Italian _chauffeur_ became an _autista_ ; soccer turned > into _calcio_ ; a bar was rechristened _qui si beve_ (here one drinks). > Shakespeare’s name, like other foreign appellations, had to be pronounced as > if it were Italian: Shah-kay-spay-ah-ray. I understand too that there is a similar movement in France to guard against the encroaching force of loanwords. What is a term for this?


"Hypothesis" and "theory"

My basic knowledge of these two words is that they both mean the same thing. So why are they used differently, and what is their difference in meaning?


What kind of rhetoric is "The computer runs as fast as a rocket."?

At first sight I would say it is a metaphor, but after some thought I'm not sure anymore. The parallel is not so exact between the two objects, since the speed of a computer usually refers to the response speed(or more technically, measured in terms of frequency), while the speed of a rocket usually refers to the traveling speed. A more conventional metaphor is like "The boy runs as fast as a rocket.", so what is "The computer runs as fast as a rocket."?


Is there a more general word for velocitized?

Velocitized, meaning being accustomed to high driving speeds and feeling like normal speeds are slower than they actually are afterwards, seems like such a useful word to apply in different situations. > I went mountain biking and going to work the next day was **_____**. I've used _culture shock_ to describe this in the past, but that's obviously not always an appropriate connotation. Is there a more general word for this?


What's an expression that means bringing something to where it can be seen or used?

I'm specifically thinking of in a public service context. Say there is a resource that exists but no one knows about it or makes use of it, so instead of waiting for the people to come to the resource, we bring the resource to where the people already are. Is there an expression for that? This doesn't really capture the meaning, but I'm thinking it would be phrased sort of like the opposite of "leading a horse to water" but instead, we are "bringing water to a horse."


What does "nothing could be further from correct" mean?

What does _nothing could be further from correct_ mean? For example, > It is not OK to stop paying rents. This approach seems to be popular with > tenants, and **nothing could be further from correct**. You have the choices > of waiting for him to repair the leaking roof, or of moving out when your > tenancy agreement expires.


A younger generation of men follow or follows?

Could you explain to me which is correct?   1. A younger generation of **men follow** . . .   2. A **younger generation** of men **follows** . . . Could you also explain why? I was thinking that the _bit_ that cannot be removed should be the one that determines whether the verb is singular or plural. The sentence would lose its sense without _younger generation_ so does that mean that that is the _bit_ to which _follows_ must correspond?


Reword "increasingly too late"

How should I fix a sentence which says "As X disappears, it is increasingly too late to do Y with X"? The sentence seems awkward to me, but "too late" is an adjective, so is the sentence grammatically correct?


What is the difference between “Strike the match” and “Strike a match”?

In reference to my question about the meaning of “It’s one thing to dance like Fred Astaire, but Ginger did it backwards in high heels,” on the Time magazine’s article (June 29) of John Roberts’ ruling on Healthcare, I found the phrase, “ _strike the match_ ” in the following sentence in the same article, “Roberts rules.” > “When Roberts took his seat at the center of the bench on June 28, the final > day of the court term, and began reading aloud his opinion, he sounded at > first as if he were _striking the match_. The conservative critique of the > so-called individual mandate was correct, he intoned: Congress lacks the > power to require citizens to buy insurance they don’t want.” To me whose mother language totally lacks the concept of article – a/an, the, non-article - in its language system, interpretation and distinction of definite / infinitive/ non-article is always a serious headache. Although I see “strike a match” and “strike the match,” both of which are in constant currency since around 1980 in Google Ngram, I can’t find either of them as an idiom in Cambridge, Oxford and Merriam-Webster. Only McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs defines “strike a match” as to light a match by rubbing it on a rough surface, with an example, Mary _struck a match and lit a candle_. What does “John Roberts was striking the match” mean? Was he lighting a match to fuel the serious dispute, or bringing the dispute to the end? What is the difference of “strike _the_ match” from “strike _a_ match”? Are they exactly same or totally irrelevant idioms or expressions?


Can one say 'hi' to a person older than oneself?

Would it be appropriate to say 'Hi', for example, to a person at the ticket window who is seemingly much older than yourself? Would it be a different case, say in Australia, where people usually refer to each other just by given names?


what does "I will step into the ring for you" mean?

The sentence comes from a song. Leonard Cohen I am your man .... If you want a boxer I will step into the ring for you ...... What does "step into the ring for you"? Someone can explain it for me. Thanks


What is a single word for "wandering around a mall or a market"?

You know, young girls often do this. They're wandering around a mall or a supermarket, seeing cute stuff, asking about the prices of things, doing chit-chat with friends, having lunch together with girl friends too, **but end up buying literally nothing**. Is there a single English word that means this kind of activity? I can only think of: _hang out_. Or can _shopping_ also mean "buying nothing"?


What's the word for a specific kind of inhalation after crying?

Sometimes people who are just coming off of bout of crying take what could be described as a stuttering inhalation. It's more easily observed with little kids than adults. Is there a better word for that?


Indefinite article with substances

Which one of the following is correct? If both - what is the difference?   * In _an_ optically thin gas ...   * In optically thin gas ... For example:   1. We consider radiative equilibrium in ( _an_ ) optically thin gas.   2. In ( _an_ ) optically thin gas the condition of radiative equilibrium reads...


Equivalent of homonym for terms and phrases

A _homonym_ is a word with two distinct meanings, for instance: > chase (from dict.org) > >   1. To pursue for the purpose of killing or taking, as an enemy, or game; > to hunt. [1913 Webster] > >   2. To cut, so as to make a screw thread. [1913 Webster] > > Does _homonym_ apply to terms (esp. colloquial) or phrases as well? For instance, _wife beater_ refers to either a type of shirt or a person who physically abuses their wife. Is there a word or term that describes this type of word or phrase?


Why "motherboard" is used to refer to main board of computer

Why is _motherboard_ used to refer to the main board of a computer? What is the relationship with the word _mother_ here?


Why are there different ways of indicating gender for animals? For instance, by inflexion we get: **lion (male) & lioness (female)** where the female is distinguished from the male. Here the male is also known by the general ( _have I used this correctly_?) term for this type of animal, i.e. lion. But, in another instance, we have: **duck (female) & drake (male)** where the male is distinguished from the female by a distinct or different word and also from the general term for this type of fowl, i.e. duck. Then, for kangaroos and rabbits, we have: **buck (male) & doe (female)** where neither are known by the general term, nor is there any inflexion; instead, distinct names are used. Why do these different ways for indicating gender exist? Why is it that in some cases the male is differentiated from the female and vice-versa. And why in some cases are both female and male known by words so different from the general term used to describe them?


When President Obama makes a speech by using teleprompter, is he stuck to the script?

I saw a phrase, _stuck to the script_ in the following sentence in New York Times (Jan. 27) article reporting this year’s Academy Award nomination, > The Academy Award nominations, announced this morning in Los Angeles, mostly > stuck to the script that Oscar-season observers expected. My interpretation of _stuck to the script_ here is a figurative expression of _as anticipated, therefore, no surprise_. Is it right? By the way, this might sound a naive question, when someone like President, or Prime minister is delivering a speech, say the State of Union or opening address relying on a pre-prepared script on teleprompter, is he stuck to the script?


Meaning of terms of shoe laces

What does "lace-up", "open-throat or wide-set" and "closed-throat or close- set" mean in How to Select Shoes to Wear With a Man's Suit: > Wear lace-up shoes for your most formal occasions. Open-throat or wide-set > laces are less dressy than shoes with closed-throat or close-set laces. In my guess:   * "lace-up" is some style of shoes but I am not sure what it is like and what other styles it is opposed to.   * "open-throat or wide-set" and "closed-throat or close-set" are used to specify other aspects of laces. I am also not sure what they mean. It will be nice if there are links to details and pictures.


to be above board

I have made 2-year apprenticeship as a multilingual correspondent. One expression that I came across but is still unclear to me is: "to be above board" or "He is above board" I have looked it up on several different platforms and haven't been able to figure out what it means. Could someone please explain to me what it means? Thank you!


Difference in usage between "beware of" and "mind"

I am trying to understand the difference between _beware of_ and _mind_ when they have the meaning of _to be on one's guard_. Are they always interchangeable ? I'll try to explain what bothers me, but these are only examples and I would welcome any other examples to explain the difference between the two. If someone said to me without further context: " _mind the dog_ " I would understand this person is going away and wants me to look after her or his dog. But could we say indifferently :   * Beware of the dog, he bites.   * Mind the dog, he bites. In this other instance:   * Beware of falling rocks.   * Mind the falling rocks. I have no hesitation (perhaps because falling rocks do not need to be looked after?) I had always seen : _mind the step_ , and _mind the gap_ but I have just googled _beware of the step_ and _beware of the gap_ and had lots of hits for both. And I am even more puzzled because google even returned some hits with _beware of your head_ which sounds really strange to me. Does it sound strange to English native speakers too?


Meaning of "data pooling"

What does "data pooling" actually mean? > The program Distance enables pooling of data across sites and derivation of > density estimates at those sites (strata) where there are too few records to > fit separate detection function.


Advice on good list of American idioms

I want to master American idioms and would like to use a complete list as a reference. Would you please suggest one?


Can word-hyphenation ever be semantically significant?

I was prompted by this question (difference between _ecosystem_ and _eco- system_ ) to wonder whether word-hyphenation can ever be semantically significant. My gut instinct is to say that since hyphenation is normally an intermediate step before a compound form becomes a single word, the answer should be "No". But if my experience here at ELU has taught me anything, it's that opinions often differ in matters of language usage. I hate to ask something that looks like a request for a "list". A single undisputed example would do. Does the presence/absence of a hyphen ever change a compound word's meaning? EDIT: I was specifically thinking of cases where a single "compound word" either does or doesn't have a hyphen, _not_ where two component words may or may not be separated by a space. I understand _whiteboard_ has a specific meaning distinct from _white board_ \- but if _white-board_ exists at all, I at least can't distinguish that from _whiteboard_. Cases such as _rusty-nail cutter_ vs _rusty nail-cutter_ also turn on which pair of the three words are "compounded", rather than whether the hyphen is present in the compound form. More tellingly, I now see (hear?!) that, for example, _re-creation_ and _pro- verb_ are distinct from their unhyphenated equivalents. In the absence of contradictory examples, I'm starting to think any difference in meaning can only exist if it's accompanied by a difference in pronunciation.


"Ecosystem" or "eco-system" to describe something non-biological?

If "ecosystem" (no hyphen) is defined as "a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms within their environment," should "eco-system" (hyphenated) be used to describe a system formed by the interaction of a community of _non-biological_ (say, electronic) elements within their environment? or does it matter?


would like + infinitive (negative form)

Please tell me if this sentence is correct or incorrect. If incorrect, please say why. I wouldn't like to not have children. Thank you.


Is it true that the English have many words for hill?

I've heard it said that Eskimos have many words for snow and that the English have many words for hill. If so what are they?


What's the word when you're describing how someone is, how their day was, etc.

EG, "I didn't even bother with the **___**." I can't seem to find the word for it! (I think it ends in 'ties' like 'profanities' lol


Word meaning academic or rational, when describing the style of an argument

Here's the context: > Dude's an awful troll. If he wants to express his views, he should present > them in a more [adjective] manner. What we're getting at here is that the guy sounds obnoxious, but the controversial opinion he holds could still be expressed in civil discourse if presented properly. What word works best for that?


How and when to use "wont"

I stumbled upon this word lately, as in > he was _wont_ to come early I'm wondering what feeling it has for native speakers. For example, can I use in a meeting, or in a written report?


What is meant by "steep learning curve"?

What should I understand from "steep learning curve"? When a computer program (for example a translation program) has a steep learning curve, does it mean that it is not good at learning or it's hard for it to learn?


What's the difference between "life conditions" and "living conditions"?

What's the difference between _life conditions_ and _living conditions_? I often use the former. "The life conditions of the Victorian workers", for example.


Any single word synonym for "fawn over"?

I have been looking for single word that can be used in place of "fawn over"


Difference between "mastery", "proficiency" and "familiarity"

What is the difference between _mastery_ , _proficiency_ and _familiarity_? I know they all refer to the level of understanding or skill in something. I've seen the words in these contexts: > mastery: in WOW, a mage has arcane mastery, fire mastery or frost mastery > > proficiency: the proficiency of English / Spanish / French > > familiarity: have a basic familiarity of the newest computer techniques


Difference between "persistence" and "perseverance"

_Persistence_ and _perseverance_ seem to have very similar definitions. Googling shows > persistence: Firm or obstinate continuance in a course of action in spite of > difficulty or opposition. > > perseverance: Steadfastness in doing something despite difficulty or delay > in achieving success. What is the difference between them?


"Background of" or "background for"

I'm writing a paper about the interpretation of a treaty and I want to include a chapter on the historical background to explain why a certain article must be interpreted a certain way. In this context should I say _the historical background **for** Treaty X_, _the historical background **of** Treaty X_ or use a different preposition entirely? I checked both phrases on google and each had several million hits. _Background of_ had more, but if the sense changes somewhat with the choice of preposition then that doesn't necessarily mean anything.


Do readers think of the word "ejaculate" beyond its common sexual meaning?

I am an editor, and a poet whom I work with has included the expression "I ejaculated little prayers" in one of his stanzas, which we all know has the dictionary meaning of "intensely calling out." Since the spiritual act of praying is completely at odds with the sexual act, I know the poet would be absolutely horrified should the reading public immediately think only or primarily of ejaculate's sexual meaning. My question is will people in general only think of the sexual connotation? Thank you!


Which sentence is correct/ more appropriate from the two?

Which of the two usages is correct? Do both of them imply the same meaning? 1."Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." 2."Greed is, for lack of a better word, good." I perceive a subtle difference between the meanings they imply, but I would like to be sure.


What website will give me the frequency of a word in the English language?

Is there a website that will give me a frequency of a word in the English language? I am looking for some thing like this: I would type in the word, and it would give me a frequency rating. I have seen one before that had something like 80,000 words, but I just can't seem to find it anymore. Update: I think the problem with these frequency lists is that they are not accurate enough, because some words are also used as Proper Nouns, and that skews the numbers. For example, the word "bracken" is rarely used in its original meaning "fern", but it is frequently used as a last name. If you take that into consideration, then you can see a more accurate number.


Meaning of  "envy of his brethren"

I have googled for the definition of the expression _envy of his brethren_ , but didn't get more than references to the Bible. What does this expression mean?


Past participle of "spit"

Which is the past participle of _spit_ : _spat_ or _spit_? And how many examples can we come up with where a verb is changed in the simple past but unchanged(spelt like in the present) in the past participle?


Qualification title for French "diplôme d'ingénieur"

My Google-fu has maybe failed me, but I couldn't find an authoritative source about the correct English qualification title for a French _diplôme d'ingénieur_. Some sources say the title is M.Sc., others MEng., so I'm not sure which one suits it best.


Co-Founder, Co-founder, or cofounder?

I've seen all three used and there doesn't seem to be a definitive one that I can find. I'm hedging towards Co-Founder as it's a title, but any clarity would be appreciated. **Edit** If it makes it any clearer, the intended use would be for business cards; so something like: > Name Surname   >  Co-Founder Some Company


Concentrated into, or condensed into?

> This is a book concentrated into one chapter. It is very dense. I heard it from a Cambridge professor. He was praising a chapter well written about an ancient philosopher by a famous scholar, which was collected in a book editted by himself. But I think a book which is concentrated into one chapter is still a complete book. It is simply written in an extremely dense style. Maybe the professor shoulds say "a book condensed into one chapter". Because a book which has been condensed into one chapter is just a book which originally had more than one chapter and has been reduced to its essentials and stuffed into one chapter.


"Medium" specifically applied to width, corresponding with narrow or wide

Is there a word that means "medium", specifically applying to the width of something? I'm looking something that corresponds with "narrow" or "wide", but not communicating either of those extremes. For example, you could say in a sentence: "This bridge is narrow" "This bridge is [what?]" "This bridge is wide"


The sound made when eating

I have a few people around me that are really loud eaters. I'm not telling them to be quiet while eating, of course - these aren't my children, but I digress. What the the word for the sounds made when eating?


"Rotate image" vs. "spin image"

I need to title an application button that moves an image 90 degrees clockwise/anticlockwise. Which of the following fits better? >   * Spin image >   * Rotate image >


Why is quicksand named so if you get sucked in so slowly?

Why is quicksand called "quick" if it sucks in so slowly?


What data or which data?

I want to ask, what/which data different model combinations are using, so do I have to say:               Which data is used by the model combinations?      or:               What data is used by the model combinations?


Short sentence with adjective and adverb

I think that this is a problem of the usage of adjectives and adverbs (that's why I chose this title): I have a sentence in my presentation, which clarifies that a procedure uses only observations which are known, so I write: > Uses only known observations. or do I have to write: > Only known observations are used. or is the long version necessary: > Uses only observations(,) which are known. (I'm not sure about the comma)


When referring to computer coding, would the correct verb spelling (in British English) be "to program" or "to programme"?

I already know that there are different spellings in British and US English for "programme". Usually, I refer to a computer program with the US spelling as all programming is done in US English, so it only seems appropriate. But what about the verb? Do you program something or do you programme something in British English? Thanks, Jordan


Use of 'ing' after to

"With our commitment to working towards finding alternatives for reducing environmental footprints....." or should it be ".... to work towards..." Got confused. Please guide me which one of these two would be the correct formation.


In my example, can I use As.... to introduce a sentence?

> As proposed by the Amethyst Initiative, to lower the current MLDA is a > difficult topic to discuss. context: the Amethyst Initiative proposed to lower the current minimum legal drinking age (age-21) accompanied with educating young adults to drink responsibly. Should I maybe revise the sentence like... Lowering the current MLDA, as proposed by the Amethyst Initiative, is a difficult topic to discuss.


In "proof of concept" is the concept proved or proofed?

That is, after a successful proof of concept would you say "the concept was proved" or "the concept was successfully proofed". I'm thinking the latter based on the definition of _to proof_ as "to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc." and because _proved_ implies a higher standard (truth); however, _proved_ (or _proven_ ) sounds better and _to prove_ has a similarly applicable alternate definition: "to give demonstration of by action."


What is the plural of interrogative words (what, who, where, when, how, why, etc.)

If interrogative words are used as nouns, how are they pluralized? **Example:** This will answer your _hows_ and _whys_. What is the correct form?   * whys (the same as most English words?)   * why's (following the rationale of pluralized acronyms?)   * why (they cannot be pluralized?)


Verbs that describe craftsmanship activities?

I'm looking for words like to polish, to shape, to mould, to forge, to chisel etc that could also be used in the context of pedagogy. Thanks.


What's the difference between "ghastly" and "hideous"?

How would a native English speaker use _ghastly_ and _hideous_? Is there any difference in context?


Is "in in vitro" acceptable?

Is it ok to use an "in" before " _in vitro_ ", or other Latin-derived phrases that start with "in"? For example, could you say "there's been a lot of advances in _in vitro_ fertilization lately"?


"Since", "until", "from", "to" on invoices or date ranges of a form

Which is the correct form on an invoice, or a general date range in a form, and why?               Monkey dolls                        12 GBP     From 2012-01-03 to 2013-01-02          Monkey dolls                        12 GBP     Since 2012-01-03 until 2013-01-02      Form format (dates can be modified with a datepicker):               Since: 2012-01-03     until: 2013-01-02      `Since`+`until` makes sense and sounds ok to me, yet I know I can be very wrong, at least when it comes to the common usage in the UK and/or US, since English is not my first language. I am interested in both British and American English. Until now I've been using `since`+`until`, yet some articles explicitly say they may not ever be used together, while some people and some other articles get deep into grammar rules which I can't really apply on the context of invoices and forms. Here's a recent article saying `since` and `until` can never be used together (last paragraph): http://englishmatsuri.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/for-since- until-from-and-to/ Edit: _The date range can start in the past or in the future, and can end in the past or in the future. However, at the time of issuing an invoice or rendering a form, you cannot know when the document will be read or how the form will be filled._


What's a good name for different salary types?

In the model I'm creating, we've got four different kinds of salary. I'd like a confirmation on the correct taxonomy of these.   1. The normal amount one gets every month. Should it be called _fix salary_ or _base salary_?   2. The variable amount that depends on how much work one has billed to the customers. Should it be called _prestation salary_ or _provision salary_?   3. The freebies as phone, car, representation etc. Should it be called _benefit salary_ or _extra salary_?   4. The additional amount one gets when working nights, weekends etc. Should it be called _supplement salary_ or _extra salary_? Please, feel free to suggest other terms.


Is "what's left to do is..." grammatically correct? What is a right way to say it?

I'd like to say that I still have some things left to be done. The first thing that comes to mind (probably due to my native tongue, Hebrew): > What is left to do, is to clean up the mess. But it sounds bad, and I'm sure it's incorrect. The following sounds a bit better to me (although I feel it's probably wrong): >   * What's left, is to clean up the mess. >   * What remains to be done, is to clean up the mess. > Are any of the above correct? Is there a better way to say it?


"In undertaking a review" vs. "by undertaking a review"

>   * **In** undertaking a literature review, it became clear that not always > is there coherence between the principles... >   * **By** undertaking a literature review, it became clear that not always > is there coherence between the principles... > Is there any difference between using _by_ and _in_ here? The literature review has already been carried out, if that matters.


How is she to describe how she likes him, when he doesn't know?

There's a friend of mine—let's call her **Lily** —and a guy— **David**. Lily told me that she feels very happy each time she meets, talks, plays games, dines (and so on) with David. I guess she's falling in love. But she is very perplexed these days, because she likes him, but can't be sure — wants to but is afraid to make sure — whether David likes her or not. So she has decided to write something about that emotion, rather than telling David directly (thus prompting him to say "yes, I like you too"). Here is my question — for what perplexes her has also perplexed me: **In what Literary and Artistic way can she describe that emotion?**


Category term for "polite", and "offensive"

I'm trying to complete the following sentence: > It's not specifically polite, but it's not offensive either; it's **__** > agnostic. Is there a common category term for _polite_ , _offensive_ , _rude_ , or _respectful_? I've tried to love _politeness_ , or _courtesy_ , but those don't seem to fit, to me. I agree with many of the comments that _agnostic_ is either a poor word choice, or at least overly restrictive.


Is "bulwarker" an acceptable word?

I'm well aware that _bulwark_ refers to something used as a fortification or a defense. However, I was wondering if the word _bulwarker_ is an acceptable word to use in English. I know it's possible to be a bulwark ("He built a bulwark upon the hill."), and I know you can bulwark something from something else ("I will do whatever I can to bulwark the attack."). However, I'm unsure if it is possible to be a _bulwarker_.


Faulty parallelism?

_It was more an inventive construction than based on serious historical research._ Is it an example of faulty parallelism "construction/based", or is it acceptable if spoken with emphasis on "inventive"?


Is there a 35th edition of "On Writing Well"?

My English teacher recommended Zinsser's "On Writing Well" as a supplement to my reading of E.B. White's "The Elements of Style". While I know that Zinsser's 30th edition exists, I have come across an online apparition of the 35th edition: http://books.google.com/books/about/On_Writing_Well_35th_Anniversary_Edition.html?id=rIG5SgAACAAJ. Does a 35th edition of the book actually exist, or have I met a myth since I cannot find it?


What should I use instead of "prefixed with"?

When I want to report that a function name needs to start with a prefix, I write _the function name must be prefixed with_ ; when I do so, the spelling and grammar checker suggests me to rewrite the phrase using _prefixed to_ , or _prefaced with_.   How should I write the sentence?


What is the origin of the colloquial term "bum" meaning a homeless person?

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering about the history of the term "bum" meaning a homeless person, not the UK version referring to someone's posterior. Bonus: If you know the background on "Hobo" that would be interesting too, and does it have any relation to the town Hoboken, New Jersey?


Where does the period go in an MLA in-text citation?

I've always been confused when citing like: > "The windows misted over from the heat and the smoke inside.” (Hemingway 1) Does the period go inside the quotes (as above)? Or after the citation (as below)? > "The windows misted over from the heat and the smoke inside” (Hemingway 1).


Is there an English idiom for Bengali idiom "সবজান্তা গামছাওয়ালা"(wise towelsman)?

In the Bengali language there is an idiom, _"sobjanta gamchawala"_ (wise towelsman), meaning a man whose occupation is merely to sell towels, but claims to know everything and gives _valuable_ advice on any and every topic. As you can imagine, _wise_ and _valuable_ are used here as sarcasm. In Bengali, the phrase is used to point out a person who always makes a comment on every topic without knowing the context. Is there is an English idiom or phrase for that? I'm not looking for _jack of all trades is a master of none_. A jack of all trades is able to do a lot of things fairly well, but _sobjanta gamchawala_ isn't.


What is the etymology of "So long"?

What's the origin of this strange substitute for farewell? We say it all the time, but I can't figure its meaning.


Word for someone who is ignorant and proud?

Many a times, we tend to meet someone who is ignorant yet arrogant; to the extent that they can go a long way blabbing about something they don't really know with so much vigour. What can you refer to such a person as?


Shall, third person singular, archaic form

The second person of _will_ and _shall_ are _wilt_ and _shalt_ in the archaic form. The third person singular suffix is _-eth_ , so we get _willeth_ but what about _shall_? Thank you for your answers!


end of the e-mail "warm wishes"

I have received an e-mail form a recruiter regarding a conference. > Warm wishes,   >  Jane Doe, Recruiter Isn't it too personal for an e-mail with business connotation?


What does "vipers" mean here?

> Yeah, the cut throats and the pigs. But who wants all that blood spilled, > judge, huh? Isn't there a simpler way of not pissing off the big vipers?” – > Al Swearengen From the show _Deadwood_ What does vipers mean here?


'to check' versus 'to verify'

My interpretation is that sentences like > Check the application output.   >  Verify the application is running. have a slightly different meaning. Are there any differences between "to check", and "to verify"? Are they used in different context, or are they interchangeable?


Where is the root morpheme in Middle English talon (talon, claw) and muscheron (mushroom)?

Is it possible to consider _-on_ , _-eron_ as suffixes (as they are in Middle French)?


What is a "Snail Toss"?

What does _snail toss_ mean in the following sentences? > I'll drop this in the snail toss on the way, all right?   >  I was thinking about some hardcore snail toss later.


"That my results are not reproducible" or "that my results are unreproducible"?

What is better to write? > that my results are not reproducible   >  that my results are unreproducible How can it be re-written as positive affirmation (preserving the same meaning)? Edit:   Do not I remember correctly that it is better to write negative sentence than positive but much more lengthy?   This question is about technical copywriting Update: When I was writing the question, I did not account for the fact that there are 4 "synonyms":   * non-reproducible,    * unreproducible,    * irreproducible,    * not reproducible  Update:   the post with this phrase that provoked this question


Is "Didn't used to have been" a valid structure?

Are the following sentences valid: > It _didn't used to_ happen. > > It _didn't used to have been_ there. And if so, what tenses are they?


When should you use "then" and when "than"?

As far as I know, _then_ is used in a conjunction and in time-related sentences; _than_ in all other cases. I believe that these are correct:   * Because I'm older than she, I should be the first chosen;   * I loved her and then she died;   * If it rains [then] it pours;   * I've had more then enough;   * Would you rather be a mouse then a rat?   * Who, other than you, likes the color red? Or not? Can someone help me out clearing the mud? I think I'm 90% there, but I like to finally understand it completely. If you have other uses of then/than that I missed, please add yours.


Are you well? Happy New Year's Eve!

1. What are more formal ways to say "How are you" with a hint of positive expectation, in the sense that you want the other person to confirm that his/her life is just fine. Does "Are you well?" work?   2. During new year season people greet "Happy New Year" etc. What would you say if you want to wish the other person's celebration of the new year be enjoyable and nice, instead of wishing good things for the entire year that is coming?


How to call certain kinds of tall shoes that women use to wear?

Because their strange features, even in my own language I find it difficult to decide by what name to call the shoes shown in the image below. I'm not looking for a technical term, but for a cute and funny name whose meaning, in the right context, elicits a positeve sense of hilarity. Some terms to which I thought are _stilts_ and * _ballasts_. _Stilts_ and _ballasts_ can function as funny words in my language, thus my question is: In the aforementioned sense, do they function in the English language? Or, perhaps, are there more appropriate or even slang terms? * * * ![](http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4146/5042125419_505eae7ecb_z.jpg)


Can "run-through" be possibly a noun?

Can "run-through" be possibly a noun? Is it possible at all? If yes, can you, please, come up with a sentence that would contain this noun? Can you also, please, describe a situation, in which that sentence would naturally apply? Please note that I don't need those cases, in which "run-through" would act more like a modifier to another word ("He chose a run-through mode for his system", "There is a need in a run-through program", "Another run-through strategy will ruin the whole project", etc.)


Double negation "does not any"

I understand that _any_ has negative connotations, as can be seen in the above link, but I need to say that there are no pages in a book. I've come up with the following sentence: > That book does not have any pages. Is this a correct way to say that there are no pages in that book? It seems to be a double negation, with _does not_ and _any_ , so that would seem to mean that the book _does_ have pages. Should I use a different word to _any_?


Do I use commas before the word "to" in the following sentence:

The JP-8 pipelines included 7.4 miles of parallel 10-inch pipelines from the Navy's transfer pump house manifold to the custody transfer to the Anderson Air Force Base.


When a phrase ends with a period, do you put ... or .. after it?

I was just reading this question: When "etc." is at the end of a phrase, do you place a period after it? And it brought to mind something similar. If a phrase ends with a . (such as e.g. or etc.), and you want to use ..., how many periods should you put? That is, which of these is correct? > something something etc... > > something something etc.... To preempt the objection that ellipses never follow abbreviations, they can when used for aposiopesis in dialogue.


"How does this proof/prove that ..."

> How does this proof that the halting problem is undecidable work? I am essentially asking how something works; in this case "this proof that the halting problem is undecidable." * * * BONUS: Is the following sentence, which is how someone "corrected" me, grammatically correct? > How does this prove that the halting problem is undecidable work?


Is there a single word when the clock hands meet?

I'm not sure if such word exists, but English is not my native language. The word I'm looking for describes the time when the clock hands overlap. In my language there is such a word, it is "cager", so the sentence > It is now _cager_. means > It is now [the time when clock hands are overlapped]. This word is considered slang in my language, and I'm wondering if English has a similar word.


Utilise or Utilize

I am writing in UK English and would like to confirm that we use utilise instead of utilize. I cannot seem to find a answer for this online.


Responsibility, the Gerund, and the Perfect Aspect

In the process of answering this question on ELL, I hit upon something I can't explain. The sentence in question is: > Who is responsible for leaving the window open? I think anyone hearing that sentence would think:   1. A window was opened at some point in the past   2. Someone had an opportunity and/or obligation to close the window   3. That person is at fault and will be held accountable for their negligence once identified I believe the _-ing_ form of “leaving” forms a gerund clause used as the subject, and I came to wonder if it wouldn't be “more correct” (proscriptively, say) to use the perfect aspect: > Who is responsible for **having left** the window open? I'm not sure if it matters, but just to be clear:   1. The speaker is inquiring about a present state of culpability   2. The events in question are entirely in the past (the window is closed) I'm forced to ask this as one question because I don't know which part of it is responsible(!) for shaping how the other parts should be. I am very open to reforming the question if someone with an idea of how to make this more focused and useful suggests a change that is supported by others.


Word for feeding poultry?

Is there a traditional or established word or phrase for the way one scatters food when feeding chickens or other animals that like to scratch, scrape, and search for food? I’m translating a story and need a word/phrase to fill the following the gap: > She fed the little hens, ___ing the corn.


For example: >   1. _No student_ goes to school today. >   2. _No students_ go to school today. > When and why do I have to use singular and plural nouns following "No"?


“best thing since X”

If you were to read some news like “Movie X is the highest-grossing since (earlier) Movie Y” or “Earthquake X is the deadliest since Y” or “Gold prices are highest since the spike in year Y” or similar — does that imply that the new, recent event X _surpasses_ the historical reference event Y, or was Y still bigger/deadlier/higher?


Etymological origin of "deosil" and "widdershins"

I've been hearing the words "deosil" used for clockwise and "widdershins" for anticlockwise, but where do they come from? I'm told that "widdershins" is from a Scottish term meaning "against the way", is this correct? I can't find any evidence of the origin of deosil. Where did it come from? Did it originally mean something else?


Is there an English word for "removing stem from a cilantro" (coriander)

My native language has a word for that process hence I am curious to find out if English has one. I searched for it on the Internet without success. Apart from "removing stem", I found "removing leaves" from cilantro.


Jukebox - I know what a Box is but what exactly is a Juke?

What exactly is a Juke? I only know this word if: 1) it's attached to -box; 2) an athlete confuses his/her opponent with a series of moves. But what is its exact origin? JEP


Is this correct: "Once you'll figure out how this works, you'll love it"

Is this sentence correct? > Once you'll figure out how this works, you'll love it What I am trying to convey is: The person that I am addressing does not understand a certain concept. I want to tell that person that once he/she understands that concept, he/she will love it. I am not sure about the tenses. I am using Future Simple in both parts of the sentence. Is this OK? Should I use Present Simple in the first part: > Once you figure out how this works, you'll love it Which one is correct? (Or at least better)


word to describe one's ability to speak truthfully in a given situation

I'm looking for a word that has the specific connotation/denotation about the speaker's ability to speak truthfully based on their knowledge of the subject that they are speaking about. For example: > I cannot speak with **_** about your legal problem, because I am not an > attorney. I'd like the word to render the phrase after the comma redundant.


Is there a technical term for when verbs in a sentence appear as if they have been swapped around?

Is there a technical term for when verbs in a sentence appear as if they have been swapped around as in the example here? > 'her fingers creased in gold [and] her body ringed in folds' In this line, the poet appears to have swapped transitive verbs so that a hall of mirrors is created; the _gold_ refers to the _rings_ , the _creases_ to the _folds_ , the _rings_ to the _fingers_ , and the _creases_ to the _body_. I know what the poet is doing, but I have searched online for the technical term for swapping transitive verbs from their expected contexts and am unable to find any.


Difference between 'Redundant' and 'Superfluous'

(I made a search for this question on this forum but surprisingly did not find related questions. Which is odd because surely this question is asked often.) First, the sentence I'm trying to use redundant/superfluous in: > From what I know, fiction is created from fantasy by people you call > authors. At the risk of sounding discourteous let me say that I do not trust > fantasies. Life is not a fabrication played out on stage. This is why I feel > people who write fiction are redundant. I myself never speak of things I > have not experienced firsthand. I was told that 'superfluous' would be a better word choice in place of 'redundant' because using 'redundant' would suggest that the speaker is scornful of only those 'authors' who are 'extra' when he is scornful of 'all' authors. But using 'superfluous' here sounds simply odd to me. OED gives the definitions of the two words as: > **redundant** (adjective) - not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous: > an appropriate use for a redundant church many of the old skills had become > redundant > > **superfluous** (adjective) - unnecessary, especially through being more > than enough: the purchaser should avoid asking for superfluous information This site explains them as: > **Superfluous** (from Latin, and literally meaning “overflowing” — the > second part of the compound is related to fluid) means “extra, more than is > necessary.” > > **Redundant** has the same literal meaning as superfluous — the second part > of the compound is related to wave — and the identical basic connotation, > though it also has the senses of repetition, abundance, or extravagance, or > duplication as a safety measure. The more I try to dig into the meanings and connotations of these words the more I'm left confused. Any inputs on this?


Is the expression, “Who do you trust (speak / teach / give / vote / fire ...)?” predominantly used today?

The popular TV game show, “Who Do You Trust?”, aired from 1957 to 1963. I learnt this from the New York Times’ (March 29) article written by Dick Cavett under the title “Tonight, Tonight, Its World Is Full of Blight.” http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/tonight-tonight-its-world-is- full-of-blight/?hp > “When Jack departed the show for good in 1962 it was predicted that > “Tonight” would die on the vine. Who could replace that sentimental, > explosive, compellingly neurotic master of late-night? And where would you > even begin to look for such a one? The answer came. The boyishly nice- > looking guy from Nebraska, collegiate and witty, who killed ’em out of the > public eye at Friars’ roasts and trade lunches while hosting _the > ungrammatically named game show_ “ **Who Do You Trust**?” (TV’s earliest > dumbing down?) Though it comes with the author’s proviso (‘TV’s earliest dumbing down’), is the expression “Who do you trust (speak to/teach/scold/fire/vote for, and any transitive verbs)?” predominantly used today? At middle school a long, long time ago, we were taught we should use the objective case for an interrogative followed by a transitive verb. If an English teacher corrected my writing “Who did you teach?” to “Whom did you teach?”, can I counter him by saying this usage is common among Anglophones?


Usage of hain't

According to Dictionary.com, ain't has two meanings: >   1. _Nonstandard except in some dialects._ am not; are not; is not. >   2. _Nonstandard._ have not; has not; do not; does not; did not. > When I lived in the southern part of the US, I also heard hain't with some frequency as well. Dictionary.com has this definition: > _Nonstandard Older Use._ ain't; have not; has not. From this, it seems like _hain't_ and _ain't_ are possibly interchangeable, but because _hain't_ includes specifically _have not_ and _has not_ in this definition, I wonder if the usage of _hain't_ is restricted to these senses of _ain't_. If that's the case, then I would expect that > I hain't ever satisfied.* would sound wrong in these dialects, but > I hain't ever been satisfied. would be the correct expression. Can anyone confirm that this is the case? Also, are _hain't_ and _ain't_ used in the same dialects, or is _hain't_ 's usage more regionally restricted than _ain't_?


What sentence parts needs to be repeated here?

What of the following is right? "We need to find out..."   * "...how to lower the costs or _how to_ produce more."   * "...how to lower the costs or _to_ produce more."   * "...how to lower the costs or produce more."


Why are I and O always capitalized, but a is not?

There are three single-letter words. They are the article _a_ , the pronoun _I_ , and the interjection _O_. The pronoun _I_ and the interjection _O_ are always capitalized, but the article _a_ follows normal capitalization rules. Why is this the case? When and where did this originate? **Edit:** As described in the answers to Question 7988, the pronoun _I_ was first used in the 13th century, to avoid confusion with the dotless _j_ , and was retained as a typographic convention because _i_ "gets lost" due to its small size. However, this does not explain why _O_ is always capitalized, but _a_ is not, since _a_ and _o_ are approximately the same size.


What do you call the person who performs an action?

What do you call the person who does the verb? For instance, in the sentence > John killed Frank what is the grammatical term for _John_? I don't know if "agent" is the right word?


What number bus is that? or What bus number is that?

Imagine you are at the bus stop. You see a bus coming, but you can't read the number, so you ask: "What number bus is that?" However, usually the noun used as a determiner precedes the main noun, for example: _house number, ticket number, seat number, phone number_ , etc. So why, in this case, don't you say "what bus number is that?" By the way, my English teacher told me the right way to say this is, "What number bus is that?"


Rephrasing "patient with suspected cancer"

Is it possible to form a sentence like > A patient who is suspected _for/with/??_ cancer and if so, what is the correct preposition after suspect?


What do you call a student who always need to volunteer an answer to show off how smart they are?

I friend of mine, when teachers address questions to the whole class, always need to volunteer an answer to show off how smart they are. Therefore, I'm looking for a term which define that my friend. A bit of googling come up with 'suck', but Merriam-Webster doesn't have an entry which matches that description, being the best 'to act in an obsequious manner'. So, what do you call a person like that student?


What does 'under subsection' mean in the following clause?

> 40\. (4) The Secretary of State may not make an order _under subsection_ (2) > if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless. What does _under subsection_ mean in this context?


Term for 'Short frame of time'

I have sent a document for review by a peer, and I know he has a very short time in which to complete the review. What is the formal way of telling him that I am sending the document at the last minute?


"For dragons are fire made flesh, and fire is power."

This quote is from "A Clash of Kings: A Song of Ice and Fire: Book Two" _By George R.R. Martin_. This is the full quote: > "They shall come day and night to see the wonder that has been born again > into the world, and when they see they shall lust. For dragons are fire made > flesh, and fire is power." Is this separating a full sentence into two? What kind of usage is this? Was it supposed to be like this: > "They shall come day and night to see the wonder that has been born again > into the world, and when they see they shall lust for dragons that are fire > made flesh, and fire is power."    * * *    Additionaly: Is there an **inversion** here? If yes, what kind of inversion technique is this? Also, "fire made flesh" is a phrase made with past participle deverbal adjective. Hence, Can we say: > Dragons are fire made flesh. or/and > Dragons have fire made flesh. Then, we go back to the beginning again, why is "for" there? Was it supposed to be part of the previous sentence? Are these structures only used by authors? Do you have any other examples like this?


"cleared from" vs "cleared up from" vs "cleared away from"

I always have problem deciding which one to use. Example: > After understanding that, the darkness finally [...] from my eyes. Should I use _cleared from_ , _cleared up from_ , or _cleared away from_?


Difference between wreath, garland, and laurel

Dictionary definitions: > **wreath** an arrangement of flowers, leaves, or stems fastened in a ring > and used for decoration or for laying on a grave. > > **garland** a wreath of flowers and leaves, worn on the head or hung as a > decoration. > > **laurel** the foliage of the bay tree woven into a wreath or crown and worn > on the head as an emblem of victory or mark of honor in classical times. The definitions sound very similar to me. When is it appropriate to use each word (and when is it not)?


Preposition used with the verb convert

Which preposition is used with convert: to or into? For example, convert the requisition into (or to) a PO.


When using ellipsis to omit list items, is a comma required after the last item before the ellipsis or not?

Which, if any, format do you consider preferable? "10, 11, 12, ... 19, 20." "Violet, Indigo, ... Orange, Red." -OR- "10, 11, 12 ... 19, 20." "Violet, Indigo ... Orange, Red."


What's a word/phrase for a player/seducer?

I can't seem to remember this particular word/phrase. I'm almost certain it's a two-word phrase. It specifically refers to someone who is skilled with the ladies, ie, someone who knows the tricks of the trade. Usage:   \- "Unless you're a X-Y, that's not going to work with her." Edit : I'm not looking for 'ladies man', 'casanova', 'womanizer' etc. This phrase refers to someone who's more of a pro and one who is serious about his business.


What's the origin of the idiom "miss the boat"?

What is the origin of the idiom _miss the boat_? This is the definition of the idiom from Dictionary.com: > a. to fail to take advantage of an opportunity: _He missed the boat when he > applied too late to get into college._ > > b. to miss the point of; fail to understand: _I missed the boat on that > explanation._


What is more appropriate to say “pay especial attention to” or “pay special attention to”

Merriam Webster > Special > > 1 : distinguished by some unusual quality especially : being in some way > superior 2 : held in particular esteem 3 a : readily distinguishable from > others of the same category : UNIQUE b : of, relating to, or constituting a > species : SPECIFIC 4 : being other than the usual : ADDITIONAL, EXTRA 5 : > designed for a particular purpose or occasion and > Especial > > being distinctive: as a : directed toward a particular individual, group, or > end b : of special note or importance : unusually great or significant c : > highly distinctive or personal : PECULIAR d : CLOSE, INTIMATE e : SPECIFIC, > PARTICULAR Online Etymology Dictionary > especial (adj.) > > late 14c., from Old French especial "pre-eminent, important," from Latin > specialis "belonging to a particular kind or species," from species "kind" > (see species). Latin words with initial sp-, st-, sc- usually acquired an e- > when borrowed by Old French. Modern French has restored the word to spécial. > Originally with the same sense as special, later restricted to feelings, > qualities, etc. I gather from these definitions, the proper adjective to use is “especial”- to pay **especial** attention to. But I hardly encounter this use in common usage. Any insight would be highly appreciated.


Meaning of 'up/down' after a verb

There are lots of instances of using 'up' or 'down' after verbs.   _Instances: eat up, drink up, meet up, finish up, start up, fill up, clean up, wipe up, tie up, etc._ What do they add as meaning to a verb exactly?


Error in "Better call Saul" phrase

Is it correct to say "Better call Saul!"? Or do I need to say "It's better call Saul!"? Or even "It's better to call Saul!"? I guess the third one is the correct one. Obs.: "Better call Saul" is from the "Breaking Bad" crime drama of AMC.


What special implication does ‘totally’ have in “He’s totally going to call you”?

There was the following sentence in an article titled, “Like, Degrading the Language? No Way” in New York Times (April 5), in which the author says Americans are moving backward on language: > “(Like the use of ‘like’) the use of “totally” mines the same vein. “He’s > **totally** going to call you” does not mean “He is going to call you in a > total fashion.” It has a more specific meaning, although only handled > subconsciously by speakers, as so much of language is. “He’s totally going > to call you” contains an implication: that someone has said otherwise or > that the chances of it may seem slim at first glance but in fact aren’t. As > with “like,” “totally” tracks and nods to the opinions of others. It’s > totally civilized.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/like- > degrading-the-language-no-way.html?hp&rref=opinion Although the author explains “totally going to call you” contains an implication of someone having said otherwise, I’m not still clear with the meaning of “He’s **totally** going to call you.” What does it mean? He’s totally going to call you “what”? How does “He’s **totally** going to call you.” differ from “He’s going to call you.”? Is this expression (use of totally) ubiquitous today as the author asserts?


Can't we tell which is which by sound (effect, affect)?

> “We’ve adjusted for lots of other things that we know **effect** children’s > development and IQ.” LOE has the “effect” in its transcript above. But the audio from the same page has the sound of /əˈfɛkt/ (2:22~2:28). Then is this the schwa pronunciation of /ɪˈfɛkt/ ? If yes, can’t we tell which word is which just by sound?


Is it "dent" or "dint"?

It seems both _dent_ and _dint_ can mean an impression or hollow in a surface. Is there a reason for the two spellings? Do they have different connotations?


Problems with usages of "of"

I do not understand some _of_ usages. >   * It's more of a sanity check than anything. > >   * even more of a hack > >   * I'd argue that a course in algorithm design would be of more utility in > understanding how most efficient inference schemes boil down. > > Why should we use _of_ the above examples? Especially, the last one is the most complex example for me. If I remove _of_ from the first sentence, the sentence will be awkward, I feel it, but for the last one, I am totally speechless. By the way, Is it legitimate to say:   * It's more _like_ a sanity check than anything?


What exactly is an idiom?

A recent question on the phrase "take my word for it" sparked a tangential discussion about calling it an idiom. I disagreed with the word since "take my word for it" is not figurative. Wikipedia summed up my idea of an idiom: > An **idiom** [...] is a combination of words that have a figurative meaning > owing to its common usage. An idiom's figurative meaning is separate from > the literal meaning. Dictionary.com went a bit further, allowing an idiom to consist of a set phrase featuring grammatical abnormality rather than metaphor, but this only muddies things more: > an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of > its constituent elements, as _kick the bucket_ or _hang one's head_ , or > from the general grammatical rules of a language, as _the table round_ for > _the round table_ , and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of > like characteristics. And finally, another commenter said the OED (which I do not have) has the following definition: > Idiom: 3a ...a peculiarity of phraseology approved by the usage of a > language, and **often** having a significance other than its grammatical or > logical one [OED/Supplement; bolding his] And further he showed that Cambridge Dictionaries Online calls "take my word for it" an idiom. I suggested that this is possibly a clash between technical and colloquial usages of the term _idiom_ , but if possible I would like an authoritative definition. Perhaps there are two distinct usages of _idiom_ , or perhaps there is nothing authoritative - I'd just like to know.


What is the term when a phrase means just the opposite of what it used to mean?

'At glacial speed' used to mean something that went very slowly, but with global warming, the glaciers are retreating at a much greater and increasingly faster rate. What is the term that describes this change in phrase usage?


Dust vs. Undust?

The entry for " _dust_ " from LDOCE says: > **dust 1 (n.)** > >   1. [uncountable] `→ HOUSEHOLD` dry powder consisting of extremely small > bits of dirt that is in buildings on furniture, floors, etc. if they are not > kept clean: > > _All the furniture was covered in dust._ > >   2. [uncountable] `→ HOUSEHOLD` ... > >   3. [uncountable] `→ INDUSTRY`, `HARD SCIENCE` ... > >   4. a dust (BrE) `→ CLEANING` the act of dusting something: > > _I need to give the sitting room a dust._ > >   5. ... > > > > * * * > > **dust 2 (v.)** > >   1. `→ CLEANING` to clean the dust from a surface by moving something such > as a soft cloth across it: > > _Rachel dusted the books and the bookshelves._ > >   2. ... >   3. ... > Now, the entry for " _undust_ " from Wiktionary says: > **undust (v.)** > >   1. (obsolete) To free from dust. > I do notice the entry being marked as "obsolete" for _undust_ , and also I remember my English classes as a child where we had a rectangular cubic sponge called " _duster_ " that we used to **dust/undust** the chalk on the blackboard, however everytime I'm cleaning my desk, computer, furniture, etc. I'll automatically think of " **undusting** " and then will force myself undo, say " **dusting** " instead, just to convince myself that the latter is the grammatical one; however I can't see the logic behind this verb and its usage based on general English grammar. Google Ngrams also shows up some results (even if not many) for _undust_ : ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/4xHNz.png) Is _undust_ incorrect? Did it exist as a correct verb years ago, and can I still use it? I feel paranoid to say: " _I'm dusting my keyboard!_ " because it makes me feel that it has the opposite meaning, as if I'm spreading dust and particles on my keyboard, especially that these chores aren't all that commonly spoken with nowadays's lifestyle, and stating the former sentence might sound a bit odd. P.S. Note that " ** _dust something off_** " is slightly different in usage e.g. " _They were dusting off leaves and twigs._ ", and based on my understanding from the definitions in dictionaries, saying " ~~I'm dusting my keyboard off.~~ " isn't correct.


"Has anyone run into the same problem" or "Does anyone run into the same problem"

What is the difference between "has anyone run into the same problem?" and "does anyone run into the same problem?" in a situation like: > After midnight when I installed this new app on my system, the system > stopped working. The screen went black. **Does anyone run into the same > problem?** Or **Has anyone run into the same problem?**


What is the difference between "affect" and "influence"?

For example, if I want to say "the performance of this bike could be affected/influenced by many things", is there a difference between these two words? My gut feeling is that "affect" sounds better, but I cannot find evidence in dictionaries.


Is "A Moveable Feast" more than home catering?

I read Hemingway's _A Moveable Feast_ before I knew the term describing moveable feast days on the calender. Comparing Hemingway's famous quote about Paris: > "If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then > wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris is a > moveable feast." with what happens in the liturgical calender, I can't see what he's talking about. So, a feast date is chosen because of where it falls in relation to some other annually changing dates; thus it "moves" every year. How is Paris like one of these feast dates, in the way Hemingway describes it? I understand him to mean that you may leave Paris, but Paris never leaves you. But that doesn't mean it stays the same. You don't stay the same. And other places stay with you too. Easter stays the same--same celebration for the same reason, no matter what you do. Phrase finder traces its figurative usage back to 1882, before Hemingway, to a newspaper from Bismarck, North Dakota: > The most sublime creation of modern times is the ideal woman of the average > man. She is a migratory bird, a sort of movable feast as it were. But that doesn't have much bearing on holidays that occur on different days from year to year either. The ideal woman is different for every man, and this quote makes her sound fleeting, out of reach. True, the piece hedges with "as it were", but it seems that they are using the expression somewhat idiomatically--the "as it were" suggests that. From 2000, a book called _Spirituality, Healing and Medicine: Return to Silence_ states: > "Indeed, maybe the reason that we fail to categorize health is just that we > do not wish to locate it, it is a moveable feast." This idiomatic usage of the term suggests that health is hard to codify or pin down, which, again, doesn't relate with a religious holiday that is classifiable, though it moves. A radio broadcaster was talking about a Christmas party here in Barcelona that would be at the beach this year. It was on a hotel roof last year. He called it "a moveable feast". He's right; it is a moveable feast, but not by any relationship to the _idiomatic_ use of the term. I'm italicizing idiomatic because, I can't grasp the sense of the idiom, though it exists. In fact, the free dictionary defines it and then discounts its figurative usage. >   1. Lit. a religious holiday that is on a different date from year to year. > Easter is the best known movable feast. >   2. Fig. a meal that is served in motion or with different portions of the > meal served at different locations. (Jocular or a complete misunderstanding > of {1} but in wide use.) We enjoyed a real movable feast on the train from > Washington to Miami. > This definition seems to be the least like the other usages, but googling "a moveable feast catering" shows that people around the anglophone world are jocularly using the term this way. My question isn't to do with understanding Hemingway's use of the expression, but what the expression "A Moveable Feast" means at all. Is it right to call it an _expression_ or _phrase_ or _idiom_? Or did Hemingway just hoodwink us into using some clever bit of liturgical jargon whenever we wanted to say something is constantly changing? If not, if it describes something, what does it describe?


What does the word “practical ” mean in “Old Possum's book of practical cats”？

There is a T.S. Eliot title, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats. As the Wiki entry says: > _Old Possum's Book of Practical_ Cats is a collection of whimsical poems by > T. S. Eliot about feline psychology and sociology, published by Faber and > Faber. It is the basis for the musical _Cats_.


Does the word "indefatigable" have positive or negative connotation?

Example usage: > Terence, you have indefatigable enthusiasm. The effect it has on people is > inspiring. In the sense of exuberance, but you feel positively about it.


Is "Thank god", as opposed to "Thank God", acceptable?

People are quite stingy lately about anything with religious connotations, so I'm worried that the phrase "thank God" might tick some people off. Is "thank god" acceptable? Would that offend people of monotheistic faiths? Or would "thank God" be acceptable to atheists/polytheists too?


"To do this or do that" or "to do this or *to* do that"?

I saw on the bottom of an email: > To change your email preferences or unsubscribe from certain messages, click > here. Is that correct or should it be: > To change your email preferences or _to_ unsubscribe from certain messages, > click here.


What does “There’s nothing bulldog about Britain” mean?

I came across the phrase “ _There’s nothing bulldog about Britain_ hovering somewhere in the mid-Atlantic,” in the following sentence of New York Times (December 12) article, titled “The British Euro Farce” commenting on British PM Cameron’s veto of Europe-bolstering treaty change: > “After uncertain mumblings, the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, managed > to reach beyond this theater to something approaching strategic reflection. > Declaring himself “bitterly disappointed” at Cameron’s decision, he said: “ > _There’s nothing bulldog about Britain hovering somewhere_ in the mid- > Atlantic, not standing tall in Europe, not being taken seriously in > Washington.” From the preceding line of the article: > “Since Cameron’s “No,” there’s been much chatter about the return of > Britain’s “bulldog spirit.” Self-delusion is a lingering attribute of former > imperial nations adjusting to a lesser reality,” I can interpret “bulldog” as “British-ness i.e., British persistence” or “going UK’s own way,” but I’m not sure. What does “There’s nothing bulldog about Britain doing something” mean? Is the expression, 'nothing bulldog about Britain doing' grammatically right? Is this expression (animal name / country name combination) exclusive to Britain related description? Can I extend this analogy to “There’s nothing shepherd (bear, Uncle Sam) about German (Russia, America) behaving ..,”?


What is the proper pronunciation of "kitten?"

The American Heritage Dictionary says 'KIT-n' but speakers in my locale (west coast US) say 'Ki with short i, glottal stop, n.' There is no 't' sound. Do we speak slang, a dialect, or are we pronouncing it correctly? The only reference I found here was from last May: "Intervocalic /t/ almost always reduces to a single flap [ɾ] there. That’s why ladder and latter are homophonic, although kitten and kiddin’ are not. Indeed, kitten may become just [ˈkʰɪʔn̩] (sometimes written [ˈkʰɪʔən]) , often enough." I don't understand IPA code. Thank you!


Meaning and Correctness of "to have masses said for someone's soul"

What is the meaning of "to have masses said for someone's soul"? I failed to find it in my dictionary. And grammatically, is it correct to say, "to have masses (which are) said for someone's soul"?


Aren’t there English equivalents to Japanese word, Senpai (先輩) meaning a senior in school, career, or age?

In Japan, we call a person who is a senior in school, office, and social activity even a-year-ahead arriver “Senpai.” We address quite casually and lightly to a senior who entered school and office even a year ahead “Senpai!” in school, office, club and even on street. The opposite of Senpai is ‘Kohai (後輩)’ literally meaning ‘late-coming (born) guy,’ but it is rare that the Senpai calls junior(s) ‘Kohai’ to his/her/their face(s). When we call somebody 'Senpai,' we don’t need to prefix Mr. / Ms, or even add the surname. Though 'Senpai' can serve as a mentor to juniors and freshmen(women) in school, on sports, on profession in many cases, the nuance of the word would be just "Hey, my elder peer!" I understand Chinese have the same word / characters (先輩) besides "xiansheng (先生)" = Mr., literally meaning 'earlier- born'. As I looked for the English counterpart of this word in Kenkyusha’s Readers Japanese -English Dictionary, it provided the following explanation: > Senpai – One’s senior. There is no English counterpart to this word because > the relationship between senior and junior is not regarded as so important > in English speaking countries. It would be more natural to say “He entered > the company (university) five years before me,” if you wish to say “He is my > Senpai.” in English. However, this explanation doesn’t address what to call / address to Senpai as a courtesy title or addressing word in school, office, and business, social, cultural circles. Is it true that there is no equivalent or alternative to “Senpai” as addressing word in English? If there are, how do you call?


Caesar and caesura

Caesar and caesura are two similar-sounding Latin words which have made their way into English unsullied in terms of their orthography. The same can however not be said of their pronunciations. The original Latin pronunciations of `/kaisar/` and `/kaisuːra/` have evolved into `/siːzər/` and `/sizjʊrə/` respectively. Why/how did this come to pass? Furthermore, why does _Caesar_ have the long `/si:/` while _caesura_ doesn't?