’He was off’ vs. ‘He started’ (in terms of their effect in story telling)

I’m feeling something more energetic from ‘off’ than from ‘start’ because of its shortness and pronunciation, but I don’t know for sure what effect ‘be off’ has in story telling. Is it exactly same as ‘start’? Just look at the following citation. > ”What’s your Quidditch team?” Ron asked. > > ”Er -- don’t know any,” Harry confessed. > > ”What!” Ron looked dumbfounded. “Oh, you wait, it’s the best game in the > world –“ And **he was off** , explaining all about the four balls and the > positions of the seven players, describing famous games he’d been to with > his brothers and the broomstick he’d like to get if he had the money. ( > _Harry Potter 1_ [US Version]: p.107-108) [Bold font is mine] _I_ guess the author chose ‘off’ because Ron entered a new phase of his explanation, and that positively and more eagerly. I’m feeling (or maybe imagining) such energy agrees with _off_. Anyway, here are my questions. **1\. Which would you like to use in the following fill-in-the-blank question, ‘off’ or ‘start’? And why would you choose it?** > “Oh, you wait, it’s the best game in the world –“ And he (???) , explaining > …, describing …. **2\. If ‘And he was off, doing, doing’ is a common expression, would you give me some examples?** (I did tried google search, but I couldn’t do it due to my poor searching skill.) I might be saying irrelevant things, but nothing venture nothing learn! I’d be glad if you could help me.


Word for "something used to bother or annoy someone by others"

I am looking for a word for something used to bother or annoy someone by others from time to time, like a threat by threatening to make known the secret which someone has shared with others.


How to say "almost exactly 1 hour"?

In my impression, there is one word means the time is almost exactly, like "almost exactly 1 hour". It is less precise than exactly. (Is "punctually one hour" a right term?) But more accurate than about 1 hour. (How to say "about one hour"? 1-hour- ish?)


A better way to express this sentence to clarify its meaning?

I apologize if this is a broad question. My friend and I have been arguing about the following sentence for 2 hours. I think that there is something missing in the following sentence. Though, I am not a native English speaker, the sentence doesn't sound good to me. Are there any tips or guidelines to know whether a sentence is meaningful or not? Or is this is just based on personal English knowledge and intuition? I agree that there are English Grammar rules for writing correct sentences, but I am also looking for clarity in the sentence. Moreover, I think that there should be a better word instead of `describes`. Could someone resolve this, please? It would be great if you pointout any grammatical mistakes in the sentence. > In this article, he describes how a choice made by three computer science > legends 30 years ago produced dangerous consequences and in the worse it > took 15 years for getting a realization about this.


Should “improve at the following fronts” be followed by problems or solutions?

I am writing a technology report. It starts with an analysis of the current problems in the system. As a summary I have a paragraph to list all the problems in bullets. I use this sentence to start the summary: > We can improve the system at the following fronts. After this sentence is a list of problems. My colleague edited the report and changed the tone of the bullet list from problems to solutions. For example, he changed > The tightly coupled sub-systems are hard to adapt change. to > Reduce the tight coupling between sub-systems. This makes me wonder what the natural interpretation of > We can improve the system at the following fronts. actually is. To me, _at the following fronts_ indicates that what follows is the stuff to be improved upon, and so it should be a list of problems. But to my colleague, what follows should be the list of improvement actions. What do you think?


"The one who wants" vs. "the one who want"

I am getting confused with usage of 's' with verb- consider following 2 sentences- >   1. I am the one who **wants** to stay with you. >   2. I am the one who **want** to stay with you. > According to me, first one is the correct usage, because, "the one who" is third person, and hence, the verb will get an 's'. Would like to know what is the rule to be followed in such cases.


"Who is one to believe" or "which one to believe"

Do you think this edit was necessary? _So, who is one to believe?_ (as in " _So, who am i to believe?_ ") into _So, which one to believe?_ Specially considering that the following question in the original text was also specified in a similar manner: _And how is one to back that decision up?_ Reference


"Barrier will open" vs. "barrier will be opened"

To me "barrier will open" sounds more correct. I am not 100% sure if "barrier will be opened" is acceptable. What do you think?


How common is the short "be" in American English

A friend prompted me to look up the pronunciations of the homophones "be" (IPA: /bi/, /biː/) and "bee" (IPA: /biː/). We found that there are two ways to say "be" -- one is short and the other (the strong form) is long (see this OALD link). Having lived in North America for almost a decade now, it seems to me that the long form is rare in North American usage, but that might just be me. My questions are:   1. Am I wrong?    2. If the short form is common in standard American usage, when would you it and when would you use the long form? **EDIT:** Examples: Long form:   1. **Edit:** ~~I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was.~~   2. "You'd better be there!". Short form (at least in British English): 1\. "I'll be there in a minute" when the speaker isn't trying to emphasize anything


"stress" vs. "distress"

From Cambridge dictionary, >   * stress - great worry caused by a difficult situation. >   * distress - extreme worry, sadness, pain. > I'm not sure if the words 'distress' and 'stress' have the same meaning but I have seen people use them interchangeably in some situations. I have also looked into Oxford Thesaurus dictionary there appears to be no relation between them. So, I'm just confused if both mean the same thing and can be used in place of another word?


"I was" versus "Was I" in a question

Which one is correct? > I was the person she'd always been waiting for? or > Was I the person she'd always been waiting for? I'm not sure why, but both seem weird to me, unlike: > Am I the person she'd always been waiting for?


Word for unverified confidence without ambition

I'm looking for a word or phrase to describe the condition of someone who is fairly certain he could do `_______` if he were to set his mind to it, but who has absolutely no intention of ever doing so. It's a sort of confidence that feeds on inexperience, which you get a lot of, for example, in the viewers of popular sporting events. Possibly related to the Dunning–Kruger effect


What does "a woman of mean understanding" mean?

In the end of the first chapter of Jane Austin's _Pride and Prejudice_ , Mrs. Bennet is described as a "woman of mean understanding". On the Web, I found two meanings:   1. of little knowledge   2. bad temper Can someone clarify the meaning of "mean understanding" in my context?


"Personified" in an OED definition

While writing an answer to this question, I looked up the word _ennui_ in the full version of the _Oxford English Dictionary_. (I'd give you a link, but I access the _OED_ through my local library's proxy service, so it wouldn't work for you; if you have access, go to oed.com and search for "ennui" as a noun). Three senses are given. The first and third senses are normal dictionary definitions with the customary example sentences, but the second, in its entirety, is: > **b.** Personified. What does this mean? I'm not asking about the word _per se_ —yes, I know what personification is—I'm wondering why the word appears alone here, without elaboration or examples or a clue as to how it pertains to the rest of the entry. A possible clue: Sense **c** ("A cause of ennui") is accompanied by four example sentences, the first two of which contain personifications of ennui: > 1790 C. M. Graham _Lett. Educ._ 290 It would entirely subdue the dæmon > Ennui. > > 1812 H. Smith & J. Smith _Rejected Addr._ 11 The fiend Ennui awhile consents > to pine. Have these two examples simply been attributed to the wrong sense, or is something else going on here? Does anyone have access to the print version to check?


Is there an adjective for "cannot be defended against"?

The adjective _indefensible_ is commonly used to describe something that cannot be defended, but it applies to the defender, not to the attack itself. I'm wondering if there's a reasonably neutral word for "cannot be defended against". Something in the same spirit as _foolproof_ , but less general and without the connotation of being proofed against fools. For example, > _I believe it to be bad policy for a game to have an [adjective] move._ whose meaning is identical to > _I believe it to be bad policy for a game to have a move that cannot be > defended against._ The term _unavoidable_ comes to mind, but strongly implies that whatever is "unavoidable" must happen, whereas the adjective I'm looking for is conditional on an attack that may or may not happen. _Unavoidable_ also doesn't imply defense. In the example above, "an unavoidable move" might just as easily refer to a move that can easily be defended against but that must be made at some point. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks in advance.


What to do about multiple sentences following a colon?

For example: > It happened only a handful of times in my lifetime: once when I went to the > store. It just had to be done. There was no choice. Another when heading to > the beach in 2013... Should I just leave out the colon and use a period instead?


On the expression "no [noun 1] or any [noun 2]"

I have often seen the following expressions: [ex.] 1. I have **no** allergies or **any** medical issues. 2\. John serves a chicken with **no** sauce or **any** kind of seasoning. I suspect that such a use is wrong from a prescriptive grammatical point of view, because "no" modifies "allergies" in (ex.1) and the sentence is split as follows: "I have no allergies" or "I have any medical issues". But this is not what sentence (ex.1) means. (ex.1) means that I have no allergies or (and?) no medical issues. Probably, I think that (ex.1) is reanalyzed as "I don't have any allergies or any medical issues". My question is: (1) Is the use like (ex.) correct (in prescriptive grammatical terms)? (2) If not, what is the correct expression to tell the expressions like (ex.1) and (ex.2)? (3) Or is there some grammatical rule where when "no" is used, the word that comes after "or" may be "any".   (4) Given that I am wrong and the use like (ex.) is correct, why is this so?


I want to say that a person (Egill Skallagrímsson, just for the record) committed his first killing of an enemy at the age of seven. However, it seems to me that this phrase: > When he was 7, he killed his first enemy could possibly imply that at the age of seven he killed the man who happened to be his first enemy, and this might not be the first from his enemies who died from his hand. Am I right? If I am, what would be the way to convey this meaning unequivocally?


There is a word for mis-characterization of a political figure

What is it called when someone (example: a political figure) is mis- characterized constantly and untruthfully? For example a campaign constantly hammers the message: "Senator X promotes high spending", because they voted for 1 expensive bill, but evaluating them across all votes might demonstrate that they are actually quite fiscally conservative. There is a nice concise term for such mis-characterizations that's used commonly in the political landscape. In this case we might say: "The opposing campaign has **____** this candidate", or something along those lines. * * * Addition: Perhaps the word I'm hoping to find is one that describes the wholesale act of this kind of mis-characterization across political discourse...


Is this a passive construction?

Take the medicine as prescribed. As there is no verb to be in this sentence, is it passive because it is implied? ..i.e., Take the medicine as (it was) prescribed.?


What is a word for someone who hates or fears nature?

I know that _misanthrope_ is someone who hates other humans or humankind in general. I am interested to know if there is a word for one who hates nature herself.


Encompass a wrist or is there an alternative?

Can **encompass** be used to describe someone "holding" someone's wrist gently, and not actually putting any force/ pressure but just holding or gripping it in a very gentle way?


Is "smash together" a good phrase for

Is "smash together" a good phrase for describing a creation of a new entity from (possibly smaller) entities, which are destroyed in the process? Are there any reasonable synonyms?


Grammar for a list within a list that does not start with a colon

I'm trying to make sure my writing is correct for the following sentence: > Our scanners are not affected by rain, snow, glare from the sun, or > electrical interference from cell phones, radios, Wi-Fi, etc. Another case comes later in the same document that I'm working on: > At no additional cost we will customize your scanner with logos, images, > **or** text such as Maintenance, Expiration Date, or anything else your > business needs. Are these structurally correct or do I need to remove the **"or"** from the first set of items? For example: > At no additional cost we will customize your scanner with logos, images, > text such as Maintenance, Expiration Date, or anything else your business > needs In the first sentence all of the electronics are part of the electrical interference, just as in the second sentence "maintenance, expiration date, and anything else" is referring to text. What is the correct way to structure this?


What does "proverbial man with a hammer" mean in this context?

From Programmer Q&A website, I came across the following line, which was a reply/answer to the question `Design Patterns: Should I learn them?`: > It depends on how disciplined you are as to whether you will apply the > patterns once learned correctly, and not go nuts like the **proverbial man > with a hammer** What does " _proverbial man with a hammer_ " mean in this context? Is it an idiom?


"Made a rhyme without effort" in English from Spanish "Hice verso sin esfuerzo"

In Spanish we can say "Hice verso sin esfuerzo", which means something along the lines of "I made a rhyme without effort", whilst rhyming. What would be an English equivalent of this phrase? I've come up with a couple of variations, a couple of weeks ago, but they weren't really valid English or had to do with effort, I don't think.


What do you call a reassurance that was given after a person has 'gone too far'?

I recently saw a snack container, where at the bottom - which you would see after eating the contents of the container - there was a label that read "contains no pig fat". This label / warning was not visible from the underside... only after you ate the food. If you had a dietary restriction on eating pork or fat, it's already too late... if there were any in the food product. This is some kind of ... _ex post facto_ notification. I have heard people give 'warnings' like this after it is too late for the warning to affect behavior. The cause of the tardiness is either absentmindedness or other mistake. Does a name, term, or phrase exist for some kind of reassurance, that is in the style of a **warning** , but is _too late to ever warn you?_ * * * **Note:** I am _not_ looking for an idiomatic-expression. The fact that this is a _useless warning_ is important to me. I think this is a mu-style question! I am hoping for a term that describes this issue, in context to the kind of problem (i.e. a warning). Neologisms are fine, if they do it right.


Application of a sentence in a situation

In the film The Exorcist, father Demien Karras challenges the daemon Pazuzu to get a bigger dare. That dare would consist in abandon the body of the girl Regan and penetrate Demien's body. My interest is to know what would be the correct sentence to describe this situation. The options I imagined are:   1. The priest challenges the demon to enter in his proper body.   2. The priest challenges the demon to enter in himself.   3. The priest challenges the demon to enter him.   4. The priest challenges the demon to enter in his self body. In other words, he asks the demon to abandon the girl's body and enter in himself. He wanted to be in the place of the girl, he proposed a change.


'In the event of fire' or 'in the event of a fire'?

>   1. In the event of fire,... >   2. In the event of a fire,... > I see both variants ondifferent Web pages and I cannot understand which is correct. Could you please explain it to me.


What is the word for a woman who is interested in prostitution?

I would like to know what is the term for a woman who is interested in prostitution, since I remember coming across a word at one point in a text, upon which when I looked it up in the OED, it told me that it meant a woman who is interested in prostitution or being a prostitute. The woman I am describing would be similar to the woman Catherine Deneuve plays in Luis Bunuel's "Belle Du Jour". Anyone not familiar with the movie it is about a woman who becomes interested in prostitution, not for the sake of making money, but because it sexually intrigues her. I hope that someone may be able to help me with finding this word and that I am not mistaken in believing so. Thank you.


quote from the TV show Terra Nova

Here's the scene. Two teens are sitting at a bank of a river and cutting some cretaceous fruits for moonshine. > The guy: What is this? (meaning the thing he's cutting the fruits with)   >  The girl: It's the barb from slasher tail. slasher is a nickname for a kind of dinosaur. Why does she say the barb not a barb?Clearly from the conversation, it's never been mentioned before, no shared knowledge, no implication, nothing. She uses the. Why?


How to phrase a list that continually refers to the first word in the list

How do I properly write this sentence? > The census shall provide the total population, its structure and spatial > distribution. The second two items are dependent upon "population", but it seems repetitive to say "the total population, the population's structure, and the population's spatial distribution". Any thoughts or alternatives, or am I best to repeat?


"It's time everyone had access" or "It's time everyone has access"

Is this sentence gramatically correct? > We think it's time everyone _had_ access to the means of media production so > we have developed a set of tools for it. Or should I use _has_ instead? > We think it's time everyone _has_ access to the means of media production so > we have developed a set of tools for it. Does it affect the meaning?


Comma before "including"?

Does this sentence require a comma before _including_? > He has written on a range of moral issues _including_ poverty, > globalization, and euthanasia.


Value interdependency: difference between "ratio", "proportion", "rate", and "relation"

In the context of decision-making, I'm looking for a word that describes the relation of two values: "even if value _a_ increases, value _b_ decreases". For this relation, I have found _ratio, proportion, rate_ and _relation_. Which is the most suitable, when I want to use it in the following sentence: "To weigh out possible advantages, ??? between the values have to be established"?


Formal word for "Home Made"

I'm seeking a more professional replacement for the word "home made". I'm writing my dissertation and I want to explain how I first used a home made code to simulate my project, as apposed to using a built in toolbox that comes with a professional program (which I use later). I cant use the words "custom" or "bespoke", as the toolbox is extremely flexible and can be used to create custom and bespoke simulations (which is the reason I end up using it over my original code), so I don't want to cause confusion by using these words. I basically just want a word that distinguishes the difference between a simulation I made myself from scratch, and a simulation made using a professional program.


Is there an English equivalent for the Swedish expression "the droplet that caused the beaker to overflow"?

In Swedish, the expression "det var droppen som fick bägaren att rinna över", directly translated to "the droplet that caused the beaker to overflow", is used to express that enough is enough. Is there a similar expression in English?


Is the phrase "consistently inconsistent" redundant and does it have a single word?

I stumbled on this phrase today, but have seen it in news articles and blogs, as well. Here's an example from this site: > To put it mildly, the result of exercise was and remains _consistently > inconsistent_. I understand the sentiment being expressed, but is it any different than using just "inconsistent"? Similarly, is there a specific word that would describe this condition (e.g. repeated failings)?


Which "one" should I use?

I'm having a hard time picking between > These are **one** of the foundations of.... and > These are **ones** of the foundations of.. Or is there a more idiomatic way to express it?


Gender-neutral Forms

What is the unisex form of a word like _fisherman_? Do you have to use _fisherman_ and _fisherwoman_ separately, or is _fisherperson_ acceptable? I couldn’t find a dictionary with the word … In general, what do you do when a word does not have a unisex form?


Is switching between first, second and third person in this context OK?

As this is my first question here I'd like to make a short introduction. I work in Estonia. As one of very few native speakers I landed a job as a content writer / proofreader. I'm not a great writer, or even a good one, therefore I suspect I will be posting here often! I'm proofreading a news article for the company's website. The article starts off by referring to the company in third person - (company name) is pleased to announce (announcement). It then shifts to first person for most of the rest of the article - I, we, our. The final paragraph shifts to second person and addresses the reader with instructions and a call to action - your (stuff) approved for you etc. I've always understood articles should be written from one perspective. Should I rewrite it? Any advice and tips would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.


The income tax is becoming higher than cat's back. What's the meaning of this sentence?

It's from a novel of 1938 by E.C. Bentley's Genuine Tarbard. Now the expression of 'cat's back' seems not to be in use any more. However, what's the meaning of this 'cat's back'?


"predictions of" or "predictions for"?

As far as I know, both are grammatically correct, so which one is best to use? > My predictions of the future Or: > My predictions for the future


Meaning of "originating" in the context

In the computer science, the program is processed as a sequence of commands which is called "control flow". At some point, it branches and a different branch of code is processed. In an article I read, they refer they use the term "originating flow" as a name for a flow which can branch into other ones. As a non-native speaker, I have a problem with understanding. Why it is not just _original flow_? I do understand that they might mean it as a flow from which the other flows originate, but isn't there a synonym? To make it clear: I would need to understand the exact meaning of "originating" in this context. I sense the difference but cannot say if it is right — original I would perceive as a former, earlier one. _Originating_ seems to be "the one from which the other ones originate". The dictionary cannot help me here as it is in context and English is not my native language.


Is "Linux-dependent" right?

I have a C program which depends on Linux system libraries. Which is right: > This program is Linux-dependent. > > This program is Linux-depending. Google search gives me some examples of the former usage, but I am wondering if it is really right.


Possessive of Quoted Song Title in Quotes

Without recasting the following sentence, is the possessive of the quoted song title correctly punctuated as exampled? I am aware that it can be reworded to avoid the problem, but I wanted to know whether 'punctuation-wise' this is correct. Song titles receive quotes; album titles are italicized. > “Hey Jude” ’s popularity reached unprecedented heights in 1968.


How to pronounce ‘TH’ when it comes right after [s] sound?

It's almost impossible to pronounce something like [sð] (e.g. ‘it's there’). I have heard a lot of natives pronouncing this conjunction, and every time it sounds a bit different for me, so I can't get what sound(s) exactly I hear. Would appreciate some examples with IPA transcriptions.


What's a more sophisticated word for "gadget"?

I'm looking for a word that isn't tacky like _gadget_ , but that describes interesting and novel technological items.


Is "have been being investigated" in the following sentence grammatically correct?

I need to know whether the following sentence is grammatically correct or not. Specifically, I am unsure about _have been being investigated_ part. Do the times that I am using match each other? > The interest in researching X has been growing in recent years, and as its > applications to various fields have been being investigated, it has been > realized that X which can directly deal with Y is desired in several fields.


Sentence with two not-so-related parts

Quite a lot of articles in Wikipedia, especially about people, have sentences like this one: > Author of Gitanjali and its "profoundly sensitive, fresh and beautiful > verse", he became the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in > Literature in 1913. (This is taken from the article Rabindranath Tagore.) This sentence makes two statements:   1. That Tagore was the author of Gitanjali and its "profoundly sensitive, fresh and beautiful verse".   2. That he became the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1913. It sounds kinda stylish, but the two things are not so related, so I don't really like this type of sentence. Is this considered correct grammar? Does this phenomenon have a name?


One-step Stop or One-stop Shop?

"Foobar: Your one-step stop for assorted candies." "Foobar: Your one-stop shop for assorted candies." I am really confused about which one sounds right. I've heard the second one before, but came across the first one recently. Are both phrases correct, or is "one-step stop" just plain wrong? Can there be another refined alternative to these phrases?


Appropriate replacement of “nice to meet you” for online salutation?

I would like to use "nice to meet you" in an online email exchange but I feel that "meet" and "see" are not appropriate for online use. There is also a question about it. I have also read somewhere that "know" is not appropriate, because meeting is not knowing and it should be used when I know someone for sometime. I wish to ask what is appropriate to use? Is there anything to build with "connect"?


When it come to bicycle tyres, what does "cheerful", "sprightlier" mean?

The usage of those words can be found in this review of a certain make of bicycle tyres. Unable to understand what the author is trying to say using those adjectives, since they are usually used to describe human personality or mood, but never came across such usage for inanimate objects. I've to admit that my exposure to Queen's English, is fairly limited, and I was struggling to to use "tyre" instead of "tire".


Support hypothesis with use of neither

Is this sentence correct? > The accuracy of ranges values seems not crucial, as neither the number of > bands is. What I want to express is the fact that because the exact number of bands is not important, we don't have to care to calculate their borders accurately (its about signal processing, I hope the larger context is not needed to understand this particular sentence, if so, then let me know.) My friend, who generally knows English better than me, says it is incorrect, there can't be _as_ used this the sentence and there should be some attribute after _is_. But I'm not able to formulate it other way. I don't want to begin with _the number of bands_ , because before I describe how I calculate _the ranges_ , so I want them to appear in the first part of the sentence.


Is there a word for the ideas you get while showering?

Is there a word for the **ideas you get while showering**? Doubtful there's an English word for that, but I'd be open to words from other languages as well.


What's the most neutral reply to "Can you do me a favor?"

While the answer to my question may be considered highly subjective, I can't help but feel like there's an extremely neutral way to reply to the phrase I'm inspecting. The question normally frustrates me because I see it as a trap: if I reply, "Sure!" or "Absolutely," I'll end up committing myself to something without knowing what it is. On the other hand, if I decline, I'd be refusing exposure to something that may be beneficial -- plus, the one asking may see me as close-minded (not that it matters). So I'm looking for a reply that falls between an absolute decline and absolute blind acceptance.


"State-of-the-art" and "technology"

I recently saw the etymology of the word _technology_ and it comes from Greek _thchni_ meaning _art_ and _logos_ which means _word_ , _reasoning_ , and stuff like that. So I reckon technology means doing something such that people consider it as a work of art. On the other hand, we sometimes see _state-of- the-art_ which is used as adjective, or adverb in some contexts. My question is, are they equal in meaning? Can we use them interchangeably? Is _state-of-the-art_ a literal translation of _technology_?


Why is "dingbat" used to refer to characters like "☺"?

Why is _dingbat_ used to refer to characters such as "☺"? (See for instance those at the Mozilla Web Developer FAQ.) Doesn't _dingbat_ mean a stupid person or something?


The verb agreement for "one" when used as a subject

The first sentence in "Blake" in _The Sacred Wood_ by T. S. Eliot is > If one follow Blake’s mind through the several stages of his poetic > development it is impossible to regard him as a naïf, a wild man, a wild pet > for the supercultivated. full article Why did he use "follow", but not "follows"? Because this book has been reprinted for several times, the usage of "follow" here is not likely to be a typo. **EDIT:** In _Selected Essays, 1917-1932_ , Eliot changed "follow" to "follows".


How does one identify cacophonous and euphonious words?

As I understand it, euphonious words are those with pleasant sounds, and cacophonous words are ones which sound harsh. Knowing this, does one have to strip the meaning from words before being able to classify them as cacophonous and euphonious? Are there any best practices to utilizes when classifying the words or is it a wholly subjective process?


Why typography? Why not fontography?

Typography is the art of selecting and using appropriate fonts in web, books, magazines, newspapers, etc., and is one of the most fundamental graphical design skills. However, almost everywhere you encounter typography, they say _font_ instead of _type_. What does "type" mean in this context? I always thought of _type_ as "a kind," not as something related to printing industry or graphical design. On the other hand, _font_ is something we all know. So, why not fontography?


"On a side note" vs. "by the way"

What's the difference between "on a side note" and "by the way"? Is one of them restricted to certain situations while the other is not?


Would you guys change the following sentence suitable for my cover letter?

I need your help guys:) I am applying for an instructor position at a university in the States. Would you please change the following statement appropriate for my cover letter? "My bachelor's degree in mathematics will also help me significantly to teach your quantitative research method course." Thanks a lot!!!


The word 'opprobrium'

Free Dictionary states that one of the definitions for 'opprobrium' is > Disgrace arising from exceedingly shameful conduct; ignominy. Dictionary.com states it means > the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously > shameful; infamy. What I'd like to know is, who feels disgraced when using the word 'opprobrium'. Is it the person who does the shameful act, or do those who know of the shameful act committed by another feel disgraced?


Term for Being Aware of New Things

Is there a term for being aware of new things, such as 'my ____(being aware of new) for music has increased since having used this new website'.


common name for small villages

Is there a special name for small villages? Like a made up name of the village or a real one that functions as a recognizable synonym for a small village? E.g. "This 'town' he lives in is actually the size of _(the name of small village)" Edit: I was thinking more about something which sounds funny; also, the name does not necessarily have to fit the example. it can be 'as big as _' or whatever comes to your mind.


Is actually a translation word?

I used actually in this sentence but my teacher said that doesn't make sense. **_He looks like fearless but actually he is not so brave._** What did I do wrong?


Why are "hard water" and "soft water" so called?

I can't think of anything else to say. All I can find via Google is that it's because it's harder to create lather with hard water, but that doesn't seem very convincing to me.


Meaning of "bobbed" in "hair bobbed from a ray of sunlight"

From _The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford_: > Ed Miller: I was with a girl once. Wasn't a squaw, but she was purty. She > had yellow hair, like uh... oh, like something.   >  Dick Liddil: Like hair bobbed from a ray of sunlight? What does _bobbed_ mean in this context? I guess it means "cut", but I would like a native speaker to verify.


Is the use of "bid" and "sell" as adjectives documented by any dictionary?

E.g. "the market is very bid", meaning a bull market.


"Pro-attitude" Definition

What does the word **pro-attitude** mean in the following sentence: > Intentions are pro-attitudes, directed towards some future state of affairs. > > reference I couldn't find this word in the dictionaries. Could you suggest a synonym for this word or explain it in some other words?


Meaning of "aesthetic lighting feature" in context

> High-end retailers such as Tiffany and Hermes do their best to stimulate all > the senses in building their brand experience, which may include **aesthetic > lighting features** and enchanting aromas. What does "aesthetic lighting feature" mean in this context?


How did the term "Judaism" or "Jews" came into usage, who coined this term first?

How did the terms _Judaism_ and _Jews_ came into usage, who coined those terms? Also how and when did the term _Judaism_ begin being used for denoting a religion?


"Intended" vs. "intentional"

I'm reading an article about _intention recognition in computing areas_ and somehow _robotics_. I came across this sentence: > This problem has been discussed as the difference between “intended and > intentional action”. But unfortunately I can't understand the difference between intended action and intentional action. According to dictionaries: >   * _intended_ : planned or meant >   * _intentional_ : done on purpose; deliberate > But they are also marked as synonyms. So could someone clarify the difference between an intended action and an intentional one?


Usage of begrudge

While looking up this word, I found a weird usage, for example: > She begrudged Martin his affluence > > She begrudged her friend the award. Applying common sense, it's clear that she envied her friend because of the award her friend received. But why is _begrudged_ used in this manner, where the thing which is envied comes after the object? Any other insights will be appreciated. How do such types of sentences fit into longer sentences where multiple clauses are used?


"Not only..., but also" without "but"

As far as I understand, this structure is grammatically correct: > Not only would it provide ..., but it also would... Can we omit "but" without introducing a mistake? > Not only would it provide ..., it also would... I've found the following explanation here but I think this example has slightly different meaning: > Usually, a "not only" feels lost without a "but also" to pal around with. > However, it is idiomatically possible and acceptable to omit the "but also." > Burchfield gives this example: "Rowers not only face backward, they race > backward." Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. > Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission > of Oxford University Press. (under "not")


What is the opposite of "Coexist"?

Is there a good phrase or word that means the opposite of "coexist"? The phrase I am using it in is similar to "these two ideas need not (be) ___ _."


Is there a word to describe 'Slow Snowfall'?

With similarities to this question: What is the word for "Slow raining"? but related to snow, not rain. I'm looking for a descriptive word that would describe slow snowfall. Can you help?


Alternative colloquialism for "Best of both worlds"?

I'm looking for a phrase that means the same thing as "best of both worlds", except isn't so overused. I'm looking for the semantics to remain intact; for example, "Awesome!!" would not be an acceptable substitute. I'm describing a thing, which I claim will solve two discrete problems. I'd like to be able to say something like "Not only does this solve X, but it also solves Y. It truly is _the best of both worlds_ " Any ideas are appreciated. -tjw


Words with prefix apo-

From etymonline, the two following words seem to have the same etymology: > apocalypse: apo- "from" (see apo-) + kalyptein "to cover, conceal" (see > Calypso). > > apocryphal: apo- "away" (see apo-) + kryptein "to hide" (see crypt). But the two seem to have opposite meanings. _apocalypse_ means revelation and uncovering, while _apocryphal_ means spurious. How shall I understand them?


"Major" vs "majoring"

Which one is correct and what is the difference? > **Majoring** in Information Technology, xxx University > > **Major** in Information Technology, xxx University


What is the meaning of "idiot-proof"?

What is the meaning of " _idiot-proof_ ", as in: > Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build > bigger and better **idiot-proof** programs, and the Universe trying to > produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.


Is "standing" an acceptable verb to use for a building?

For example is it correct to say, "The restaurant was standing on the side of the highway?" I also thought of erected. Though I'm not very sure about it. Is standing acceptable in this case? Are there more appropriate verbs?


oriented on (a subject)

Can someone be oriented 'on' something? For instance, > oriented on content instead of process or > oriented on the long term instead of short term Or should it always be used with 'towards' like 'oriented towards'?


What's the English equivalent of the Japanese saying, “A fart ruins 100 days of sermons by the priest (bishop)”?

I was amused by the expression "Paid a penny and only farted" (related by @FumbleFingers), which suggested a similar Japanese saying: 大山鳴動鼠一匹 - "Find only a small mouse coming out after hearing rumblings and experiencing shaking of the big mountain." It’s humorous. I chuckled when I read it, and I wrote to the author that I love it. With that said, the word "fart" reminds me of another Japanese proverb, 百日の説法屁一つ- "A fart ruins 100 days of sermons by the priest", which means that a small mistake (the sound of a fart in front of the congregation) brings all his efforts to naught. It can’t happen in big Western churches. But it could well happen in a small wooden temple where a priest would preach to 30 – 50 provincial followers. Can you imagine how the proud priest being called 'the venerable' would be embarrased when his loud fart is heard by all his followers during his serious sermon and they start to giggle here and there in the hall? We also have a similar saying" 九仞の功を一簣に欠く, which literally means "Collapse a 9- meter sand tower with the last pile of sand." What is the English equivalent of the saying "A fart ruins 100 days of sermons by the priest (bishop): a small mistake depreciates the value of (vitiates) all labor and effort to naught," preferably in such a humorous way?


Where to put "for free"

Which of the following sentences is more correct? > Listen to Deep House and other electronic music on XXX **for free**. > Listen to Deep House and other electronic music **for free** on XXX.


"Moderator for" vs. "moderator of"

In OAAD, there's an example for the entry _moderator_ : > moderators **of** online discussion groups But I've seen the preposition **for** used in that context by native speakers too. Are they both correct? Or does it have something to do with different dialects? Searching Google yields the following result:   * _Moderator for_ : About 1,980,000 results   * _Moderator of_ : About 6,000,000 results So, the preposition of is more common. Is that the only difference?


Do "getting into..." and "getting interested in..." mean the same?

> How did you get into it? > > How did you get interested in it? Do the examples above mean the same?


Why do many names use "y" in place of expected "i"?

I would expect names like Taylor, Poynting have "i" in place of actual "y", because they sound very similar to words "tailor" and "pointing". There's also Feynman, which some (not really credible source though) suggest to be "probably a poorly chosen spelling of the German/Yiddish Feinman". Why is there "y" instead of "i"? Have the corresponding words been written with "y" some time ago, leaving the names unchanged when spelling changed, or maybe the people deliberately changed the spelling of their names to differ from the original words?


'This is so sick'

> 'This is so sick!' What does this expression (usually said in a very anger manner) mean?


Try not to wake her by A) talking too loud or B) talking quietly?

As I see it both can be correct:   * Try not (to wake her by talking too loud).   * (Try not to wake her) by talking quietly. I'm not sure which one a native speaker would use. Any preferences?


Is it possible to learn English by just listening and speaking (without knowing formal grammar rules)

My native language is Chinese. Most people in my country grow up without having been taught formal grammar. I am surprised to find foreigners being taught Chinese and learning grammar rules that even we as a native speakers have never heard of. As a result, it takes them so long that they can't even speak or understand some of the most basic / common sentences. I am asking if any of you native speakers of English were taught formal grammar rules when you were young? Do you think they are unnecessary, and that people will understand them anyway once they have enough experience?


How are invented names like “scrypt” pronounced that include nonstandard abbreviations?

In technical contexts, I often come across terms that are invented names where some underlying meaning is not spelled out but can be inferred. This inferred meaning would often be lost if one tried to pronounce the term purely based on the letters comprising it. It seems to me that one cannot get such issues right, because any choice probably looks objectionable either to a very literal or a very technical person. What is the proper pronunciation for such terms? A good example for the kind of terms I am thinking of is _scrypt_ , a computer algorithm for computing cryptographic hashes that enjoys tremendous popularity among geeks. In case the inventor's intention matters, his company's webpage about _scrypt_ seems to be the best source of information available but still does not address this issue. Neither does the Wikipedia article about _scrypt_. What I think I can infer only serves to complicate the decision: There are other, older algorithms for essentially the same purpose that follow the naming convention of having a single letter followed by _crypt_ , of which _bcrypt_ is widely known but not the only example. There are good reasons to suspect that the initial letter in _scrypt_ might be intended as an abbreviation rather than just a random distinction. The rest of the name almost certainly has its roots in computer history. See the Wikipedia articles for two meanings of _crypt_ , the computer library function _crypt_ (3) and the utility program _crypt_ (1). Both are closely related to _scrypt_. I've only started thinking about this question due to an identical question (put on hold for being off-topic) on the Bitcoin branch of StackExchange. The two submitted answers, including my own attempt at explaining my personal preference, indicate that there is no consensus. Since there the topic is almost tangential anyways ( _scrypt_ is used in some alternatives to Bitcoin but not in Bitcoin itself), I have tried asking the same question on the Information Security branch of StackExchange, where one commentator gave what he claimed to be a definite, if unexplained, answer yet simultaneously declared the question off-topic. Is this the right place? And how does one decide such questions for which I would, naïvely, have assumed that technical background knowledge is required to decide if something is special enough to be granted exceptional status regarding its pronunciation? On the same subject, what makes not capitalizing the proper noun _scrypt_ or _crypt_ acceptable? There seems to be widespread consensus amongst computer enthusiasts to never capitalize at the very least certain commands, specifically those that in their usual application as computer commands are case sensitive, meaning that they do not work as intended when typed in capital letters. Whilst to somebody using such commands it indeed seems very natural to follow this convention, seeing it done at the beginning of a sentence, as in the first sentence of a Wikipedia link already given above, does not feel quite right, either. Is the usage as in that Wikipedia article, employing a different capitalization for the same initial word in the title and the first paragraph, in any way proper?


Plural of Friday 13th?

On another StackExchange QA site, I asked a math question involving Friday 13th. It deals with years having more than one Friday 13th. I used 'Fridays 13th' as the plural form of 'Friday 13th'. Was I right? Or it should be 'Friday 13ths'? Or even 'Fridays 13ths' (that somehow looks nice to me, but I doubt it is correct)? * * * My research:   * Google search for +"fridays the 13th" gives 36.600 results;   * Google search for +"friday the 13ths" gives 239.000 results. * * * Examples of reputable internet sites using both versions: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/22YdL.png) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/0Gql3.png)


Is 'Mochup' the same as 'Mock-up'?

I recently came across the word 'mochup'. I am unsure if this is simply a spelling mistake of the term 'mock-up', or if it is a technical neologism with a slightly different meaning. Searching on google for 'mochup definition' returns many results, but none seem to offer an actual definition as far as I can see.


Using "it" multiple times in a sentence

From http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/194744/change-wording-of-unclear- what-youre-asking > The current description of "unclear what you're asking" misuses the pronoun > "it" in the second sentence, and this issue has really been bugging me. > Specifically, the pronoun is being used to refer to two different things in > the same sentence, without any type of separation. > > _Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight > exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly > what you're asking._ Is "it" being misused here? The sentence is clear to me, and when I translate it to my native language I reuse the pronoun in the same way.


Can you please explain what is the difference between " Beware" and "Be Aware" ?


Word for "overly proud of heritage"

I remember at one point knowing a word that meant "overly proud of your own heritage or culture", and basically being racist or at least biased toward your own heritage/culture. Anyone know some words that fit this description?


Is "coyote" a loanword AND a calque?

This question comes directly from a line from the show Archer > You, through some shady deal with the Border Patrol, sent us to south Texas > to capture an individual named Moreno - Mexico's most notorious _coyote_ \- > Which is español for people-smuggler...And also for coyote, turns out...It's > a loanword...Or is it a calque? Daily Writing Tips gives a succinct explanation of loanwords and calques: > A **loanword** comes more or less “as is” from one language to another > > A **calque** [kălk] is an expression borrowed by way of literal translation > from one language into another Outside discussions regarding this question seem to agree on _coyote_ (the animal) being a loanword, but I'm wondering if/why it would be a calque for "people smuggler." This same source (as above) says that _coyote_ is a Spanish calque > It is a calque in Spanish having come from the Aztec word for trickster, > cóyotl. Does this have any bearing on whether it is a calque when passed into English?


The significance of "y"

Regarding the pronoun "your", ignoring the singular possessive form. Is there some significance to the "prefix" `y` or is this a coincidence? Our: Collective possession, including me.   Y **our** : Collective possession, excluding me. I'm not sure if I had an epiphany or a burnout academic experience.


"Whether or not" plus an instance of the verb "to be"

Consider the sentence, "Whether or not they will go back online is uncertain." If "whether or not" is removed from this sentence, leaving only "they will go back online is uncertain," is it still grammatically correct? Hope to hear from you soon.


How come nobody likes being wanted or unwanted?

How come both "being wanted" and "being unwanted" are both bad words. Yet, being "needed" and "unneeded" are antonyms? Nobody wants to feel wanted, yet they all want to feel needed. Compare these four sentences. >   * As Nimdok was strolling though the New Brazilian Airport, he felt > wanted. >   * As a child, Nimdok felt unwanted by his parents, so on this day, he gave > them their revenge. >   * Performing medical experiments for the regime made Nimdok feel needed. >   * AM's words made Nimdok feel unneeded. > How come "being wanted" has come to take on a bad meaning?


Word for someone who likes it fast

Fastness can be applied to anything. Characteristics of this person can be:   * likes a fast-paced life (in general)   * likes things to be done quickly   * doesn't like to waste time   * doesn't like to spend time on things that may take too much time   * if things get slower or if they are not done as fast, he loses enthusiasm   * likes people around him to be fast also   * likes fast machines/animals (ex: fast cars, cheetah, peregrine falcon)   * likes fast internet (who doesn't?) It is not as simple as being:   * punctual   * hasty   * impatient   * quick-tempered   * slacker (irony?) It is like a life style. There is a term "speed freak" but it is too exaggerated and it has other connotations as well. I'm not sure if there is a word that exactly fits but at least it can be as close as possible or a phrase. fast and furious? **Edit:** He is not in hyperactive state. He can enjoy relaxing/keeping calm at times and spending time on the things he likes. It should not be associated with a disorder, it should be associated with a life-style or a culture maybe. Or just a characteristic feature.


Is there a term similar to girlfriendship / boyfriendship?

Sorry if this question is rather dumb. Is "girlfriendship" or "boyfriendship" actually a term, or is there a suitable replacement? I'm using "partnership" in the badly worded sentence right now: > Even Equality's love interest, of whose partnership is a transgression in > its own But is there something more accurate?


will have + past participle

In the following two sentences “Your will have heard the news, so I need not repeat it.” “They will have received our letter now. ” , how to understand the "will have + past participle"? Is it future perfect tense or some kind of guess? Thank you so much!


What does "a success" mean?

I was taught _a success_ means _a successful man_ and not _achievement_. Is that right?


Alcoholic beverage brought by groom as a gift to bride's family

I'm naturally an Estonian and we have a word called "kosjaviin" and it's a noun. In general it is a bottle of strong alcohol (~40%) brought by groom as a gift to the bride's family. The first part of the word means "betroth" and the other part means "vodka". In Estonia it is a traditional gift to the future in-laws on the day the groom pops the question. My question is: "Does there exist a similar word in English?" Additional questions are welcome!


Is parallel structure actually necessary? If so, why? If not, why bother teaching it?

I know parallel structure makes things look and sound better. But there are sentences that lack symmetry that are still grammatically correct. I stole an example from a worksheet: The class valued respect, honesty, and being on time in a teacher. It was marked "incorrect". Why is that "incorrect"? It is correct. It just doesn't comply to a rule I've never heard of until this year. Respect, honesty, and being on time are all nouns. They are each perfectly perfect to be used as direct objects. Why is it suddenly "incorrect" to use a gerund phrase along with plain nouns? Notwithstanding the better flow of "promptness" in place of "being on time", why is it considered "incorrect"? Do teachers take off points for this kind of thing? In my opinion, telling kids they have to use parallel structure is just as stupid as telling them they can't begin sentences with conjunctions. Why is this a big deal? I'm sure about a hundred years from now, there will be a literary device made up to explain lack of parallel structure. Students will be forced to marvel at the fact that authors chose to deny its existence. Teachers will tell their students that having one odd item out in a list creates emphasis and should be celebrated. Omission of parallel structure will one day become the new polysyndeton.


How should I search information on the origin of a country on Google?

I'm trying to find some information on how the very first _country_ came into being. I'm not sure what keywords I should start with. I've tried synonyms like _state_ and _nation_ as well, but none of them works. From my vague memory, I guess this topic is related to history and sociology, but I don't know the correct English wording for it.


What does the term "kerplewy" mean?

What does the term mean and what is the best way to use it? And, I also wanted to know if there is any information about where it comes from. And by the way, how do we pronounce it?


Term to describe generalizations such as "it is well known"

Is there a term to describe phrases such as: "it is well known that," "most people believe that," or "it is often thought that?" I see these phrases used when someone tries to present their opinion as an accepted fact even when their argument is not supported by fact.


Word for mirror reflecting mirror infinitely?

Is there a word for a mirror reflecting another mirror infinitely? I.e. if two mirrors are put one against another, how would I call it (or if there is no word for it)?


"To handle certificates is..." vs. "handling certificates is..."

I have two equivalent sentences, intended for a brochure for a computer program. Which one is better? >   * To handle certificates manually is time consuming and expensive. >   * Handling certificates manually is time consuming and expensive. > I want the brochure to be short, easy to read and to the point. I also want to speak directly to the customer, and I prefer an informal tone. Which of the two sentences do you prefer?


Universal quantifiers

In the following statements all the individuals of a group are addressed for gratitude:   1. Gratitude is owed to _each_ member of the group.   2. Gratitude is owed to _every_ member of the group.   3. Gratitude is owed to _each and every_ member of the group. Hence to ask which are the distinctive qualities of _each_ , _every_ and _every and any_ ?


One of the 'Organisation' or 'Organisations'

I am writing an essay and stuck with the following sentence. > One of the non-profit organisation that we worked with... Should organisation be plural or singular?


What do you call a sentence with only one word?

If someone answers "Yes, I am." to some question of mine, I might say that she gave a monosyllabic answer. If someone answers simply "Yes." and I want to emphasize that her answer consists of only one word, would I say that she gave a _monoword_ answer? Or something else?


If I do VS If I did

Do these sentences mean exactly the same thing? If yes, why does (a) use the present tense and (b) the past? (a) IF I WIN the lottery, I WILL buy a big house. (b) IF I WON the lottery, I WOULD BUY a big house. Thank you!


What is the opposite of organic (food)?

The word _inorganic_ is patently inappropriate for describing food, even if that food wasn't produced in a manner consistent with _organic farming_. Wikipedia points this out, but doesn't really offer an alternative. While the phrase _food produced through chemical farming_ may leave some people with a bad taste in their mouth, I doubt it carries the same connotation as _food that is not organic food_. Is there a better word to use here?


"Have at it" : what's the object of the transitive verb "have" here?

I intuitively understand the meaning of the phrase "have at it!", but I can't explain it to myself. I understand that "to have" in this sense requires an object to be valid, so why is it missing here yet it doesn't sound as weird as other objectless _to have_ , such as "The president has in the office"?


To hyphen or not: cat person-turned-dog person vs. cat person turned dog person

Would it be:   1. I'm a cat-person-turned-cat-and-dog-person.   2. I'm a cat person-turned-cat and dog person.   3. I'm a cat-person turned cat-and-dog person.


"have to" a phrasal verb

Why is "have to" not listed as a phrasal verb in the dictionary? "have" means to be in possession of something while "have to" means "obliged to". So "have to" seem to be non-compositional in terms of meaning with respect to the meanings of "have" and "to". Can "obligation" be expressed using the word "have" without it being followed by "to"?


Origin of "milady"

Until a few months ago, I had always assumed this was "my lady". Is this anything more than an odd contraction of "my lady"? I couldn't find much on the etymology of this.


What do you call the body of water into which a river flows?

For example, the Nile flows into the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is therefore the Nile's **___ ___**. Edit: I'm looking for a way to name the Mediterranean _in relation to_ the Nile. The Nile is one of the Mediterranean's _affluents_ , so the Mediterranean is the Nile's **___ ___**.


What is a "crippled serial flirt"?

I got this expression from the wikipedia article regarding the novel "Barchester Towers" by Anthony Trollope. The full sentence is: > Signora Madeline Vesey Neroni is a crippled serial flirt with a young > daughter and a mysterious Italian husband whom she has left. I cannot make much sense of this phrase, can you help?


Why father is called "dada" and not "fafa"

Read the words below :   * Mother - mama - mammy   * Father - dada - daddy Why is father not called _fafa_ or _faddy_?


What do you call a government when the rulers are gods?

I'm familiar with most _-ocracies_. And I don't mean a _Theocracy_ (rule by religious officials). This would probably make more sense in a Fantasy setting (say D&D) where deities actually come down and mess around with the mortals. However if one (or more) deities took it upon themselves to rule, what would this be called?


the use of the better and the best

i used the book "grammar and style" and one example confuses me that is: he was the better/ best of two players . the answer is the better but learners wonder how is it true since we use best after the. what do you think?


Strict semicolon syntactic semi-lateral symmetry

Is this ok? > I’m in need of a punching bag; anyone want to volunteer? Do both sides of the semicolon have to be the same syntax — that is, both questions or both statements? And considering the latter half does not stand on its own as a statement, can I use it in a semicolon like this?


Verb form of suds - is "sudses" permissible?

If I want to say, for example, that a cleanser produces suds, could I say "This shampoo sudses"? I think the answer to this question depends on whether the verb is considered to be "sud" or "suds." If the verb is "sud," the third person form would be "suds." If the verb is "suds," the third person form would be "sudses." "Sudses" sounds pretty silly to me (and also to my browser's spell check, apparently).


A term for non-player targetted information

I'm looking for a term that would describe the information that is not supposed to be known by players, not essential for their gaming experience. Like a game object (or feature) that isn't actually present (or is not directly addressed by its name) in the game, but some other game objects are based on its functionality. Or a kind of a backstage game object whose functionality is inherited by several other very important game objects, most of which have names, and are known to players, but that base object is supposed to stay a secret, because it doesn't actually mean or do much by itself, so it is of little to none importance to players.


Is “European Peninsula” a common name for Europe?

In this article, Europe was called the “European Peninsula”. Is that a common name for Europe? Here is the whole sentence from the article: > We have seen that Ukraine’s fate is not yet settled, and with that, neither > is Russia’s relationship with the European Peninsula.


Cohesive devices

Hi I'm analysing an old advertisement at the moment. Below's a picture of it, ![Chubbette and Trim-Teen advertisement](http://i.stack.imgur.com/2dm3z.png)   I'm stumped on one thing. Can someone tell me if the pronouns 'you' and 'your' are anaphoric references or exophoric references? Because the headline of the advertisement has "welcome teacher" and "Bring the children" Could the pronouns be referring to the teachers and children or only the readers?


Difference between 'play you' and 'play with you'

What is the difference between "I'll play you next" and "I'll play with you next". Is there a grammatical error in both, it both means the same...


What is the correct spelling of "buyer* remorse"?

Apostrophical query:   * _a_ ) Buyers Remorse   * _b_ ) Buyer Remorse   * _c_ ) Buyer's Remorse   * _d_ ) Buyers' Remorse My guess is _b_ or _c_ , as it seems like any example is talking about the remorse of one specific buyer, but since it is a collective term that happens universally, perhaps the possessive plural is accurate. I suppose there’s potential that it’s a context-sensitive decision, deciding whether you are talking about exactly one buyer or about buyers in general.


"questions need to answer" or "questions need to be answered"

It seems to me the first one is fine, as we always say "I have some work to do". Do we say "I have some work to be done"? If they are both correct, in which scenarios they should be used respectively?


Defining a goal that can be achieved through many ways

I want to define a goal that can be achieved through many ways. Does multidirectional work? A multidirectional goal? Its for a title of an essay saying that there is not just a single way to stay healthy, but health is a single goal which can be achieved by multiple routes.


Asking a question "to", "from", or "of"?

I was just talking with someone about the rule regarding "asking a question to/from/of". I am natively Dutch, and to me, "to" makes the most sense intuitively, since in Dutch grammar you _pose_ a question, you don't _ask_ it. I'm aware however that "to" is incorrect in English. The person I was talking to said that the correct rule is "from". This seems quirky to me however. If you "ask X from someone", it means that you ask them to give you an X. So to me, whereas "asking an answer from" makes sense, "asking a question from" doesn't, unless you're asking for a question. I've seen a source on the internet that says "of" is the correct rule. But this sounds odd to both of us. "asking a question of X" sounds like you have a question about X. So, which is the correct one, and why? Is my reasoning about "from" correct?


A term needed for mixed pharmaceutical compounds

Anyone could help me to provide a term for compounds mixed by pharmacy then served as a medicine? Could I still just use _materia medica_ nowadays? Thanks.


What is the word for two-part phrases where the second (or first) half drops off?

I remember some time ago learning a word for phrases where, over time, people forget the second (or first) half. So for example, the phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is often shortened to "When in Rome" — which makes no sense by itself, but the meaning of the phrase is still understood. While "do as the Romans do" is still fairly widely known, many of the examples provided were ones where the full phrase is not actually known — only the root of the phrase remains, keeping its original meaning from context. Does anyone know what the term for this is?


What is the origin of the phrase "take it from the top?"

"Take it from the top" is often used in musical rehearsals to mean "start at the beginning." Where did this phrase come from?


Word for sadness at something ending, but excited about new

Is there a word that describes the combination of feeling sad for an ending of something, but excited at new prospects. The closest I had was "bittersweet change" Examples: > 1) At the end of a holiday, I'm excited to go back home, but sad that the > holiday is coming to an end. > > 2) I'm coming to end of my placement year job and sad that it's coming to an > end, but excited that I'm going back to university. I hope this satisfies the requirements of the QA here, if not, comment for me to correct.


Does "anything man" exist?

Is _anything man_ a word (noun)? Is there a synonym or a better word? Context (my emphasis): > After college he was working for Fawcette Technical Publications (as > **anything man** \- design, editing, helping plan the conferences like VBITS > and VSLive!).


Articles for words that function as both a verb or a noun

Do I need to include an article (if yes, which one) before words that can be either a verb or a noun? For example, consider "install." Do I say "After inserting the disk, you need to run install" or "[...], you need to run the install"?


Good example of "hubris"

If a person needs help but will not ask for it because they don't want to need to depend on other people (based on their pride), is the word _hubris_ fitting to describe this? How would you use it in a sentence for this situation?


How to pronounce 'App' correctly?

> I wrote an App and published it. In this sentence, how to pronounce app correctly? **_a-p-p_** or **_ei-pu_**?


"'To'/'on' the contrary" in these sentences: is the difference very slight?

I was interested in the following sentences which appeared, respectively, in a news article titled “Can’t Park? Blame a Condo" and in a news article titled "Senator Simmons on the Negro", both in The New York Times. > 1) “In the old days you had to provide parking,” Mr. Greco said. “Now it is > **to the contrary** , and what we are seeing is a slow evaporation of the > parking spaces.” > > 2) The spirit of Senator Simmons's article is not very humane or broad; it > is, **on the contrary** rather narrow and harsh. Oxford Dictionary of English has entries for both "to the contrary" and "on the contrary": > **on the contrary** _used to intensify a denial of what as just been implied > or stated by suggesting that the opposite is the case._ > > **to the contrary** _with the opposite meaning or implication._ Reading what the vocabulary says, it seems that both journalists use the phrases in a wrong way inverting "to" with "on" and "on" with "to", respectively; but the difference between the two fragments is very slight, so I'm not able to definitively understand if I'm right. Furthermore, the usage of the two fragments could be become interchangeable nowadays; but I'm not sure on this circumstance. Can someone clarify if the fragments "to the contrary" and "on the contrary" are being correctly used in both cases?


Difference between "premise" and "assertion"

I was preparing for the GRE exam, and was wondering what the difference was between a premise and an assertion. Any example which highlights the difference would be immensely helpful (something I haven't been able to find online).


Difference between "lore" and "folklore"

What is the difference between _lore_ and _folklore_? What are the best examples where to use one and not the other?


What is an "infinitive"?

I've heard that a verb usually follows the 'infinitive' but how does one define an 'infinitive'?


How to use the verb of sense?

Two simple examples:   1. a. I heard my mom cry. b. I heard my mom crying.   2. a. Please leave the door lock always. b. Please leave the door locked always. Which one (a or b) is right?


What is between dystopian and utopian?

There are many speculative fiction pieces that are labeled "dystopian" and some "utopian". Is there a specific word for the reasoned middle ground? Please let me know if this is better suited to the SciFi and Fantasy Site instead.


How do you differentiate between a transitive verb and a noun?

I have several components in a piece of software I am working with and we want to select names that are nouns which describe the components. We have the following names:   * Automation   * Retrieval   * Parsing It has been brought up by a team member that "parsing" is a transitive verb and not a noun and that we should select a new name to maintain consistency. Can the word "parsing" be used as both a noun and a transitive verb? Why is "parsing" not a noun?


You didn't miss me, right? (possible answer with correct use of English)

A) No, I didn't miss you. B) Yes, I didn't miss you. C) No, I did miss you. D) Yes, I did miss you. According to my common sense perfect answers can be C) and B) only, and reason behind it is- "didn't" is used/asked in the question, so if the person answering the question agrees with the person asking the question he will probably say "Yes, I didn't miss you," and if he does not agree he should answer "No, I did miss you." I have checked online everywhere and all four are treated as correct. So, just asking to the experts present here for their views on this, in any context of English language or usage. **EDIT1** : Actually i was hoping that the SPEAKER Of QUESTION can tweak the question to get the desired answers only( only (B), and (C) in my case).But, the English seems to be weak to me after reading all the answers and responses from the experts,as the SPEAKER OF ANSWER totally has the control of the responses and he can speak any of the all four answers A,B,C,D. What if the question asked was : Do you miss me a little? OR Did you miss me a little? OR SIMPLY Did you miss me? I guess again all the previous answers A,B,C,D are correct. ;-)


"Enclosure" vs. "attachment"

If I understand it correctly, one usually uses the term _enclosure_ when referring to extra documents to e.g. a letter. But what if these extra items are not other documents and papers? Say I have written a report discussing some of my developed software. It could be a school paper, and the paper and the files in union make up the final product handed in. What is the right term for the software files belonging to this report? The dictionary definition of the words above don't quite seem to fit.


"He recommended that they are separated" - is this valid?

I've seen and heard this kind of construction several times now and it always bugs me. When someone recommends something, surely the verb used in the subclause should be infinitive, so: > He recommended that they be separated. ... instead of: > He recommended that they are separated. Is there any grammatical legitimacy to the latter expression, or is it just a kind of grammatical misunderstanding that is unfortunately coming to be used commonly? And, could the latter expression have any possibile alternative meaning or is it just incorrect?


what is the right verb for the overall process of "conducting" a thesis?

What is the right verb for the overall process of a thesis, including not the only the writing process but also the research activities? Analogous to "conducting research" I'd like to say "conducting a thesis"? ### Edit: Maybe this context is useful: I want to thank a company for the possibility of doing my thesis together with them (meaning support, money, infrastrcture, laboratories, etc.). So, might I say: > "I would like to thank `NAME_OF_CHIEF` for the possibility of **conducting > the thesis** at `NAME_OF_COMPANY`"


Can verb tense be changed mid-sentence for something that still exists?

Look at this sentence: > I knew that the sky is blue. To me, it doesn't make sense to say the sky _was_ blue since it still is blue. Even so, is it grammatically incorrect to say _I knew that the sky is blue_ just because the tenses must be the same?


"Nice to talk to" or "Nice to talk too"

One of my friends has corrected someone on their grammar on a social media site. And they think they should say "Nice to talk too". I think it is "Nice to talk to", because "too" is an adverb meaning "also" Am I right? A more detailed explanation than mine would be great!


When “and” connects two subjects, can we remove the article pertaining to the second subject?

When “and” connects two subjects, can we remove the article pertaining to the second subject (as in the following example)? Original sentence: > The implementation of the algorithms on the CPU and the GPU is presented. Sentence after removal: > The implementation of the algorithms on the CPU and GPU is presented. Note that the meaning intended to express in both sentences is that the algorithms are implemented both on the GPU and on the CPU. Thanks!


What is the definition of "iat" in Commissariat/Secretariat, also what are some other "iat" words. (Links, if you have any, please.)


US English — "primary grains being produced" vs. "major cereals being produced"

I am correcting a Spanish-to-English translation that states, > The primary grains being produced in the world are maize, wheat, rice, > barley, sorghum and oats. I would prefer to use _cereals_ rather than _grains_ , but am not sure whether I should use "the _major_ cereals being produced" or "the _primary_ cereals being produced", or perhaps "most of the cereals". It is referring to the quantity of cereals which are being produced globally at present. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Where did the idiom "anally retentive" originate?

Here's another phrase I hear in US TVs and Films, but take for granted... What's the etymology of the idiom "anally retentive", and how did it become synonymous with being pedantic?


What is the origin of Bishy Barney Bee?

The attached picture is of a delightful little creature which throughout the UK is known as a Ladybird (not sure what you call them in America) EXCEPT in Norfolk, where it is known as a 'Bishy Barney Bee'. The name is believed to be derived from Bishop Bonner who lived during the 16th century, and was known notoriously as 'Bloody Bonner' for his ruthless persecution of Protestants under Mary I. I would be very interested to discover more about the connection between Bishop Bonner and the Ladybird. Can anyone help me please? The British among you will know of the nursery rhyme which is recited with a Ladybird in your hand and at the end releasing it to fly away. In Norfolk it goes: Bishy Bishy Barney Bee, Fly away home, Your house is on fire, And your children all gone. Perhaps the rhyme has some connection to Bishop Bonner, though throughout the rest of the UK it is recited as : Ladybird, ladybird, fly away home etc. ![Bishy Barney Bee](http://i.stack.imgur.com/L6xjA.jpg)


What is the proper way for indicating lives being saved?

Would an apostrophe for possession be appropriate? For instance would the following be proper use: > "which directly contributed to less suffering and lives’ saved" Thanks


Why do we "shed" blood, sweat or tears but not other things?

I found the following definition of _shed_ (the verb): >   1. chiefly dialect : to set apart : segregate > >   2. to cause to be dispersed without penetrating > >   3. a. to cause (blood) to flow by cutting or wounding > > b. to pour forth in drops _shed tears_ > > c. to give off or out _sheds some light on the subject_ > >   4. to give off, discharge, or expel from the body of a plant or animal: as > > a. to eject, slough off, or lose as part of the normal processes of life _a > caterpillar shedding its skin_ , _a cat shedding hair_ , _a deciduous tree > sheds its leaves in the fall_ > > b. to discharge usually gradually especially as part of a pathological > process _shed a virus in the feces_ > >   5. to rid oneself of temporarily or permanently as superfluous or unwanted > _shed her inhibitions_ , _the company shed 100 jobs_ > > Here, I am primarily interested in the third usage. We can _shed blood, sweat and tears_ but not much else. Obviously, we can also _shed our clothes_ or _shed light upon_ but these are different meanings. The etymology of the word is: > shed (v.) "cast off," Old English sceadan, scadan "to divide, separate, part > company; discriminate, decide; scatter abroad, cast about," strong verb > (past tense scead, past participle sceadan), from Proto-Germanic *skaithan > (cf. Old Saxon skethan, Old Frisian sketha, Middle Dutch sceiden, Dutch > scheiden, Old High German sceidan, German scheiden "part, separate, > distinguish," Gothic skaidan "separate"), from *skaith "divide, split." > > According to Klein's sources, this probably is related to PIE root *skei- > "to cut, separate, divide, part, split" (cf. Sanskrit chid-, Greek skhizein, > Latin scindere "to split;" Lithuanian skedzu "I make thin, separate, > divide;" Old Irish scian "knife;" Welsh chwydu "to break open"). Related: > Shedding. A shedding-tooth (1799) was a milk-tooth or baby-tooth. > > In reference to animals, "to lose hair, feathers, etc." recorded from > c.1500; of trees losing leaves from 1590s; of clothes, 1858. This verb was > used in Old English to gloss Late Latin words in the sense "to discriminate, > to decide" that literally mean "to divide, separate" (cf. discern). Hence > also scead (n.) "separation, distinction; discretion, understanding, > reason;" sceadwisnes "discrimination, discretion." As far as I can tell, the third meaning of _shed_ (in the quoted definition) is restricted to blood, sweat and tears. Why is that? What is the origin of the idiom _to shed blood_? I would guess that _shed blood_ comes from the meaning _to scatter abroad_ of the Old English word _sceadan_ , if so, why is it so restricted today? Was it once a more common term? Could we once say _that I shed water on my garden_ or _I shed the seeds in my field_?


What does "randomically" mean?

I've just read an O’Reilly book and encoutered the word _randomically_. I highly suspect this is a made up word, but a quick google found it in use here, here, and here. Is this some obscure technical term perhaps? Or is it a case of a covergent devolution of English? I don’t think this is a misspelling, as they (authors of the book) use the word _randomly_ in a previous sentence: > Shuffle Grouping is the most commonly used grouping. It takes a single > parameter (the source component) and sends each tuple emitted by the source > to a _randomly_ chosen bolt warranting that each consumer will receive the > same number of tuples. > > The shuffle grouping is useful for doing atomic operations such as a math > operation. However, if the operation can’t be _randomically_ distributed, > such as the example in Chapter 2 where you needed to count words, you should > consider the use of other grouping. > > [ _emphasis mine_ ] Did they intend it to mean something else? If so, what is that other meaning?


Augmentation in Computer Science

How would you define augmentation in terms of Computer Science? I've heard it used as 'strengthening': > "In jQuery, you design a page, and then you make it dynamic. This is because > jQuery was designed for augmentation...)" or as 'extension': > "I heard about cases where adding an extra requirement to a binary search > (for example) can be called augmentation." A Google search for 'augmentation computer science' brings up a Stack Overflow question, but that's for quite a specific context. Wikipedia defines Augmentation for numerous disciplines but not for Computer Science. There are lots of examples if you search for augmentation on programmers.SE. I had asked this question on programmers.SE - but was pointed here instead.


Phrase to say that something which happened twice already is likely to happen again

In French, there is the expression "jamais deux sans trois" (literally: "never twice without a third [time]"). We use it to express that something which has already happened twice is likely to happen again. Can someone point to a good, idiomatic, English equivalent?


"As of late" or "as of lately"?

The title pretty much summarizes my question. For example, in the following sentence > She has developed an accent while living overseas, which as of late(ly) > became more pronounced. I usually hear people say either _as of recently_ or _as of late_ , and one of those is bound to be grammatically incorrect. Or is it?


Why does "Please approve it" sound wrong?

Whenever I read an email like this, the English sounds incorrect to me. "I would like to take tomorrow off. Please approve it." I want to say that "Please approve" is more natural, but why is that?


Who speaks South African English (out of the many languages/ethnicities spoken in SA)?

From the limited experience I have of hearing English spoken by South Africans or even knowing someone is South African (from real life or movies), I find it impossible to really tell when someone is speaking with the accent called South African English (SAE). I've done some looking up at wikipedia: South African English, a summary of languages there and more in depth, but it's hard to get a real perspective. The latter says: > "Despite the fact that English is recognised as the language of commerce and > science, it was spoken by only 8.2% of South Africans at home in 2001" I expected (as is borne out by that page), that the great majority speak a native African language (Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Tswana, etc.) but I expected a bit more parity (not knowing history well otherwise) between the two colonial languages. But Afrikaans has only 13% speakers, and English only 8% (percentages are for first at-home language not including 2nd languages). > English, the country's lingua franca, is the language of business, politics, > and modern communication media, but ranks sixth in home usage. With that context in mind, what is the SAE accent? Who speaks with that accent? Presumably the descendents of English colonists speak that. Rather the question I have is, **do Afrikaners speak SAE accentless, or is there an Afrikaner accent in SAE, different from a Brit speaking SAE?** That is, did Pieter Botha or F. W. de Klerk the guy in the District 9 movie or Matt Damon in Invictus, did all these people speak SAE with the recognized average SAE accent, or did they speak it with an Afrikaner accent (since they are all Afrikaners at least by name)? My expectation is that Afrikaners and native Africans speak with English with something slightly different than an Anglo SAE accent.


What do you call it when you can't smell something?

The man who cannot see is _blind_. The man who cannot hear is _deaf_. The man who cannot talk is _mute_. What is the man who cannot smell?


What does Susan Sarandon’s remark, “you can’t just vote your vagina” in distancing from Christine Quinn mean?

I’m often startled with, and at the same time enjoy finding unordinary expressions and quotes in Maureen Dowd’s column in New York Times. But I batted my eyes when I saw the actress, Susan Sarandon’s line, “You can’t just vote your vagina,” Dowd quoted in her August 20 NYT article under the title, “Bill’s turns at bat.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/opinion/dowd-bills-turn-at-bat.html?hp&_r=0 > “Bill de Blasio, the 52-year-old public advocate has spent the last few days > surrounded by the liberal glitterati of New York: Cynthia Nixon and her > wife; “Boardwalk Empire” king Steve Buscemi; and ping-pong queen Susan > Sarandon, who said she decided not to support Christine Quinn because “ > **you can’t just vote your vagina**.” I’m confounded with the word; “vagina” being used in reference to vote and political decision and made by a female celebrity. What on the earth does it mean? Does it mean you can’t vote for someone simply because of the candidate being the same sex? Are such rhetorical and public remarks as “you can’t just vote your vagina” accepted as a matter of course today?


What happened to word gender in English?

I know English is a Germanic language and I know at least the German language still has genders -- three of them in fact -- _masculine_ , _feminine_ , _neuter_. So did the English nouns and adjectives have genders at some point? Do any modern nouns and adjectives still have gender and us non- linguists/laymen/uninformed just don't realize it? I know some nouns do; _actor/actress_ and _steward/stewardess_ come to mind. I just remember trying to learn German verb conjugations and the _der/die/das/die_ memorization was a PITA. **Update:** So it looks like there is no definitive answer as to how or why English lost genders in general but I am still wondering if at some point English did have genders and if there are any holdout nouns or adjectives that still have a gendered form. I'm guessing based on this information that _actress_ with the _‑ ress_ is a feminine word leftover but does that mean the _‑ or_ is a leftover masculine form. > It should also be noted that only a relatively small number of English nouns > have distinct male and female forms; many of them are loanwords from non- > Germanic languages (the suffixes _‑ ress_ and _‑ rix_ in words such as > _actress_ and _aviatrix,_ for instance, derive from Latin _‑ rix,_ in the > first case via the French _‑ rice_) Or are they referring to biological sexes and not word genders, or are they one in the same in this example?


Double Past Tense?

Can you please tell me which one of these sentences is correct, and why? Thanks! > Lastly, my experience as a teaching assistant helped me throughout the > course as I shared what I did to make my students succeed in the courses > that I **helped teach**. versus > Lastly, my experience as a teaching assistant helped me throughout the > course as I shared what I did to make my students succeed in the courses > that I **helped taught**.


Difference between "vision" and "mission"

> Definition of "vision" : > > The act or power of anticipating that which will or may come to be: > prophetic vision; the vision of an entrepreneur. The school's vision is to develop students into gentlemen of high integrity and robust character. > Definition of "mission" : > > An important goal or purpose that is accompanied by strong conviction; a > calling or vocation. The school's mission is to develop students into gentlemen of high integrity and robust character. What then is the difference between in 'mission' and 'vision'?


Transitive verb with 'as'

When I looked up the word _hail_ in _Longman Online Dictionary_ and _Oxford Advanced Dictionary Online_ , I saw it has been marked as _transitive verb_. I also noticed by someone's note that a verb followed by a preposition is not be categorized as transitive verb. For example in: > I came to his home => _come_ is still _intransitive_ verb. So could you point out to me the role of _as_ in the example below: > The conference was hailed as a great success.


A word used to mean "the ultimate answer"

I am looking for a word that I have seen many times and that has temporarily escaped my brain. If someone was to be looking for the answer to the ultimate or existential questions (life/death/religion/higher purpose etc.), what is the word used for this answer? Not the answer itself, but a synonym for _answer_ with a heavier or grander meaning. Example: > Humans have spent millennia looking for the X to life’s greatest questions.


Etymology of sponge types

Sponges ( _Porifera_ ) come in three body forms \- asconoid (vase-shaped), syconoid (pleated vase), and leuconoid (network of chambers, like bath sponges). I was wondering what the etymology of these terms was. Since they are scientific terms, I'm assuming Classical origin, but I don't know enough Greek or Latin to recognize the roots.


What's the difference between "Cross Country Running" and "Trail Running"?

"Trail running" shoes differs markedly from "road running" shoes and "track running" shoes. I can understand these categories. But I also found an event entitled "Cross Country Running Event". Can the "Cross Country Running Event" be treated as "Trail Running Event"?


English equivalent for this German term "Salzamt"?

In Austria, we sometimes jokingly say: > Beschwerden ans Salzamt! > > Complaints to the Bureau of Salt meaning that it is not possible to appeal a decision, or that it is simply useless to complain about something. Is there an English equivalent to this? //EDIT: Some examples, because they were requested.   * Meaning which I am searching for: Someone complains about something you don't want to fix, or makes an unreasonable or impossible demand. You send them to the Bureau of Salt.   * You have released something to the public but know that it is imperfect, or you have made a decision you know that is unpopular. Yet, it is the way it is and you cannot or don't want to change it. You disclaim: _Complain to the Bureau of a Salt!_ , or alternatively, _This can be appealed at the Bureau of Salt_.   * There is this entity (usually a government department) which made the decision your friend does not agree to. They keep complaining to everyone (including you). Both of you know that it is of no use. At some point, you're fed up and tell them to complain to the Bureau of Salt instead.


Did Shakespeare really mean meat pies by baked meats?

Here's from _Hamlet_ , Act 1, Scene 2(The Arden Shakespeare edited by Harold Jenkins). > Thrift, thrift, Horatio. The funeral bak'd meats > > Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables. Jenkins interpreted "bak'd meats" as meat pies. I wonder why it couldn't be, for example, roasted chickens.


"The maximum number": plural or singular?

Kindly, what are your thoughts on the following sentences: >   1. The maximum number of wordbooks (%d) have been saved. >   2. The maximum number of wordbooks (%d) has been saved. > My opinion is that (1) is more appropriate as "save" relates to wordbooks (a plural noun) and "The ... number" is some kind of determiner. The dissenting opinion is that "The number" is obviously singular, and the "wordbooks" are subsidiary. I agree that (2) is grammatically correct but I maintain it implies merely a single number was saved, not the wordbooks themselves.


"A million and a half" vs. "one and a half million"

Every so often, I come across the phrase "a million and a half X" - which always strikes me as strange: it suggests 1000000.5 of the thing. I was taught to use instead "one and a half million" to be unambiguous. Is the first form actually acceptable, though? Or is it just sloppy writing/editing?


What does “a bookstore-counting mood in Paris prompts soul-searching over Amazon’s 41 % share of new book sales in America” mean?

In the article titled “The French do buy books. Real books” appearing in New York Times (July 9), the author, Pamela Druckerman writes: > “Recently when I was strolling through my museum-like neighborhood in > central Paris, I realized there were seven bookstores within a 10-minute > walk of my apartment.--Do the French know something about the book business > that we Americans don’t? > > I was **in a bookstore-counting mood** because of the news that Amazon has > delayed or stopped delivering some books, over its dispute with the > publisher Hachette. This has **prompted soul-searching over Amazon’s 41 > percent share of new book sales** in America and its 65 percent share of new > books sold online. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/opinion/pamela-druckerman-the-french-do- > buy-books-real-books.html?partner=rss&emc=rss I was interested in the usage of the word,”’soul-searching’ over Amazon’s 41 % share of new book sales.” What does ‘soul-searching’ here mean? CED defines ‘soul search’ as: Deep and careful attention to private thoughts, **especially about a moral problem.** OED defines ‘soul search’ as: Deep and anxious consideration of one’s **emotions and motives** or of the correctness of a course of action. Merriam-Webster Online defines ‘soul searching’ as; Examination of one's own thoughts and feelings Common notion of ‘soul search” of the above dictionaries is attention to, or examination of one’s own emotion, feeling or motivation. I wonder if the expression “soul searching Amazon’s 41% sales share, which is an objective figure, not personal feeling and motivation is suitable to the original usage of ‘soul-searching,’ or not. BTW, I am interested in the usage of ‘in a bookstore-counting mood.” Can I apply “in XXX-counting mood” to any other subjects, for instance, “I’m in a counting-mood of the present administration’s failures in Economic policies,” “I’m in a counting-mood of my boss’ mishandlings of business”? Can it be well-understood by native English speakers?


Origin of the word “boner”

What is the origin of the word _boner_? Trying to find the roots for its prevalent usage, especially in North America. According to a dictionary it means _an erect penis_.


What is the difference between 'curricula' and 'curriculum'? Both appear to have the same definition. Are they used in the same context?


Grammar of 'over' in 'The accident was already over when we arrived'

What is the grammar of the word 'over' in the example:'The accident was already over when we arrived' I know it means finished and I think it's an adjective but didn't find the same meaning in the adjectival uses listed by dictionary.com: adjective 41\. upper; higher up.   1. higher in authority, station, etc.    2. serving, or intended to serve, as an outer covering; outer.    3. remaining or additional, surplus; extra.  Neither did I find the same meaning in any of the other grammatical functions listed regarding 'over'   1. too great; excessive (usually used in combination): Insufficient tact and overaggressiveness are two of his problems.


Is it acceptable to say "more [adjective]" when there is already a dedicated form making "more" unnecessary (e.g. "angrier" vs. "more angry")?

For years, it irritated me that people kept using "more [adjective]" where there were already dedicated forms making "more" unnecessary. For example, people would say "more tight" than "tighter". I figured people were just being forgetful, but then I see notable publications like The New York Times using "more angry" instead of "angrier". "They were more angry with Washington and intense in their desires for a smaller federal government and deficit." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html I've researched online, and I don't see any clear indication that both are acceptable. Is "more angry" correct and acceptable in this case?


Etymology of "ramp up"?

The idiom "ramp up" is frequently used in English to mean "increase the size/amount of"; for example: > The company ramped up its advertising to try and sell more products. What, though, it the etymology of this phrase? Why do we use the verb "ramp" here?


Use of "parley" meaning to convert?

I sometimes use the word "parley" as a verb effectively meaning "to convert from one language or system to another". Such as > Stargate parleys the Egyptian deities into villainous star-faring aliens. I've been told this usage is incorrect, and I can't find any definition to support how I use it. Is there a similar word that means what I think it does, or am I totally off base?


I was wondering if there are synonyms for "I was wondering"

Often I ask a question (by e-mail), and precede the question with _I was wondering if..._ For example _I was wondering if you can give me your office hrs?_ Why not just simply ask the real question? e.g. "Can you give me your office hours; what are your office hours? My purpose for saying _I was wondering_ before the actual question, was to avoid the alternative of asking the question blatantly, which may appear inconsiderate to other parties. The general purpose is to ask a question, in such a way that recipient feels comfortable and respected, to get the best possible response. **What are some alternative synonyms to: "I was wondering"?** Might someone know of a different, effective approach to asking questions?


When do I have to use 'will' instead of 'going to'?

Does _going to_ only express an intention and _will_ some kind of prediction that doesn't necessarily happen? EDIT: Thanks for all your answers. I asked this question because I always fail to complete exercises like this from an ESL book:   * We will fly to Venice in June. (Correct: But, how can I be sure that I'm not sick in June?)   * Philipp will be 15 next Wednesday (Correct: Since his birthday is a fixed day, this will happen).   * They will get a new computer. (Wrong: Why?, If I need a new computer, I simply get a new one)   * In 2020 people are going to buy more hybrid cars. (Wrong, Why? Who can tell for sure).