The drone as autonomous vehicle

Why are these 21st century autonomous vehicles called _drones_? Why was this zoology inspired name chosen for this kind of technology? And who was the first to call this technology by this name?


Word for strength of will

As the title shows, can anyone tell me what is the word for _strength of will_? For example, > Her _strength of will_ was extraordinary.


Meter in Tennyson's *Maud*

How should Tennyson's _Maud_ be read? I.e. what is its meter? Here are the first four lines: > I HATE the dreadful hollow behind the little wood,   >  Its lips in the field above are dabbled with blood-red heath,   >  The red-ribb’d ledges drip with a silent horror of blood,   >  And Echo there, whatever is ask’d her, answers “Death.”


Should "guest of honour" be capitalised?

> The Principal will invite the guest of honour to give the National Day > message at 9 o'clock. Is the _guest of honour_ capitalised?


Single word for "finding company"

This is my very first question here on `english.stackexchange.com`, so please don't bite me if I do anything wrong. Also sorry for my English, it's far from perfect. I need a single word (or a short informal conversational phrase) for `"finding company"` (to do something together, opposite to spending time alone), like in "He had finally found someone to watch the movie with". Thanks in advance.


Is there a good book about interesting grammar in any language?

I love reading about interesting differences in grammar in different languages, e.g. Finnish cases. Is there a good book, site or something else that treats "interesting things in grammar" in any language?


Single word antonym of "censorship"

What is a single word antonym of _censorship_? _Freedom of speech_ is too long. I would like to be able to contrast it like: > ignorance vs knowledge > > submission vs defiance > > oppression vs freedom


“all that” vs. “all what”

I’ve heard somebody say: > All what is needed is … I thought the correct way to phrase it was: > All that is needed is … However, thinking about it more, the former doesn’t sound _too_ incorrect, albeit a bit odd. Is the former grammatically correct? Am I alone in thinking the latter sounds more natural?


Why is "you cannot buy all what you like" wrong?

I got the following sentences from http://www.engvid.com/english- resource/50-common-grammar-mistakes-in-english-2/ > Wrong: You cannot buy all what you like!   >  Right: You cannot buy all that you like! Why is the first one wrong? I do see the structure "you can do what you..." many times, e.g. "how to talk about what you want".


"Money is all what/that I need."

* 1.) _Money is_ **_all that_** _I need._   * 2.) _Money is_ **_all what_** _I need._ Which one is right? or which one have you not ever seen? and is there any difference between them? But, what about the following?   * If we consider the word **_"all"_** as an **adverb** , not as a **noun** , what would you like to say? ( **In addition:** I am wondering the reason why my question is labeled as an answered question, because if you look at it you will notice that they are not the same at all.)


Meaning of the word "findings"?

I need to find a word to define the products you see in the capture. The best match I've found is _findings_. Is this word the correct one? Is there a better word for these products? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/w0Sqp.png)


"This helps us how?" vs. "How does this help us?"

In the sci-fi movie _Inception_ by Christopher Nolan, in the first level of dreaming, they kidnap Cilian Murphy and Tom Hardy tries to get some information from him, by impersonating Browning, his uncle. Then they sedate him in a car. Tom Hardy removes the bag from his head, gets down from the car, and says to Di Caprio's character: > That boy's relationship with his father is even worse than we imagined. To which Joseph Gordon Levitt's character replies, > This helps us how? Is this a correct sentence? Why didn't he say > How does this help us?


"Succeeded out of luck" and "Is out of luck" To be out of luck

I understand the usage, but "out of luck" itself I don't quite grasp. Where does it come from? I want to know the etymology of "out of" in the sense of not having.


Is "Customizable" a valid English word?

Is the word " **Customizable** " a valid English word? Every time i write that word, the spell checker underlines it, and it suggests using "Customization" or "Customize", I'm not a native English speaker. That word exists in online dictionaries so i wonder why does the spell checker underline it.


Is there a single word for 'scaring a person for sake of fun'?

An example situation: > My friend is watching a horror movie. He is lost deep into the movie. Taking > advantage of this situation I wear a mask of a ghost and suddenly appear in > front of him just to scare him for the sake of fun. Does the act I did ie. 'scaring a person for sake of fun' have a single word equivalent?


Is 'disinstruct' or 'de-instruct' legitimate usage?

When you engage a lawyer or an estate agent, for example, you _instruct_ them. What is the most appropriate word to use when you decide you've had enough and want to get rid of them? There are several good contenders but _'dis- instruct'_ would seem most appropriate - and yet I'm unable to find this word in any of the common reference dictionaries. Is it a legitimate word? Google Ngram yielded the following, but only for ' _dis - instruct_ '. All other possible constructions of this word flatlined. Ngram Other possible constructions are _uninstruct_ (although as back-formation of _uninstructed_ there is potential for misinterpretation) and _de-instruct_.


Comma in "more than $6 billion to settle a long-running lawsuit, in a pact that also permits"

> Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and some large banks agreed to pay scores of > retailers—from giant Publix Supermarkets Inc. to an interior-design store in > Minnesota—more than $6 billion to settle **a long-running lawsuit, in a > pact** that also permits merchants to charge more to customers who pay with > credit cards. — WSJ How would the meaning change if that comma between "lawsuit" and "in a pact" is removed? Another example: >   * The two sides have agreed to stop fighting in a pact that allows further > peace talks. >   * The two sides have agreed to **stop fighting, in a pact** that allows > further peace talks. >


Why these sentences doesn't have auxiliary word in it?

In these sentences, why isn't there an auxiliary verb? I would expect that there will be one after "Who" in both sentences: 1) Who cooks when Karen and Andy have friends round for dinner, 2) Who chatted to people online at the weekend?


Hyphenation "kinetic"

What is the correct hyphenation of "kinetic" (if it matters in British English). I found two possibilities: > **ki-net-ic** (/kə-ˈne-tik/) in the Merriam Webster (which might be US > English) and **kin-et-ic** (/kI'netIk/ or /kaI'netIk/) in the Oxford > Advanced Learners Dictionary 8th edition (British version?). Is there a difference in hyphenation rules between British and US English?


What is the best way to say that something was done in teamwork?

In my resume, I'm describing several projects I've worked on in the past. Most of them were done in teamwork. What is the best way to say this? Examples: Together with XY, I built ... OR In collaboration with XY, I built ... OR XY and I built ... Are the first two examples grammatically correct? I'm unsure since first I state that something has been done in collaboration with a second person, but then I use "I built ...".


How should a person holding a foreign military rank be addressed?

While researching how to call a person that holds a rank at a foreign (non English speaking) military, I came to very confusing results: Wikipedia is not consistent on the issue:   * it sometimes gives the rank in the native language alone, as in the case for Erwin Rommel, Heinrich Himmler, Heinz Guderian, and Gerd von Rundstedt, all of whom are German, and the current Israeli Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz.   * In other cases, it gives the rank in the native language with an equivalent rank in English, as in the case for Israel Tal who was an Israeli general.   * And sometimes it only gives the equivalent rank, as in the case of Israeli Medal of Valor recipient Zvika Greengold and Japanese military aviator Minoru Genda. Other sources are also confusing:   * The Jewish Virtual Library, in their page about Erwin Rommel call Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian and Gerd von Runstedt Field Marshal, even though they have different ranks (Rommel and von Runstedt were _Generalfeldmarschall_ and Guderian was a _Generaloberst_ ).   * The site's www.auschwitz.dk page about Himmler give's his rank as _Reichsfuhrer-SS_ , while the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum gives his rank as the translation to English with the German rank in parentheses:  > Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945) was the Reich Leader (Reichsführer) of the > dreaded SS of the Nazi party from 1929 until 1945   * This article on rt.com about the letters of Erwin Rommel simply call him general.   * The articles in the Independent, the English version of Haaratz, The New York Times and Israel's Armored Corps Memorial Site about Israel Tal's Death all call him Major-General without mentioning the Hebrew rank. After all of this I'm left confused as I can't really see any pattern of proper use his,   * Should the rank in the original language be used, the equivalent "English" rank be used, or a translation of the rank?   * Is there any difference if the original language is a non-Indo-European language vs. an Indo-European language (Hebrew vs. German)?   * In the case that an equivalent rank is used, what set of ranks is the standard (Wikipedia uses the NATO Code)?   * Finally, since my rank is Rav Samal, should I call myself Rav samal, Sergeant First Class (the NATO corresponding rank) or Master Sergeant (the translation)?


Real Estate or Real-Estate?

Which is the correct way to write "Real Estate" - with or without hyphen? And when should we use hyphens?


"to be" as a phrase

Please edit this question's title, if you think it's inconsistent with my question: In an email, I wrote: "I've pasted a link that leads to my application list, **which will be completed** once I hear back from schools about their engineering school admissions policies." Is the use of "to be" in the following sentence an acceptable substitute. "I've pasted a link that leads to my application list, **to be completed** once I hear back from schools about their engineering school admissions policies."


Can a symmetry be "broken down" (to a lower symmetry)?

**Background** Symmetries are a key concept in physics, and describe the invariance of a system under certain operations (for example, rotation). Breaking a symmetry refers to modifying the system in a way so that it is no longer invariant under the same operation. A symmetry can be completely broken, or only partially broken with a lower symmetry remaining. For example: a circle always looks the same, regardless of the angle you rotate it by. A square also has a rotational symmetry, but you have to rotate by multiples of 90 degrees to get the same picture. Hence, the symmetry of the square is lower. **Question** In the scientific literature, people use the expression "to break down a symmetry" when referring to a reduction from high symmetry (circle) to a lower symmetry (square) as compared to a complete breaking (irregular shape). They might write > The original continuous symmetry was broken down to a symmetry under 90 > degree rotations. In my opinion, the expression "to break down" is not appropriate, because it means to separate into its parts or to destroy completely rather than to reduce to a smaller part. I would instead write > The original continuous symmetry was reduced to a symmetry under 90 degree > rotations. Does the use of "to break down" with this meaning deviate from the usual meaning of this phrase in other contexts? Here are some examples, suggesting that the use of "to break down" in the sense of reducing to a smaller part is at least common in the field: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2115 (native speaker, authority in his field) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.2934 http://www.science.uva.nl/~bais/broksym.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%E2%80%B2_and_Z%E2%80%B2_bosons


Does a nonessential phrase affect the pronoun?

I was proofreading some text for a friend and I stumbled across this sentence: > Glen, along with his close group of friends, took their first trip to Hawaii > in 1986. My question is this: Is this correct, or should _their first trip_ really be _his first trip_? I see the phrase between the commas as an nonessential phrase, and it appears to me that the sentence should be written so that it could stand alone without it. Therefore, to me it seems as though _his first trip_ would be correct. However, the author is of the opinion that since there are multiple people going on the trip, _their first trip_ is appropriate. (My "real" answer would be to rewrite the sentence to avoid this issue in the first place, but I'm still curious.)


Difference between "premiss" and "premise"

In speaking of propositions, not buildings, are _premise_ and _premiss_ variant spellings of the same word, or are they different terms with different usages? The _American Heritage Dictionary_ (3/e) gives _premise_ as the main entry, with _premiss_ as a variant spelling, which I've assumed was British. But one internet source asserts that _premiss_ is preferable because of its etymology; another suggests that _premiss_ is always the correct term in logic.


Difficulty in interpreting a statute

In my home state, there is a statute regarding child seats. > >     § 20-137.1.  Child restraint systems required. >   > > (a) Every driver who is transporting one or more passengers of less than 16 > years of age shall have all such passengers properly secured in a child > passenger restraint system or seat belt which meets federal standards > applicable at the time of its manufacture. > > (a1) _A child less than eight years of age and less than 80 pounds in weight > shall be properly secured in a weight-appropriate child passenger restraint > system._ In vehicles equipped with an active passenger-side front air bag, > if the vehicle has a rear seat, a child less than five years of age and less > than 40 pounds in weight shall be properly secured in a rear seat, unless > the child restraint system is designed for use with air bags. If no seating > position equipped with a lap and shoulder belt to properly secure the > weight-appropriate child passenger restraint system is available, a child > less than eight years of age and between 40 and 80 pounds may be restrained > by a properly fitted lap belt only. Here's the source. I am confused on the first sentence in a1, particularly concerning a child who is older than eight but who weighs less than 80 pounds. Does he have to be secured in a child passenger restraint system? It comes down to the "and." If the "and" means a logical disjunction, then the statute has no bearing on either an 81 pound six-year-old or a 72 pound eleven-year-old. They may sit in the front with a lap and shoulder belt if they wish (and no one else has called "shotgun"). However, if the intent of the law is to keep smaller children from being injured by airbags, then perhaps the lawmakers should have rephrased, removing the age, to something like "A child above 80 pounds may sit in a lap and shoulder belt in the front seat. Children under 80 pounds shall be properly secured in a weight-appropriate child passenger restraint system in a rear seat." I'm having trouble interpreting the letter of the law. I'm not sure what the spirit of the law is, either. In a normal reading (as opposed to being tried in court by lawyers), does this statute apply to my 72 pound, eleven-year-old? That is, does 20-137.1 require me to put my eleven-year-old in a car seat?


"Ma'am" or "Miss" in American English?

Is it common to address a female sales clerk as Miss in the US? What about ma'am? If neither is proper, what would you suggest?


Can inversion be used without auxiliary verb?

Is the following sentence grammatically correct? > I don't like autumn to be honest, neither like I winter that's coming after > it. Can inversion be used in this way? Or does it requires auxiliary _do_? > I don't like autumn to be honest, neither do I like winter that's coming > after it. The meaning should be: _I don't like autumn, I don't like winter_. * * * Is inversion appropriate in this case? Or is it better to use the regular word order? >   1. I don't like autumn to be honest, and neither I like winter that's > coming after it. >   2. I don't like autumn to be honest, and I like winter that's coming after > it either. > Which of the two is preferable?


Indicator vs. Indication

The Merriam Webster Dictionary gives the following definitions.   * Indicator - "one that indicates"   * Indication - "something that serves to indicate" How are they different? Is saying that an "indicator gives an indication" correct?


How can I interpret the meaning of “narrative” in different situations?

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the meaning of "narrative" is defined as: >   1. A description of events, especially in a novel. >   2. The act, process or skill of telling a story. > However, the meanings of "narrative" used in the following three examples of sentences I recently came across don't appear to necessarily match either of the above definitions. Here are three examples of sentences using the word "narrative". Can somebody rephrase the specific meaning of each in an easy-to-understand way for non native English learners like me? * * * > (In Charlie Sheen’s show held in Detroit,) Audience growing restless. This > show is all pump-up, **no narrative**. – The Guardian. * * * > I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not > much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he > has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, > he’s using it to reinforce his **enemies' narrative**. – New York Times * * * > The story of Capitol Hill's week on the brink — which brought Washington > within an hour of a government shutdown — is a **narrative of three men** , > each with a confining sense of his own limitations. – Washington Post


Is "crevice" an abstract or concrete noun?

I can't find an answer to this question that my students and I are debating about. Is _crevice_ an abstract or concrete noun?


Proper use of passive and active voices?

My question is when passive voice is preferred over active voices and vice versa?   1. I remember that I was taught that in scientific writings, passive voice was preferred over active voice. Is it correct?   2. If I want to describe several actions of mine, for example: > I did thing A. I did thing B. I did thing C. I did thing D. ... If I keep using the active voice, will that make the description boring? That is why I thought juxtaposition of passive and active voice would make the description better: > I did thing A. Thing B was done by me. I did thing C. Thing D was done by > me. ... But a comment led me wonder whether juxtaposition of passive and active voice is good, or when it is good and when it isn't?


When to use passive and active voice

When is it better to use **passive** voice in writing and speech? When is it better to use **active** voice in writing and speech?


"much too [something]" vs "too much [something]"

Which are the differences in meaning and usage between the two expressions "much too [something]" and the most common "too much [something]"? Are they completely interchangeable? i.e.: "much too wise" vs "too much wise"


Is ‘12ers’ well-established alias for 2012 Presidential candidate?

I puzzled over the first line of the article of December 9’s _Time_ magazine titled "Des Moines Dust-Up", which reads; > '12ers (minus Huntsman) square-off at Drake University for ABC News/Yahoo! > News/WOI-TV/Des Moines Register/Iowa GOP debate from 9 - 11 pm ET. As it didn’t occur to me that _12ers_ means 2012 Presidential candidates (until I reasoned it out by the context), I searched for definitions of _12ers_ on Google, and found that only Wikipedia provides the following definition: > ‘12"ers’ is a 1987/1988 remix album released by Phil Collins. The album > contains six tracks from his 1985 hit album, No Jacket required, > remixed..... Is _12ers_ widely-accepted as the word representing for 2012 presidential candidates? Do Americans immediately associate _12ers_ with Presidential candidates, not Phil Collins’ album? Is this word automatically renewed every 4 years as _04ers_ , _08ers_ , _16ers_ , _20ers_ , and _n＋4ers_ without public consensus?


What is the meaning of "as with" in the following sentences?

To appear to flash as with light. As with any large organisation, Nokia had a unique problem in how to collaborate on a level playing field with 50,000 employees worldwide. (in the first example, the meaning is one of the definitions of the verb "to snap")


Non verbal predicates in English

Is a non-verbal predicate a synonymous term for "nominal predicate"? And moreover, do non-verbal predicates only appear with linking verbs or can also appear in other types of constructions? I acknowledge definitions of concepts, because I isn't clarified :)


"Neither-nor" as an adjective?

I'm reading in a newspaper: > "He is a neither-nor judge." Is the phrase correct?


Hypernym for "customer," "supplier", "manufacturer"

I need an abstraction for the above terms. In financial services, _counterparty_ is often used. Another hypernym could be _account_ (although this sounds more like a bank account, or user/login account). Also _third-party account_ (although I've never heard of this one). Which would be the correct way and/or most descriptive term? My reason for asking is that I am designing a new database schema and want a base name from which these three types will inherit. All of these people "transact" in business, and that's what they have in common.


reduced relative clause

Could anyone please look at the following sentences and tell me if the reduced version is acceptable, and if any any difference exists between the full and reduced versions? Thank you * * * a) Anyone who touches the wire will get a shock. a') Anyone touching the wire will get a shock. b) Women who look after small children get paid well. b') Women looking after small children get paid well. c) The person who looks after my child every day is sick. c') The person looking after my child every day is sick. d) The student who looks bright is John. d') The student looking bright is John. e) The man who lives is Tokyo is rich. e') The man living in Tokyo is rich. f) The boy who found the cat was Tom. f') The boy finding the cat was Tom.


Can I say "He recommended you much"

I need to mark that someone made some effort to recommend third person services and it was something more than "he is good in that". Checking a dictionary, _much_ is an adverb meaning "to a great extent; a great deal" Is the phrase "He the recommended you much" suitable for showing such praise? Is there a better way? If there is, why?


Origin of "City of ...", "County of ...", "Town of ..."

I'm curious about the numerous civic names (at least in Canada) which are in the 'of' form, by which I mean: City of Toronto, County of Wellington, etc. To me, this form sounds antiquated. I can accept when 'of' is adding some value to the phrase, like 'hall of fame', 'house of cards', but when it's merely referencing a civic name, where's the value? It's Toronto. It's Wellington County. No 'of' needed! I assume that these sorts of expressions have been part of the language for a long time, but am curious as to how and when this form may have originated.


How To Classify A Way Of Speaking Other Than Pronunciation Or Accent?

When you hear certain people talk, there's something distinct about the way they speak that you insist is not their accent. It's not even the pronunciation (e.g. can't vs. cahn't). It's also not their natural voice or emotion. This happens when you hear someone speak and the "accent" may reveal his or her sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, intelligence, popularity, subculture, sometimes disability, etc. What do you call this kind of classification?


Meaning of comment "Game. Set. Match."

What's the meaning of p2's comment? > P1: My gf is a doctor and she makes twice as much as I do. F-k I feel like a > weird mother f-ker. She makes all the bling at home. I only make around 42k > a year as a fund accountant :(. Although she owes a sh-t ton in loans and > I'm debt free. > > P2: "I'm debt free." Game. Set. Match.


A Preceded By B, so which comes first?

I was reading a technical requirement documentation and it says:               A Save Event preceded by the user un-checking the "Active" check box...       So does it mean: they un-check the "Active" check box and then they Save ?


Is there a term for "genocide" of the elderly?

The word _infanticide_ means: > killing of babies: the practice of killing newborn babies Is there an equivalent term for killing the elderly?


Questions about the subtleties of the genitive case

The AP style guide suggests that things like "Farmers Markets" or "Veterans Cemeteries" cannot "belong" to the members of the groups for which they were set up. I would posit that a thing _for the use of_ a group (e.g., farmers or veterans), has an implied ownership...more collectively, but I feel it's ownership nonetheless, and would write farmers' market and veterans' cemetery. Anyone have any experience with this, and can anyone explain the subtleties of ownership vs non-ownership in these cases? I'm trying to wrap my head around why AP chose the guideline they did.


Why pool of processes?

I hit the sentence: > The _ProcessPoolExecutor_ class is an _Executor_ subclass that uses a pool > of processes to execute calls asynchronously. I was looking for the word pool which means `swimming pool` in most cases. So, I'm asking the question: Why we're using in concurrent programming terminology the term `pool of processes` and not `list of processes`, `set of processes` etc. How did the term come into existence? Where is the origin?


Professor what is it?

**Email:**   Dr. Elbert Ainstein,   _Dear sir I have read everything you ever wrote. blah blah.. Your paper on so..more blah... I wish to study at your esteemed blahblahb...._   Yours Sincerely,   Beststud Youlleverhave Dr. Elbert Ainstein is a professor and Beststud Youlleverhave is a student. Students often write mails to profs before admissions(to get admissions). I have been to a University's webpage. It said we encourage `Professor ________ing`. I can't remember what that word was. What is it? What is the word for this thing?


Comma(s) when starting a sentence with both an introductory element and participial clause

If a sentence is starting with both an introductory element and a participial clause, where do I need to set the comma(s) appropriately? Consider the following versions of an example sentence: > (A): Finally, having explained the consequences, we recommend bringing the > car to the dealer's garage. (B): Finally having explained the consequences, > we recommend bringing the car to the dealer's garage. I do know that for short introductory elements (such as "Finally") the comma is not mandatory, but I am unsure if in the given example sentence it is at all possible. Personally, I prefer version A; however, this preference is driven by my gut feeling rather than by a specific formal rule. So, maybe someone knows? I appreciate any help!


Must OK only be written in capital letters?

Whenever I write **ok** the spell checkers underline it with a red line and suggest that I should **OK**. Not even **Ok** works. Why is this so?


What are the references of the words in the paragraph?

While reading an article about persuasive games, I stumble upon this paragraph, which I do not understand the meaning of the sentences from the way they are structured. > The concept of authorship incorporates another feature of art more broadly: > the pursuit of a particular truth irrespective of the demands of reception > or sales. The sense that the artifact has something to relate and will not > relent until that thing is expressed, rather than an experience to be > optimized, is at work here. > > ... > > **Player agency** in games of all kinds leads to unique interpretations of > play experiences; in proceduralist works, such meaning generation is > stimulated by the knowledge that **a specific human being** set the work's > processes into motion. What does it mean to say "player agency"? My interpretation of this term is an organisation of gameplay for the players in he game. But I am not certain. In its following sentence, it says "stimulated by the knowledge that a specific human being set the work's processes into motion". Here, who is the "specific human being" referred to? Is it the author of the work, or the player in the game?


What is the antonym of "blank" in "a blank sheet of paper"?

Say, you have a sheet of paper. It is blank. I begin to write on it. It's no longer blank. But then what it is? I have tried the usual sources for antonyms but came up, well, blank.


Is it correct to say "I'm not urgent to do something"?

I know it is correct to say "Something is not urgent for me". But it is correct to say > I'm not urgent to do something. If not, how do I state that I really want some problem to be resolved – maybe the problem is quite important in the future – but solving that problem is not urgent, and I would rather wait for some days or some weeks to find the best answer. That is, "I" is the subject, and the object of the verb or term I'm seeking may be a long phrase with long clauses.


What is: a made-up word used to rhyme with something you want to mock, called?

For example, "Apple schmapple" to mean "I scoff at your Apple product".


I don't get this joke. Sentence seems like nonsense to me

So, I was at the bar last week, Behind the bar they have these signs with jokes on them. One of them said "If your drinking to forget, please pay me first"(This isn't the question, I get this joke). Somebody at the bar, noticing it, said to the bartender: "I don't have a drinking to forget, but if I did, what about it?". The bartender, looked confused, and then the guy pointed to the sign. The bartender still didn't get it, and he laughed at her. But I didn't get the joke either. This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Why is it funny?


What is the best way in which to understand bracketed text?

Though a native English-speaker, I've always had trouble understanding bracketed text. It's fairly clear that parenthesis indicate "optional" text, as in below: > The (unusually quick) man stormed into the store and grabbed every lighter > from the stand near the cash register. Above, it's not necessary to include the text "unusually quick," as it can be determined somewhat from the context, but its inclusion indicates a reaction of the author or a point desired to be emphasized. The general idea seems to be that a sentence with parenthesized text should be able to be read without the parenthesized text. While the parethesized text _adds_ to the sentence details, it is not _necessary_ in and of itself. However, square brackets seem to indicate complete literary freedom to rewrite a quotation entirely: > ...[he] had [indicated that he had] made the gesture without [complete > knowledge and] familiarity with [Taiwanese] custom. What are the rules with using square brackets and their general implication? I, as the reader, am completely at the mercy of the author in trusting him that he has conveyed the quote in its proper context and intention.


Is there a term for "distinguishing between different concepts through the use of different, though synonymous, words"?

**Background:** A friend mentioned that he wanted to organise a board gaming tournament with 21 players. He opined that there ought to be a way to schedule seven 3-player games so that each player plays each of the seven games, and no player plays any opponent more than once. I replied that there is indeed such a way to schedule games:               ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQR STU     SQO ATR DBU GEC JHF MKI PNL     PKF SNI AQL DTO GBR JEU MHC     MER PHU SKC ANF DQI GTL JBO     JTI MBL PEO SHR AKU DNC GQF     GNU JQC MTF PBI SEL AHO DKR     DHL GKO JNR MQU PTC SBF AEI      My friend asked me to explain how I had come up with this scheme. I replied as follows: "The players are arranged in three cohorts: ADGJMPS, BEHKNQT and CFILORU. The players in the first cohort appear first in each group, the players in the second cohort appear second in each group, and the players in the third cohort appear third. Each round, the players in the first cohort advance one group to the right; the players in the second cohort advance two groups to the right; and the players in the third cohort advance three groups to the right. The crucial reason why this approach works is that 7 is a prime number." * * * **Question:** The substance of my question is as follows. In my reply above, I used the words "cohort" and "group". These terms are synonymous, but I am using them to describe different things in an ad hoc fashion. I am using the term "group" to mean the sets of three letters (players) that are written with no spaces in between, representing players that are playing in the same game in that timetable slot. Meanwhile, I am using "cohort" to mean the three groups of seven players who never face one another because they move "in parallel" between the groups. Even though I am using two words that in principle mean the same thing, I am purposefully lending each of them a technical meaning and distinguishing between two concepts by choosing to describe each of them with one of those ostensibly synonymous words. Is there a term for this practice? Another examples would be the terms "set" and "group" in pure mathematics (in general English usage these words mean the same thing, yet in mathematics a "group" is a special kind of "set").


Difference between "scenery" and "landscape"

What's the difference between _scenery_ and _landscape_? In what situations can I use them interchangeably? > The **scenery/landscape** at the school is beautiful. Does _landscape_ sound natural in the sentence above?


Could I use "Ending projects(contests)"?

I have a menu item and a category that is called "Ending projects". It means that in this section are projects(contests) that will end soon (like in 1-2 days). I have also a block on my page called Ending Projects, to take attention. My question is if I can use this form or not. If not, what other form do you suggest, thanks.


What is the origin of ZOMG?

I have looked in a number of places, with contradicting results. The Urban Dictionary provides a whopping 73 "explanations", of which I will quote just a few. (Original spelling and punctuation preserved.) >   * ZOMG is a varient of the all-too-popular acronym "OMG", meaning "Oh My > God". ZOMG originated from the imageboard 4chan.org and one of it's members > Zardoz. > Even though 4chan is _the_ Internet meme machine, I would like to see supporting evidence for this particular claim. >   * zOMG is a varient of the all-too-popular acronym "OMG", meaning "Oh My > God". The "z" was originally a mistake while attempting to hit the shift key > with the left hand, and type "OMG" > The first sentence is copied verbatim from the previous (and older) explanation, with the "Z" changed into a "z". It appears that the author hasn't quite thought it through — if you mistakenly hit `Z` instead of `Shift`, you'll end up with "zomg", not with "zOMG". Besides, on my keyboard, there's the `>` key between the `Z` and the left shift key. >   * A more enthusiastic (if not sarcastic) way of saying OMG. The Z doesn't > stand for anything, but rather is added onto the O, thus making it > pronounced "ZOH MY GOD!!1" > Doesn't address the origin and is not very convincing anyway — why "Z" and not "S", "X", "W", "J", or in fact any letter? >   * ZOMG was the ruler of the planet XYRZON until 2451 AD, when he was > overthrown by KFOP after the battle of SHMUR. > Oh well. >   * zombies! oh my god! > This is actually the most convincing so far, since over at the Wiktionary I am told that _ZOMG_ is an initialism. Then again, I am not told anything about etymology, and in the usage notes for _OMG_ , I am told that _ZOMG_ is "emphatic, in the same sense of _LOLZ_ ". Which contradicts the idea that it's an initialism. On the talk page for _ZOMG_, there's only this brief exchange: > This entry should be amended to note that the "z" is added emphasis from the > common typo committed when hitting the "shift" key. [Unsigned, but the > history attributes this to Adjwilli, 19:50, 4 November 2008] > >   * Except that it's not: see [1]. Unfortunately, although this FAQ is > accurate, the fact that it has not been cited in a reliable source means > that we cannot include it on Wiktionary. Shii 14:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC) > That last link is dead, so I went to archive.org and dug up an old copy of the page: > ZOMG was originally coined in January 2003 by two individuals, James Curbo > and Matthew Milan, over ICQ > > The following chat log may or may not be exact, so apocraphycal information > has been used to recreate this event. > > Hannibal Smith: d00der!   >  Rick Feynman: zomg!   >  Hannibal Smith: ZOMG!   >  Rick Feynman: fag! ZOMG!   > I can see why reliable sources are hesitant to cite this FAQ, especially given the fact that it was written by Matthew Milan himself. Lastly, over at The Free Dictionary, I am told that _ZOMG_ is an acronym with the following definitions: >   * Zoh My God! _(gaming, World of Warcraft)_ >   * Zombies Oh My God >   * Zeus, Oh My God >   * Zerg! Oh My God! >   * Zebras on my Grass _(gaming clan)_ > Now I am utterly confused. Some of these suspiciously look like backronyms. So, can anyone, by any chance, provide a definite answer on the origin of _ZOMG_? Or is it lost forever?


Use of "Might" and "Might not"

I know "Might" and "Might not" means the lack of certainty, but is there an implied probability in the use of these terms? In other words, does "I might be coming" imply that "It is extremely likely I will be coming" or is it a case of "It is likely that I will be coming" or moving down even lower "It is feasible that I will be coming" ? Is the situation identical with the use of "Might not" ? When someone says, "I might not be coming" what approximate probability level are we talking about regarding their "not coming"? I realize this is a basic question -- sorry about that; Just was not sure about the usage.


Meaning of word "ford" in combination with "hurdle"

> First and foremost I'm not from an English speaking country hence the > question. When reading Wikipedia's article about Dublin it says that the meaning of original Irish name for Dublin is **town of the hurdled ford**. I know what _town_ is, I also know what _hurdle_ is, but to the best of my ability I really don't know what a _ford_ is. Could this be a spelling mistake and it should say _fort_ instead? Please help me clear the original meaning out? ## Edit ### ...after getting the _ford_ definition After checking dictionary meaning of word _ford_ I get the meaning of it that it's a shallow river passage. But then again _hurdle_ and _ford_ somewhat contradict each other. If a shallow section of a river is hurdled it can't be a ford any more, can it?


Difference between “have to aware” and " have to be aware"

Actually, I'm confused about the structure:"have to be" As the title mentioned, Can anybody explain for me the such difference.


What is the origin of the word “skunk” as a verb?

Merriam Webster defines the word as: 1 a : DEFEAT b : to prevent entirely from scoring or succeeding : SHUT OUT 2 : to fail to pay also : CHEAT While the origin of the noun form of the word is provided, there is no mention of the origin of the verb except that it has been around since 1843. Online Etymology Dictionary mentions “skunk” as a noun but not as a verb. Skunk (n) refers to – according to Merriam Webster- either: any of various common omnivorous black-and-white New World mammals (esp. genus Mephitis) of the weasel family that have a pair of perineal glands from which a secretion of pungent and offensive odor is ejected b : the fur of a skunk Or an obnoxious or disliked person Origin (Online Etymology Dictionary): 1630s, squunck, from a southern New England Algonquian language (probably Abenaki) seganku, from Proto-Algonquian */šeka:kwa/, from */šek-/ "to urinate" + */-a:kw/ "fox." As an insult, attested from 1841. Skunk cabbage is attested from 1751. How about the origin of the verb and is it related to that of the noun?


Is there a particular name for this kind of "poster"? Is this called a poster?

I was talking to a friend and wanted to speak about a particular kind of "poster" that has small hanging strips of paper containing information about services, sellers, or in this case the cat owner: ![Image of the poster](http://i.stack.imgur.com/3SgyX.png) What do you call this? Is this even called a poster? And what about the strips of paper? What do you call them in English?


Have there been any movements/tendencies to remove definite and indefinite articles from English in the recent history of English?

My question is if there were some "movements" that propose to remove definite and indefinite articles completely in the last 100 or 200 years (or even more older). E.g. **"a book"** will be just **"book"** **"the book"** will be just **"book"** If you think this is weird, well, for a non native speaker of English could be weird that the words doesn't have genders like for example in German (der Man, die Frau, das Auto). I just want to be sure that there were no such movements and tendencies. To make my question more "sane" for a native English speaker I would give you these examples of omitting indefinite and definite articles in English: **computer program menus, newspaper headlines, song/movie titles, dictionaries, computer languages and othertechnological areas where people don't use articles at all** I am sure you have noticed that at least on your Mac OS or Windows. Another thing is that some languages like Latin or Slovio and almost all Slavic languages don't have articles that need to be before a noun like in English (maybe except Bulgarian; but there it is as a suffix).


Most Common Parses of the English language?

I hope I've got the right forum. I want to know about English specifically, although this is a linguistics question. A common task in NLP and Computational Linguistics is to generate parse trees for various sentences. How these sentences are parsed, for one, depends upon POS tagging which itself depends upon how to enumerate the Part of Speeches of the language. What I am interested in is sort of a reverse view of the process. Just as I can ask what are the most common words for the English Language, I wish to ask what are the most common parses for the English Language which are found, if in fact this can be measured or approximated? I am interested in the fully expanded representations, not something as basic as `NP VP`. For example: one might render: `The bat eats a cat`               d    n   v   d  n      using one simplistic POS enumeration. Looking at this parse, I would ask what percentage of sentences in English follow this exact pattern?


What's the adjectival form of 'deficit'?

Does _deficit_ have an adjectival form? If my business loses a lot of money, can I say that I 'got a deficit', that my business is 'in a deficit', or that my business suffered 'a deficit'? Is there a common way to express the concept of _deficit_ adjectivally?


I was laying in bed or lying in bed?

I was laying in bed or lying in bed?


What is the saying to express a certain situation? It is like, you will find nails everywhere when you have got a hammer

I am looking for a saying to express a situation that one is apt to apply anything instantly when it is at hand. I do not remember the saying. It seems to be that 'you will find nails everywhere when you have got a hammer'. I know it was used in some article of the US. What is the original saying? For the saying, I think it implies that it is always easy for anyone to find an excuse for doing something. Does it sometimes mean that?


Would a comma be needed before, after or both of the word "hopefully" in this sentence?

In the future, I plan to learn to play several more instruments and hopefully become a member of the band.


When should I use "is" and when should I use "are"?

I always mixed them up, and use the wrong one on other sites on StackExchange. And the questions is edited by another person. When should I use **"is"** and when should I use **"are"**? Sometimes I write "Is there any ..." and sometimes I write "Are there any", and I guess that one of them is wrong. Is there any good rule of thumb for this?


Comma in compound/complex sentences

Is there a rule, which states that one must or must not use comma before "then" in a sentence like this: > If you can read this, then you might want to answer this question.


How can I deliver the meaning of "within a specified range"?

I am writing a manual for user to use a web application. One of the function requires user to key in the date, and then the number of weeks before that date, the number of weeks needs to be smaller than 52 weeks and greater than 25 weeks. But I think the phrase "smaller than 52 weeks and greater than 25 weeks" is a bit too clumsy, is the following OK? > Number of weeks for data retrieval is limited within 25 to 52 weeks. I wonder if _limited within_ or _limited between_ is grammatically correct.


Antonym of "smalltalk"?

According to wikipedia, smalltalk is an informal type of discourse that does not cover any functional topics of conversation or any transactions that need to be addressed. For example:   * William: Morning, Paul.    * Paul: Oh, morning, William, how are you?   * William: Fine, thanks. Have a good weekend?    * Paul: Yes, thanks. Catch you later.    * William: OK, see you. I haven't found a word to describe the opposite: an informal type of discourse that DOES cover a functional topic of conversation or a transaction that need to be addressed. Could we say "deep talk"? Maybe just "non-smalltalk" is the best option?


"dispatch" v "despatch"

Using it in the example of: > Can you log _despatch_ and delivery of documents? Three questions:   1. Is _despatch_ a misspelling of _dispatch_ that made its way into the dictionary? Could I use _dispatch_ instead in the above example?   2. Do you pronounce both of them the same?   3. Are they a _homophone_ of one another?


Nerd vs. Geek vs. Dork

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Which term correctly identifies those who enjoy programming/technology: > “geek” or “nerd”? I'm somewhat perplexed on the usages of these terms. Most references appear an ambiguity as to the definitions of the individual terms and the clear distinctions between them. Some sources would describe all these three terms as being similar while others differ. For example, google definition states that a nerd is "foolish or contemptible" and is also "boringly studious", while Wikipedia article on nerds made no mention of such characteristics at all, but rather although can be "socially impaired and shy, is overly intellectual". Wikipedia also defines _dork_ as "a slang word for a stupid or inept person; similar to nerd or geek"; however, its articles on the other two terms made no mention to such traits. So what are the common perceptions of a _nerd_ , _geek_ , and a _dork_?


What does ‘Point Omega’ mean? Is it becoming a popular English word?

I found the word ‘Point Omega’ in the article of New York Times (February 17) titled “My life with boxes” written by Anne Biattie, the author of recent work “New Yorker stories,” who loves to collect free cardboard boxes to store her valuables and non-valuables including family albums, books, manuscripts, stained letters, a long ago invitation she couldn’t attend, underwear, socks, 15 nightgowns and so on: > There are actually more socks since last I looked, they’ve expanded in the > dresser drawers, and the family albums have apparently been keeping pace > with them: my parents’ (deceased; this makes everything more difficult, of > course) trip to St. Martin, with no photograph showing their presence. It > could be a Don DeLillo novel; it’s my own “ **Point Omega**.” I understand > that what I have is the absence of that presence I wish to have. Still: what > monster could drop the album in the garbage? Thanks to her mention of Don DeLillo, I was able to locate where the word, ‘Point Omega’ came from, but I don’t know what it exactly means only from the following quote online as a clue: > If you reveal everything, bare every feeling, ask for understanding, you > lose something crucial to your sense of yourself. You need to know things > that others don't know. It's what no one knows about you that allows you to > know yourself.― Don DeLillo, Point Omega. Does “Point Omega” mean the core of self-identity i.e., my being? What does it exactly mean? Is it becoming as popular English word as 'big bang,' '1984' and 'big brother,' or a buzzword as being proudly used in a newspaper article?


Use of "Pretty cool, huh?"

Would it be grammatically correct to use "Pretty cool, huh?" or would you need to use e.g: "Pretty cool, right?" I think that the "huh" would be asking a "what?", although that doesn't make sense in the context. However, a search on Google reveals many uses of "Pretty cool, huh?" So in brief, is it ok to use the term "Pretty cool, huh?"


The etymology of "Adam" has anything to do with "Adom," hence "dominion"?

My Sunday school teacher once talked about the origin of the word "Adam" being associated with "Adom", which takes on the meaning of "dominion". Biblically speaking, I think this unconventional explanation could be quite appealing to Christians alike, but I'm really doubtful of its validity. As Merriam-Webster Dictionary says, Adam originated from "Middle English, from Late Latin, from Greek, from Hebrew Ādhām", meaning "man" (New Oxford American Dictionry, 2nd ed).So this is the first time I heard it explained otherwise. Any evidence of that?


Collection of mathematical formulas

What is the correct term for a collection of mathematical formulas in the form of a (small) handbook? I'm looking for a translation of the German noun “Formelsammlung”. Several dictionarys suggest the word “ **formulary** ”, but the disambiguation page on Wikipedia does not indicate a meaning of this kind. Wiktionary does support this meaning, but only as one among several. It appears that a pharmaceutical meaning is more common than a mathematical one. So I suppose that I should disambiuate the term. But I'm unsure whether to choose “ **mathematical formulary** ” or “ **mathematics formulary** ”. Or perhaps something completely different, like “ **mathematical handbook** ”. Which term is most common or best suited to describe this kind of book?


What is the difference between taking courses, classes or lessons?

Currently, I am preparing a letter of my study objectives for an university application.   I ask myself what is the exact difference between the following terms? Or can I use them synonymously?   1. taking courses   2. taking classes   3. taking lessons


Whispering "sweet nothings"

Where does the term _sweet nothings_ come from? What is an example of a "sweet nothing"? Does the term connote _sincerity_ or has it been hijacked to represent _deceit_ and _seduction_? After all, the devil does whisper sweet nothings into my ear all the time. * * * **Edit:** Wiktionary carries a rather extreme definition of the expression: > ( _idiomatic_ ) Insubstantial or romantic words that are **only meant to > flatter, woo, or seduce.** Examples of usage: >   * 1904, George Gissing, Veranilda, ch. 28:   >  Hearing such words as these, in the sweetest, tenderest voice that ever > caressed a lover's senses, Basil knew not how to word all that was in his > heart. . . . Side by side, forgetful of all but their recovered peace, they > talked **sweet nothings.** >   * 1922, James Joyce, Ulysses, Episode 16:   >  [T]he facts, to make matters worse, were made public with the usual > affectionate letters that passed between them, full of **sweet nothings**. >   * 2004, Joe Klein, "Does Bush Really Get Us?," Time, 25 April:   >  It is difficult to know how accurate this portrait is, and how much of it > consists of **sweet nothings** whispered into the author's ear by loyal > retainers. >


Is this passage an example of a metaphor, analogy, or both?

> "The movement of humanity, arising as it does from innumerable arbitrary > human wills, is continuous. To understand the laws of this continuous > movement is the aim of history. . . . Only by taking inﬁnitesimally small > units for observation (the diﬀerential of history, that is, the individual > tendencies of men) and attaining to the art of integrating them (that is, > ﬁnding the sum of these inﬁnitesimals) can we hope to arrive at the laws of > history" -Leo Tolstoy, _war and peace_


Is "to have a perfect ear for music" a metaphor or a metonymy?

This phrase seems to be a metaphor to me, however I guess you could say "ear" might be referring to a concept of being able to make music well. Would you say it's a metaphor or metonymy?


Was "nowadays" ever spelled with hyphens?

etymonline doesn't note that nowadays ever had a spelling with hyphen but I found a few random sites claiming that it once was hyphenated. Was it ever spelled as "now-a-days"?


"Rather than doing" vs. "rather than do"

>   * I can't do anything rather than waiting. >   * I can't do anything rather than wait. > Which one is correct and why?


Grenade or Granade

There are a lot of words that have slightly different spelling, but same semantic and sound, such as gray or grey, color or colour. There is also the case of dialog vs. dialogue (*see stackexchange question What is the difference between dialogue and dialog?), where the semantics are actually different (dialog is the exclusive name for a input/ouput box/window in programming/computing while dialogue is generally speech between a person. I happen to know this b/c I am a computer programmer). On further research of the word 'granade', there appeared to be little reference to the word except for unrelated names and a unstable/questionable slang meaning on Urban Dictionary (*see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=granade). Is Granade the first case, the case of dialog vs. dialogue, or simply not a word?


Better word than "district"

I'm trying to describe a country that isn't divided up into anything so distinct as states, or anything terribly specialized, but is divided for the purposes of government, etc. "Quarter" is out because it makes me feel like there can only be four of them, even if that isn't true. "District" is out because, frankly, the Hunger Games has colored the meaning of that term for quite a lot of people. "Region" sounds too open and nebulous. "Sector" sounds too space-stationy.


Expression for "work productively"

Say you're having a chat with someone and as they're about to leave, they mention that they're about to do a particular task. How do you wish them a productive time, besides "Go kick some ass!"? Or is this just something not done by English speaking folk?


"Swim teacher" or "swimming teacher"

I am pretty sure that both "swim teacher" and "swimming teacher" are valid, but are there any rules that would make one preferable to the other? As a British English speaker, "swimming teacher" is what I would naturally say and "swim teacher" sounds more American to me. However I have just been debating whether "swim" or "swimming" sounds better with my girlfriend (who is also a native speaker of British English), and she would say "swim teacher" more naturally. She argues that "swimming teacher" reads more like "someone who teaches while swimming". So, is there any real difference between the two?


Why "afraid of" and not "brave of"?

Recently my preschooler's teacher started teaching kids that they should be "brave of" something and not "afraid of" it. Maybe it is simply because "brave of" is never used, but that syntax strikes me as off. Unfortunately, I can't quite articulate why. So, I would like to know:   1. Is that syntax incorrect?   2. Why is it incorrect/incorrect? My guess is that the implication of "brave of" is that the item is the _cause_ of bravery (thus "brave of the dark" actually means, "brave because of the dark"). Perhaps because "of" can mean "from"?


'Meeting us' or 'meeting with us'?

What is the difference between meeting with someone or meeting someone? For example when I would like to ask someone if he is happy to meet with me and my friend for the first time, how should I ask? "If you are up to meeting us" or "if you are up to meeting with us"? I tried to google this and use the search, but I couldn't find an answer.


Is "numerous" somehow different to "common"?

From this Wikipedia page (referenced by this deleted question)... > Buckley is the 99th most numerous name in Ireland. Can anyone explain why I find the above usage "odd", whereas I have no problem with... > _Helobdeila stagnalis_ , a carnivore, is the most numerous and widely > distributed leech in Colorado. (I know _"most **common** "_ works for both contexts; why doesn't the same apply to _numerous_?)


Does ‘long-molared’ have any special meaning?

> “You’re joking, Weasley!” said Malfoy, behind them. “You’re not telling me > someone’s asked _that_ to the ball? Not the **long-molared** Mudblood?” > (Harry Potter 4 [US Version]: p.404)[Bold font is mine] **N.B.:** Malfoy, who hates Hermione very much, is insulting her. In the past, he hexed her front teeth into long, beaver-like teeth. However, her teeth are normal now. Mudblood is an insulting word in the magical world. I know a molar is any of the large teeth at the back of the mouth. So I can’t understand why he refers to _back teeth_ after his hex to her _front teeth_. Does ‘long-molared’ have special meaning? Or does he say so on purpose in order to express his indifference to Hermione?


What is the meaning of a parenthetic ‘that one’ in a sentence?

> “It is too ‘eavy, all zis ‘Ogwarts food,” they heard her saying grumpily as > they left the Great Hall behind her one evening. “I will not fit into my > dress robes!” > > “Oooh there’s a tragedy,” Hermione snapped as Fleur went out into the > entrance hall. “She really thinks a lot of herself, **that one** , doesn’t > she? (Harry Potter 4 [US Version]: p.404)[Bold font is mine] **N.B.:** Fleur is one of guest students from a foreign school. She is very proud. Hermione is one of the students in Hogwarts, the host school. I’m not sure if ‘that one’ in this sentence means ‘that girl’ (a noun phrase) or ‘considering what she said’(an adverbial phrase). I’d like to know the meaning of _that one_ and its function.


Is that right to say "For the first time we show..."

In a PhD thesis, I would like to express that I am the first one who has proved the result. Is it right to say "For the first time we show..."?


What is the opposite of "upsell"?

The dictionary defines the verb "upsell" as such: > **Main Entry** : upsell > > **Definition** : to try to persuade a customer to buy a more expensive item > or to buy a related additional product at a discount It's a fairly common word that gets used a lot in most retail trades. But the dictionary does not list "downsell" as its opposite. However, it seems to me that the concept of upselling does have a clear opposite concept. i.e. Trying to persuade a customer to buy a cheaper item or fewer items. Granted, there are fewer situations where this would be used, but I wonder why the word does not exist, and whether there is another word that could be used in its place.


Is there such a word as "lightweightness"?

Is there a good translation for the German word " _Leichtgewichtigkeit_ " (lit. "lightweightness")? According to leo.org and dict.cc, there is none, but according to these translations, there are several. What I want to express is that there is "...lightweightness compared to...". I don't want to use the adjective "lightweight" but a noun. Is there a better choice? EDIT: I want to describe that an API is not as extensive/expensive as others. Thus, _lightness_ is not what I'm looking for.


Barkeeper, or bartender? How to address them?

I dunno if I'm right about the meaning of these words. What do you call the person who owns a bar, or a pub? And the person who serves you with drinks at the counter? [As the two may not be identical ...] What to yell [though maybe it is not that polite, but who cares when a bit tipsy anyway] to address either of 'em? :-)


What do you call a disgusting mixture you don't want to drink?

What do you call a drink (usually an alcoholic one, say a long drink or a cocktail) that you don't want to have, because you consider it a low quality, disgusting mixture, maybe even of suspicious, unclear origins? Infamous drinks like _the sponge_ (drops of shots spilled on the counter all night, then collected with a sponge, squeezed into a glass and sold to the undemanding, or some poor homeless guys) could be an example here. Or your friend's first, experimental cocktail... :-) Context: I want to reject a drink that I don't like, so I reply humorously and a bit sarcastically: > No, thanks. I don't want any of this ____?


Dough, paste, or pastry?

I'm a bit confused here. Could you help me to differentiate between the meanings of these words?


What is the opposite of using something judiciously?

I want to tell a colleague to use a particular file wherever possible. Basically the opposite of using it judiciously. I ended up saying "use the file at will" — but it got me wondering if there is a one-word antonym for _judiciously_. Google suggests _foolishly_ or _carelessly_ , but that's not what I want to convey.


Is it "to be left free to do something" or "to be let free to do something"?

I know "to leave someone alone" and "to let someone be on their own". What happens when the adjective is followed by a verb (in the infinitive)? Is it "*Leave me free to do whatever I want." / "*I was left free to do whatever I wanted." or "*Let me free to do whatever I want." / "*I was let free to do whatever I wanted." ?


Difference between "to posit" and "to postulate"

What exactly is the difference in meaning between the two words _posit_ and _postulate_ , besides the fact that the latter one is also used as a noun? * * * Both words are formal and their definition are quiet equal; in some learner's dictionary they're even identical. > postulate/posit: to suggest (something, such as an idea or theory) > especially in order to start a discussion Based on COCA both words are commonly used with _theory_ but _postulate_ is the appropriate word for Khazzoom–Brookes postulate. But since both words _posit_ and _postulate_ are not very regularly used this is the only hint the corpora gives (and BNC contains even less material). It doesn't look like there's a general tendency to use one word more commonly for a particular area of expertise, for instance science(e.g. astronomy) or religion (existence, God), except the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate, of course. At any rate, it seems like the words can be interchanged.


"It's too late for me to do that now."

Is this sentence OK? Is the "now" at the end of the sentence redundant?


"At this late hour"

Can "at this late hour" be used to mean, "it's too late", even though it's not said in reference to time?


"Did you like what you saw/see?"

So I heard this in a movie and I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct . . . Should it be:   * 1.) _"Did you like what you_ **_saw_**?" or   * 2.) _"Did you like what you_ **_see_**?" Which one is right, you guys? I'm getting a bit rusty I'm afraid.


"Time settles everything"

Is this a common phrase? A google search found only 6 pages using this exact phrase. What do you think of this phrase? What about "time solves everything?"


Regional usage of "Violet" and "Purple"

I am looking to describe a flower such as the one in the following picture for a game: ![Violet Flower](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2067/2342594348_3582df9d5e_z.jpg) After showing the game to a number of beta testers, I noted that about half of them were fine with "violet" while the other half seemed confused by the term and insisted it was "purple". After doing some research, it turns out that the definitions for these terms are (roughly):   * Purple: "A color between red and blue"   * Violet: "Light with a wavelength between 380nm and 450nm" Those definitions overlap. It seems to me (subjectively) that Australians and British are in favor of the term "Purple" while US Americans prefer "Violet". However I was unable to find any statistical proof or study on the subject. Question: What is the adequate word to describe the flower above to the majority of native English speakers?


Must an "accident" evolve from human error?

I've been censured for calling the nuclear plant incident in Japan a "nuclear accident". I've never exclusively reserved the word accident only for those things which evolve from or are precipitated by human error, but it appears that others feel it should only be used in connection with human error. Dictionaries seem to suggest I'm ok, but I may have to bend to peer pressure. Partly it seems to stem from this particular usage in connection with anti-nuclear groups. Has the connotation shifted away from merely unforeseen and undesirable events? If so, what is a better word to use? I'm shying away from problem and incident as they seem inadequate, and disaster as it seems to inflate things beyond what is necessary.


Is "more mainstream" a valid thing to write?

I'm writing a report talking about how a certain technique in my field has become 'more mainstream', but that phrase looks rather wrong. Is it a valid thing to say? Can something become "more mainstream" or are things either mainstream, or not? If it isn't a valid thing to say, how else should I phrase it?


Word that covers the following: A single episode of a series, a single movie (in a series of movies or not), an audio track (on an album or not)

As described in the title, I'm searching for a word that covers all this different meanings. All of these meanings are in the field media but that didn't help me finding a word. One first guess of a friend of mine: _work_. This might be accurate enough. Do you think this is the best word for it?


Why do we say "to fall in love"? Is it something unwished for?

I was exploring the phrases for "to fall in love" in some other languages. And I came out with the result, only English describes the state of starting to feel love for someone as "falling". I wonder why this idiom is that way? Only logical explanation came to me is, falling in love is something unwished for, undesirable or unplanned. I'd appreciate If you can share your own thoughts about the idiom, or help me to deepen my research.


How common is pronouncing the past tense of beat as /bet/?

Personally, I pronounce the past tense of "beat" (to win at a game) as /biːt/, to sound identical to the infinitive. However, I have heard a few people under the age of 30 and from either the west or outer south of Melbourne pronounce it as /bet/. Does this phenomenon happen in other places? In Melbourne it seems to be socio-economic as the west and outer south are the currently developing regions. Is there any documented information about this? Has it happened recently paralleling "to read" /ɹiːd/ "have read" /ɹed/ or is it a long-standing alternate pronunciation?


Using "I" or "we" to refer to sole proprietorship?

I have a company which consists of only myself. The company has its own distinct name which is registered. Should I use "I" or "we" to refer to my own sole proprietorship when writing marketing materials, introductions, offers, etc? If both are generally acceptable, what sort of different nuances these writing styles convey? For example:   * We provide the following services: blah, blah, blah.   * I provide the following services: blah, blah, blah. I am hesitating to use "we" because I am afraid that it will look like I am trying to make my sole proprietorship seem like a bigger company. I am hesitating to use "I" because it would be silly to re-write everything if I ever hire someone or get a business partner one day.


Saxon genitive usage question

My colleagues are in the design department of a given product, and when asked to add that information to the e-mail signature, they have written: > _ProductName_ 's Design I'm objecting that the usage of the Saxon genitive there is incorrect, because the product is neither a person or animal owning anything, and Design in this context is not even a property of the product (Maybe I would admit the Saxon genitive in a context like "I think _ProductName_ 's design is not fail- safe"), but an activity. Am I right? ^_^ **update** : After reading the answers and the comments, I think the issue has been clarified a little bit. In this case _ProductName_ is acting as an adjective qualifying Design [Department], so that's the actual reason for not using the genitive case (rather than the product being a "weak entity" unable to possess things, that is merely an stylistic rule of thumb).


Who can explain this poem?

I want to know whats the meaning of part 2 Afterp( the perceiving...) Four a.m. in the Woods > Darkness softens, a thin   >  tissue of mist between trees.   >  One by one the day's   >  uncountable voices come out   >  like twilight fireflies, like stars.   >  The perceiving self sits   >  with his back against rough bark,   >  casting ten thousand questions into the future.   >  As shadows take shape, the curtains part   >  for the length of time it takes to gasp,   >  and behold, the purpose of his   >  life dawns on him.   >


An English expression for 'femme fatale'

_Femme fatale_ , meaning "an attractive and dangerous woman", is a French expression which has become part of the English language roughly since the beginning of the 20th century. Is there another English word or idiomatic expression which conveys the same meaning?


“And those who were seen dancing, were thought to be crazy, by those who could not hear the music.” Are these commas required?

Just spotted this as an answer in Quora: > And those who were seen dancing, were thought to be crazy, by those who > could not hear the music. At first look, I thought the comma between _dancing_ and _crazy_ was wrong. Will this be grammatically wrong? What about the comma between _crazy_ and _by_? Is that wrong too?


Is it possible to abstain from blame?

Blame is a verb which is applied to a person without that person's choice, so can they use a verb like 'abstain' in terms of blame if abstain implies they are choosing a relationship to that blame? I don't believe you can 'abstain from blame' - if so, is blame a verb that can cancel out other verbs? If a person chooses not to accept blame, is that the same as abstaining from it?


What does the term 'fatal conceit' mean in this instance?

From Paul Ryan Is 'Not A Fan' Of Romneycare And Compared It To Obamacare: > They see how this idea of having the government be the sole, single > regulator of health insurance, defining what kind of health insurance you > can have, and then the individual mandate, it is a fatal conceit. I have tried to understand the meaning, but I could not grasp it all. I don't understand the usage of "conceit" here. Someone please re-write this sentence so it's simpler to understand.


"We shouldn't do that, now * we?"

"We can't do that, now can we?" The above sentence has nearly 10 million Google results. I've seen it used in books, television shows, and in casual conversation. But what if I want to replace the word "can't" with "shouldn't"? How would I phrase the second half of the sentence then? "We shouldn't do that, now should we?" seems like the obvious choice, but based on a Google search, it doesn't seem to be very common. Is there a more common way of wording that sentence?


Meaning of 'I didn't think you were'

What is the meaning of this sentence: > I didn't think you were Why is 'were' used here instead of 'are'? How is that different from: > I didn't think you are


Quote positioning on a long sarcastic-explanation phrase

In the following excerpt, would it be more correct to close the quotation after "pose"? > ...and they stand in the ISO-standard "security man waiting for you to walk > through the door so he can escort you" pose by the door. (Also, is there a better word for what I did there with the quotes, since "sarcastic" doesn't really fit?)


I'm looking for this word that means showing understanding or assent but may be faux assent

The word had been used with "nodding _[such-ly]_ ". If I remember correctly, the person I heard this from was describing one of the attributes you needed to be a manager was to be able to listen to someone and "nod" this way, maybe rubbing your chin with your hand or something to signal to that person that you are listening (even if you're not). There is even a Wikipedia article about this word, but I cannot remember it at all. At 58-y.o., this is one of the few times i hear a new word i never heard before (and look it up). Unfortunately, i forgot it right after.


Is it "dressing" if I cooked my "stuffing" outside of the turkey?

I've always cooked my Thanksgiving stuffing without actually putting it inside the turkey. Does it have to be stuffed into the turkey to be called _stuffing_?


Do we "resolve a doubt" or "dispel a doubt"?

When writing in a academic setting (think of a letter to your professor), what is the most appropriate way of saying this? > I will be grateful if you could resolve this doubt in your paper.   >  I will be grateful if you could dispel this doubt I have in you paper. You can suggest better alternatives than those in the title.


"In 15 minutes" or "15 minutes later"?

Several years ago, when I was watching a show, it was 15:45 and the show started at 16:00. A foreigner asked me: "When will this show start?" My English is not good, and I never talked to foreigners. I was very nervous then. I told him: "15 minutes later", but he seemed to not understand. So I thought it wasn't correct, and told him: "in 15 minutes". This time he understood. I want to know if "in 15 minutes" is correct and "15 minutes later" is wrong under that condition? What's the difference between them?


Is there an expression for someone who often takes things too literally?

E.g., if you use an idiom (in a context) like: "To throw the baby away with the bathwater." and your conversation partner says: "Huh, seems I don't have a baby/bathwater!" Also, when you explain the meaning of the idiom, the other guy will still say: "Oh, but I really don't have a baby/bathwater!" Or say something sarcastic like: (context: excellent tennis player on his way to a match. Everyone knows he wants to and it will be easy for him to defeat his opponent. Yet, on their way (tennis player and friend in his car) to the court, they are stuck in traffic and there is no way the excellent tennis player can turn up at his match in time (which means he will be disqualified). He goes "well, I am glad, at least I don't need to get all changed and tired to play my tennis match now." On which the other guy says "But I thought you wanted to win the trophy? You could have easily beaten that other player!! Why did you say that?!"


Could you list some more of these kind of words?

Words like thenceforth, aforementioned, notwithstanding, wherein, therein, thereof, whereof, henceforward, aforesaid, therefore, thereto... And also, under what classification do these words go?


Why is it "get" and not "gets", in "watch her get hit"?

> He likes to watch her get hit. vs. > He likes to watch her gets hit. No matter how much I research, I still can't explain simply why _get_ is correct and _gets_ isn't. Here's what I think, though. It's a combination of issues: _get hit_ is _having gotten hit_ in present tense. It's passive, because we don't specify the agent that is hitting her. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice > "The subject of a sentence or clause featuring the passive voice denotes the > recipient of the action (the patient) rather than the performer (the agent). > The passive voice in English is formed periphrastically: the usual form uses > the auxiliary verb be (or get) together with the past participle of the main > verb. So the _get_ here is definitely acting passively. Ignoring tense: _get hit_ ~= _be hit_ ~= _being hit_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_with_a_specified_subject So, the key phrase in question is in passive voice ( _get_ is a helper verb), and _get hit_ similarly acts nominalized. _get hit_ here can be substituted with _beatdown_ : > We're watching (that someone received a) beatdown. vs. > We're watching (whose?) beatdown. In either case, it's still an argument between _her_ being a direct object or acting possessively, so that's why it can't be _she_. And because you can use any of _them_ , _her_ , _him_ , _it_ with _get_ (and never _gets_ in this context,) it just is.


Independent/independently of/from

Which of these are correct, and why? Suggestions for rephrasing it are also welcome. > [noun] was developed independently of [noun] > > [noun] was developed independently from [noun] > > [noun] was developed, independent of [noun]


Is there a name for the kind of sounds commonly found in profanities?

_Fu_ **ck**. _Shi_ **t**. _Bi_ **tch**. **C** _un_ **t**. I remember reading somewhere -- a very long time ago -- that these "hard" sounds are virtually necessary in profanities. The explanation I roughly remember is that because these "hard sounds" are unmistakable, that is, because there is no half- hearting them in phonation, that lends to them to use in words that one wants to be unmistakable in intent, e.g, in profanities where one wants to intensify a phrase or rile someone up. I remember these being called _fricatives_. Unfortunately I'm not a linguist, not even a fair amateur one, and when I went to check Wikipedia for the definition of _fricative_ , I really couldn't make heads or tails of the lingo. I have no idea what those weird letters or the adjective "voiceless" mean. Moreover, I think I'm just plain wrong about those sounds being _fricatives_ \-- the examples I found on that page don't seem correspond very well to the hard sounds I mentioned above. My memory about what I read is obviously horribly dashed. Am I in fact correct in observing that profanities tend to have "hard" sound somehow, and if so, could someone give me a name for them so I can go about content I know something really cool?


Concise form of "remove from the list" and "add to the list" in the same sentence

I a technical correspondence, I wanted to express the fact that there are two outcomes of "onclick" event: > Also, "onclick" event removes the group in question from the list > "excluded_groups" or adds it to the list. However, the above sentence looks too long to me. Is the following sentence grammatically and stylistically correct: (note that there is no "from" after "remove", or anywhere else in the sentence) > Also, "onclick" event removes or adds the group in question to the list > "excluded_groups".


"Amount" vs. "number" vs. "quantity"

For what values of _x_ does one write _the number of x_ , _the amount of x_ , or _the quantity of x_?


Differences between Amount, Count, Number and Quantity

My programming peers suggest to use the term **count** with discrete things: count of words, count of sentences and so on. Then again my instructor suggest me to use the term **"number"** for the discrete things in a thesis. I have used the word _"amount"_ but my instructor says that is only for continuous measures. Please, clarify the different usages. It may be that programming jargon misuses the words. How and when to use the words in official language? **Examples about the usages with count, number and amount -- wrong or right?** > I have 7 liters of juice. This **amount** is too much to drink alone. > > I have 17 sparse polynomials. This **count** is irrelavant. (how my > programming would say) > > I have 17 sparse polynomials. This **number** is irrelavant. (Used amount > but guided to number)


When do nouns convert between mass and count?

I confess to having the pedantic hangup of refusing to use `email` as a count noun, but it's a lost cause. Over the past week I've been working on a modeling and simulation proposal, and I've noticed that the M&S community seems to find `code` as a count noun to be acceptable usage, _e.g._ , > Conservative codes adopt the approach of … What are the rules that make conversions from mass noun to count noun grammatical? How about the other direction, of which I'm having a hard time producing an example? > **Related Questions**   >  Explanation for “emails”?   >  Is it wrong to use the word "codes" in a programming context?


Is "e'er" a true English word?

Are poetic contractions, such as "e'er", "o'er" and "ne'er" (and other less common ones), English? As in officially recognized?


Is "dress" in this sense a stative verb?

When one uses "dress" to show the particular way that one dresses, is dress a stative verb? For example, "She **dresses** well" or "He **dresses** extravagantly."


A word for something you keep coming back to to feel grounded, oriented

Is there a word for an object like this? Mantra is close, but is more like a ritual than a physical thing. For example, a rosary could be a physical object that a Catholic uses to calm, center, orient themselves when stressed. A specific blanket helps my child do the same. A teddy bear serves that same purpose for another. I once read a story about a bulldog that wouldn't go anywhere without this specific log. Is there a more general word or phrase for an object of this sort? "Comfort item" doesn't have the lyricism I'm looking for, but may be the only choice.


Antonym of "phobia"

If a _phobia_ is to have an irrational fear of something, what is the word for having an irrational affinity for something? For example a numerologist may fear the number 13, but be attracted to (or even have a love for) the number 8. (Some would say this is irrational.)


meaning of "Winner quote" - best "saying" or best "offer"?

Since the word "quote" can be understood as "saying" and also as "offer" I have the following question. If you hear someone saying "that's a winner quote", what would you understand? Would most people understand "the best saying" or "the best offer"?


"Behaves similar to" or "behaves similarly to"?

I wrote the following comment in a programming forum: > Objects in JavaScript behave similar to a regular associative array. This is how I would use the word "similar" in normal conversation. However, the dictionary says that "similar" is an adjective, and "similarly" should be used in this context instead: > Objects in JavaScript behave _similarly_ to a regular associative array. Both constructions look grammatically correct to me, but the second one sounds weird. Searching the internet, I see both "behaves similar to" and "behaves similarly to" are used. So are both considered grammatically correct?


What is the meaning of ''until the shine wears off''?

I love the songs _Lost!_ and _Lost?_ (well, it's the same song but in different versions) by Coldplay. In these songs, we can hear: > I just got lost > > Every river that I tried to cross > > Every door I ever tried was locked > > O-oh > > and **I'm just waiting 'til the shine wears off** What does _until the shine wears off_ mean?


Antonymic idiom for "adding fuel to the fire"

Please tell me an antonymic idiom for "adding fuel to the fire". With meaning something like "downplay the problem", "close eyes on problem".


"Raspyness" vs "raspy-ness"

If I'm talking about someone's voice is _raspyness_ or _raspy-ness_ correct? > The **raspyness** of Cobain’s voice adds another layer of complexity to the > song. > > The **raspy-ness** of Cobain’s voice adds another layer of complexity to the > song. Spelling checker doesn't like _raspyness_ , but _raspy-ness_ doesn't look quite right.


The comparative of "environmentally friendly"

When using the comparative with _environmentally friendly_ would it be correct to say _environmentally friendlier_ , or _more environmentally friendly_?


Equation "solved through" or "solved by"?

Which one is better? >   * "The equation _x² = 4_ is **solved through** _2_ and _-2_." >   * "The equation _x² = 4_ is **solved by** _2_ and _-2_." > Which other suggestions do you have? Just by googling, I could not resolve this problem...


When and why did most educated people start saying "all of the <noun>"?

It is correct to say : > "All of them are lovely."   >  "I'd like all of those." "All of" before a pronoun is correct. It is not correct to say: > "All of the airlines are on strike."   >  "All of my friends are going to a party". In those sentences you leave the "of" out if you want to be correct. Why is everyone doing that now?


Why don't we teach slang in schools?

The English language is always evolving, and current day slang will soon become mainstream, just as much our current vocabulary originated as slang. If so, then why is it is writing/speaking slang discouraged in many US schools?


Should I consider the phrase "filthy rich" offensive

I am not a native English speaker. Somebody used this sentence when talking about me. > Unless his parents are **filthy rich** everybody needs some form of income. While most dictionaries define it as "extremely rich", some define it as "very rich, possibly having become so by unfair means". The answer at Origin of the phrase "filthy rich"? also didn't tell a clear distinction between both meanings. So, in context of the given sentence, should I consider it to have a negative connotation or not? The full context is this discussion in the comments on a sister site. See the fourth comment.


Are there other verbs that work like “dare” and “need”?

The verbs _dare_ and _need_ do not require auxiliaries when used in the interrogative; for example, “need I?” is as acceptable as “do I need?” Excluding the auxiliaries themselves (like _be_ , _do_ , _have_ ), are there any other such verbs that work that way?


How would I cite Magna Carta according to MLA6 citation standards?

I would like to cite the Magna Carta document for a project that requires me to cite sources according to the MLA6 standards. How would I cite Magna Carta, because it's not a book, nor magazine or any other periodical.


Are the words "sillily", "uglily", "friendlily", "livelily", etc., valid English?

I have wondered about how to make the words _silly_ , _ugly_ , _friendly_ , _lively_ , etc. into adverbs, so I researched in the Internet. I found many different answers, so I tried checking Oxford Dictionaries. However, Oxford Dictionaries still gave me **two** answers:   * this is from Oxford Dictionaries’ online grammar reference, “forming adverbs” page > Adjectives that end in -ly, such as friendly or lively, can’t be made into > adverbs by adding -ly. You have to use a different form of words, e.g. ‘in a > friendly way’ or ‘in a lively way’ instead   * from the dictionary entries: there are results from typing sillily, _uglily_ , _friendlily_ , _livelily_ into Oxford Dictionaries’ website (online dictionary) That’s quite an obvious contradiction from one of the most famous dictionary providers of the world! So, are the words _sillily, uglily, friendlily, livelily_ , etc. valid English? * * * Note: I already saw the _“comparative and superlative adverbs”_ question that asked about the word _sillily_ but I don't see any sources in there that are trustworthy enough (compared to oxford dictionaries), so I'm asking a new question. EDIT: I've already reported the mistake to Oxford Dictionaries. They said that those words are valid (although rare) and it's a mistake in the reference, They say they will get it fixed soon.


"Please note" vs. "please notice"

When I'm writing a text and want to ask the reader to pay close attention to a point, should I write "Please note" or "Please notice"? Is there any difference?


Is it alright to have a sentence with a parenthetical remark that has an "i.e." and an "etc."?

An example would be "The first field is the number (i.e. A001, A013, etc.) in accordance with..."   The actual details of the sentence do not matter, it is the parentheses that is being referenced in my question.


Is it "to play a game on someone" or "play games with someone"?

I find this expression strange because it's clearly widely used, but seems sort of "unofficial", the "official" version, meaning the one described in dictionaries and grammar books, being _playing games **with_** , not **on**. Both expressions seem to be current and valid, according to Google Books. I'm just not entirely clear on the context and the usage. My understanding is that _playing games with_ implies some sort of tricky, mischievous behavior, which may or may not be intentionally malicious, like office politics or standing someone up on a date ("Jane didn't show up...again. Is she playing games with me?"), while _playing games **on_** implies a form of studied deception. ("The ad said that the comic book was in mint condition but there are barely noticeable tears... are they trying to play a game on me?")


Plural of title of form name

I am writing a letter referencing a document title. I have several of the same document that I need to include the title of the documents in the letter. Do I write "please find six Form 2322" or "please find six Forms 2322"?


Should I use commas or semi-colons in this multi-item list within a sentence?

In the following sentence, I am listing multiple areas of study. Should they be separated by commas or semi-colons? "In my exposure to this field so far, I have come to appreciate just how multi-disciplinary it is, requiring knowledge in a number of key areas, including the science and technology of robot motion-planning and control; sensing and perception; and artificial intelligence." In this sentence, the items being listed are: 1) the science and technology of robot motion-planning and control 2) sensing and perception 3) artificial intelligence Each item is part of the same area of study; hence the pairing of multiple subjects with 'and' in items (1) and (2). If commas are used to separate the items, it's hard to tell whether any given 'and' is ending the list of items, of if it is part of a single item. So I think semi-colons should be used. Is this correct?


What does "f***ing pay" mean?

I have never seen "fucking pay" before. what does it mean. I have read this in this sentences " Let's hope you're right. that's all I have to say. Because otherwise... you know? soneone, somewhere is going to fucking pay."


3 meter square area vs 3 square meter area

> A. 3 meter square area > > B. 3 square meter area I’m wondering what the easiest way is to clearly express the difference between A and B above. In A, one side is 3 (meters). In B, one side is the square root of 3 (meters). Also, can both A and B be expressed with all the modifiers on the left, such as with hyphens? Or would word order such as the following be required for A? > area of 3 meters squared


from the 16th century downward?

I'd like to know what the difference is between "from the 16th century downward", "from the 16th century onwards", and "since the 16th century". > Many polyglot collections of the prayer have been published from the 16th > century downward.


Use of "rather" instead of "whether"

I would like to correct what I see as a frequent mis-speak from a friend of mine, but I first want to make sure that I am not the one in error. > I'd like to know whether the following use is correct, or rather if it is > incorrect. The above sentence uses both the words "whether" and "rather" as I expect them to be used, but this friend says things like "Rather you like it or not..." or "Rather you're black, white or Asian..." I wonder if this is just a regional usage, or is it incorrect as I suspect?


Why is "visitors to London grouped by mode of travel" better than "visitors by mode of travel to London"?

Is there a specific rule of grammar or which makes the title "visitors to London grouped by mode of travel" better than "visitors by mode of travel to London"? The context for this question is a label for a chart/table which shows the mode of travel used by visitors to London. I'm trying to convince a colleague of mine that the former is preferable to the latter. My feeling is that if we're talking about visitors to London who are grouped by their mode of travel, it doesn't make sense to split "visitors" from "London" in the title. I'm not a pedantic follower of grammar rules but I'd like to be able to point to something specific to bolster my argument. Can anyone help? P.S. I have actually suggested we go with the alternative title "Mode of travel used by visitors to London" which I think works better but I want to be able to point out why "visitors by mode of travel to London" doesn't work.


Ghirardelli chocolate commercial song "Me and you..."

Is _me and you_ correct English? Lyrics: > _Me and you,   >  A little rendezvous,   >  That special something will carry you through,   >  That little reward for all the things you do._


Pleasure from taking a risk

Is there a word that means the " _pleasure from taking a risk_ "? " _rush_ " comes to mind but needs modifiers to make sense - thoughts?


Intonation in the phrase "How are you?"

From native English speakers I often hear the phrase **"How are you?** " intonated differently. Sometimes the word **"are"** is stressed, and sometimes the word **"you"** is. What is the difference between these variants?


What are the components of a word called?

The etymology of the word _parasol_ states that it arises _"from **para** \- (“to shield”) + **sole** (“sun”)"_. I would like to know what the two components, _para_ and _sole_ , are called in this example. Units/components might work. But, I suspect that there is a more fitting linguistic term for them ... Also, would this term also be applicable for the components of words such as _jaywalk_ which is a result of " _jay + walk_ "?


Noun of-phrases: Rules as to plural form of each noun in the pair

Nouns of Noun vs Nouns of Nouns Example 1: I face different   * types of financial constraints vs   * types of financial constraint Example 2: Different kinds of reasons vs Different kinds of reason And here is a generalization version of the examples: Are there any particular rules as to the plural form of the two nouns in a of- phrase? Which case would it be in which circumstance: Nouns of Noun vs Nouns of Nouns? And when the first noun is in single form, could the second noun be in plural form? Thank you very much.


Can "origin" be used as an adjective?

I found the following on today's Wired edition: > Apple’s Software Boss Reveals the _Origin_ Story of iOS Can _origin_ be used as an adjective or some sort of modifier for other words? I couldn't find any source that defines it as an _adjective_. Am I am being thick or is there something wrong with the title above?


Precise names for parts of a day

I have learnt these words so far, please correct me if I'm wrong:   * Dawn, maybe 4am–6am?   * Morning, maybe 6am–9am? The food for the morning is called _breakfast_. People greet each other _Good morning!_   * Noon, maybe 11am–1pm? The food is called _lunch_.   * Afternoon, maybe 2pm–4pm? People greet each other _Good afternoon!_   * Evening, maybe 6pm–9pm? The food for the evening is called _supper_. People greet each other _Good evening!_   * Night, maybe 9pm–11pm? However, _Good night_ means "have a good sleep".   * Mid-night, maybe 11pm–1am? You see, I've missed some parts of a day, I may be not correct on the time boundaries of each part, though. I would like to complete the list, especially the part after the morning but before the afternoon. My teacher never told us to use the word _noon_ , and _good noon_ seems never used by anyone. I would like to know each part of a day, its corresponding food term (like _lunch_ , _supper_ , etc.), and its corresponding greeting words, thanks. **Summary** I'll update the table to reflect the answers:               Part          Begin End   Meal             Greeting     ------------- ----- ----- ---------------- ---------------------     morning/dawn   0:00  5:00                       early morning  5:00  6:00                  Good morning     morning        6:00  9:00 breakfast        Good morning     mid-morning    9:00 11:59 elevenses/       Good morning                               morning tea/                               brunch     noon          12:00 12:00 -     afternoon     12:00 17:00 lunch/           Good afternoon                               afternoon tea     evening       17:00 21:00 supper           Good evening     night         21:00 23:00 night-time snack Good evening     midnight      23:00  1:00 midnight snack   Good night


"Haven't known" and "haven't knew"

Google search gives about 19,500,000 results for "haven't known" and about 12,500,000 results for "haven't knew". So I am a bit confused about this. Could anyone please explain how should I say and why?


Is there a suffix in "masquerade"?

Is there a suffix in _masquerade_? in _masquerade_ , _masque_ means mask, so is _-rade_ or _-ade_ its suffix? _-ade_ is a suffix in _lemonade_ and _blockade_ , meaning "product". Note: I have searched it in etymonline, but couldn't find my answer


Word for the behavior of people who complain at everything you do

I usually tend to see the behavior in which someone takes an action, and people criticize, and even suggest what they should have done, yet when they take that same suggestion people still criticize. For instance: I'm slim; when I eat with my family, everyone exclaims at the amount of food I'm eating. When I eat normally, they ask "Don't you know, you should eat more so you can grow better?" When I don't eat, the same shouting takes place. So in other words, is there a word I could use to describe them or their behavior in this regard?


Does "show how" mean repeat, or just show?

In the dictionary, _how_ has meanings of _the manner or way in which_ and _to what extent, degree_. > By the end of the lesson, only Hermione Granger had made any difference to > her match; Professor McGonagall **showed the class how** it had gone all > silver and pointy and gave Hermione a rare smile. Did Professor McGonagall repeat what Hermione did (demonstrate how she did it), or did she just pick up the match that Hermione had changed, to show how much it had been changed? AND Can you _show me how_ I may tell which of these meanings is in play?