How to distinguish between positions of prepositional phrases?

Is there a name for where prepositional phrases are in a sentence? For example, is there a name to distinguish between the following sentences? > There has not been a queen on the island.   >  On the island, there has not been a queen.


Where do I have to put my commas?

Are the commas in the right places in the following sentence? > I want to combine my experiences in software development and network > administration with the skills I acquired at university in one job.


Redneck and usage

I found something by Googling about roots and negative meaning but more than it I want to know if there is a positive or neutral usage too. Is it something like geek or nerd and the other slangy stereotypes or a serious history is hidden behind ?


Assemble, Convene A Conference

Is the verb 'assemble' sloppily used as 'convene' here: > link 1   >  "Mr. Husseini was speaking at a **_hastily assembled news conference_** in > the mainly Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, after > the closing of the media center in the nearby Ambassador Hotel. " > > link 2   >  "At a **_hastily convened news conference_** on Sunday, the deputy ISAF > commander, Lt. Gen. Adrian Bradshaw, read a brief statement that did little > to clarify what happened between the ISAF and Afghan National Army, or ANA, > soldiers." Dictionaries suggest "to convene a group of people" and "convene a conference/meeting" are okay. But only "to assemble a group of people" okay, and not "to assemble a conference/meeting".


How to ask questions with "how many" in them?

I would like some guidance on how to ask questions with "how many" in them. For example, does one say > From how many minutes is the train late? or simply > How many minutes is the train late? or something else? Similarly, is it > From how many kilos does she slim ? or something else?


Term for Only "Unbelieved Warner"

I'm looking for a word, phrase, or idiom to describe a person or fictional device. In stories, especially horror and fantasy, there can be a character who is dismissed when they try to tell others what (they think) is happening. I would like for this term to make no judgments on such characters, their messages, or deliveries. For example, some of the related terms I find assume predisposition. If the message is foreboding, a related term might be _doomsayer_: > one **given to** forebodings and predictions of impending calamity Other terms question the character's reliability, like _Chicken Little_: > one who warns of or predicts calamity _especially without justification_ or this definition of _alarmist_, which challenges the sensibility of the warning: > a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as > by _exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities._ Another phrase, _cry wolf_, carries the stigma that the warning is untrue: > to cry or complain about something when nothing is really wrong. ( _From the > story wherein a child sounds the alarm frequently about a wolf when there is > no wolf, only to be ignored when there actually is a wolf_.) These are labels other characters might apply to our subject. But suppose our subject:   1. Speaks truth (that is, what he says is truly happening), or at least earnestly believes his claim    2. Presents his issue sensibly   3. Has not engaged in lying, joking, or other practices that would give others reason not to believe him Then I don't believe any of these terms do justice in describing him, even if his claim is ridiculous. In a sense, I'm looking for a hypernym to all the above terms. The words are all about people who warn and are not believed, but they have negative connotations appended to them: reasons to be skeptical (if not dismissive) of such a person's warnings. Is there a term that means only "someone who warns others, who do not believe him"? If not, is there one to describe "an honest person who warns others sensibly and yet is not believed"?


Should I write "PhD" or "Ph.D."?

Question pretty self-explanatory. Should the abbreviation of the Latin term _philosophiae doctor_ be written as **PhD** (no periods) or **Ph.D.** (with periods)?


Can I use the word "hacker" as an adjective?

Can I use the noun _hacker_ as an adjective? For example, can I write or say: > It was a hacker trick. so that it means this: > It was a trick of a hacker. And can I use > It's hacker code. so that it means this: > The code has been created by a hacker.


Adverse or averse?

I have been thinking about these two words for quite a while. I have looked up the dictionary on these two words and it seemed as if the two words are not identical. However, there are claims of the two words being easily misunderstood. So, I would like to know what exactly are the differences between the two words(if any). A sample sentence would also be appreciated.


Cologne or toilet water?

I am writing a novel set in 1890s Georgia (United States), and I am wondering whether the main character, a young man of eighteen, would refer to _eau de toilette_ as _cologne_ , _toilet water_ , or something else entirely. Any ideas?


Which is correct? "I do not feel good" or "I do not feel well"

I was reading through a few short stories when I realised that one of the stories had these two sentences:" I do not feel good" and "I do not feel well" I was quite puzzled and I would like to know if they are both correct. If they are different in anyway, please provide a specimen sentence for the two sentences.


How to correctly assimilate dots, if at all?

I see this sentence: > There are many examples like mining, farming, foresting etc., that are > dangerous to society because they cause environmental damage. Shouldn't "etc.," be written instead with the one dots assimilated i.e. "etc," so that the comma assimilates the dot? Or is this not a practice to assimilate the dots? Samt way for instance with an acronym immediately before a comma then I think the dots should get assimilated e.g. "N.A.S.A, U.S.A, and other " or should all dots be left there? I also wonder about the dot in use with brackets: " ...other countries (such as U.S.A.). " Is the above correct? It looks like too many dots and I think that the closing of a bracket assimilates a dot in English as a rule which is not in other languages. Could you answer about or comment on what the rules and practices are in these cases?


Is there a difference between British English phrases and American phrases?

My goal is to learn British English because I'm going to study there. I've found a good book about English phrases. However, the book is originally from the US. Is there a difference between American and British phrases ? The book contains such phrases as:   \- _We don't see eye to eye   \- what if   \- look something up   \- don't mention it   \- play it by ear   \- I'm positive_, etc. **Update:** meaning that, if I learn those phrases from the American book, I will not be able to use them in the UK?


Is the phrase "breed of men" weird or just different?

Forgive me for asking two questions in a single post, but I think it would make more sense to post them together. So please indulge me. Sentence: He is not unique. We should be able to discover such breed of men on turning the pages of history, small in number though they might be.   1. Is 'such (a) breed of men' too archaic an expression to still use today? (I'm using it in a translation of a short story)    2. Usage of article: 'such breed of men', 'such a breed of men', or 'such a breed of man'? Also, could you please explain the logic behind your choice?  I find myself confused over the more complex usages/omissions of articles. So, a proper explanation or even a link would be much appreciated.


What is the origin of the phrase a "hung jury"?

As the title suggests, I'm curious about the origin of a "hung jury" when the jury doesn't come to a decision.


What is the proper preposition for this question?

Fill in the blank with appropriate preposition and give a reason: > What is the time **___ ____** your watch?


Is it always bad to use "get" or "got"?

Back in grammar, one of the many rules we were given was to always avoid "get," "got," or "gotten" due to their ambiguity and tendency toward poor grammar as in: > What happened to your arm? It _got broke._ rather than > What happened to you arm? It _was broken._ and > I _got_ a ticket. rather than > I _have_ a ticket. or I _purchased_ a ticket. Is there still a respectable place for this abundantly overused verb (such as the passive mood, which, while generally to be avoided, can be used to convey an otherwise unobtainable feel in phrase)? Or is it ever condemned to literal taboo?


Why are unidentified people called John Doe?

I observed this many times while reading novels and watching movies. Unknown people are always referred to as a `John Doe` or `Jane doe`. I am really curious to know how these terms originated?why `John doe` and not `shane lee` or something?


What adjective would you use for "unexpectedly delicious"?

As in the situation when you are expecting your food to be average, but it is really good. "Yummy" probably doesn't cover it. On the flip side, what adjective would describe food that is unexpectedly bad?


Is "are you done for" similar to "are you ready for"?

I heard this question: "Are you done for sushi?". I guess the guy who asked this question meant "Are you ready to eat sushi?". Is it right or did I mishear the question?


Word describing the law itself as opposed to its intended subjects

When analyzing a law, one can discuss the "subjects" of the law; e.g., the subjects of a law that imposes a sales tax will be the merchants and/or buyers. But how would one refer to the substance of the law itself as a distinct entity? Using my previous example, I'm looking for a word that would complete this sentence: "The __ of this law is the imposition of a sales tax." The word "substance" seems a little too broad for this purpose, as the subjects of the law are also part of its substance. [Note: I'm well aware that the above sentence could easily be reworded as something like "The law imposes a sales tax"; it's just an example to explain what kind of technical term I'm trying to find.]


What does “themself” mean?

My English teacher explained about _themself_ and _themselves_. I don't really quite understand though.


Can a temperature be described as unusual or abnormal? I'm trying to figure a way to say that the temperature is not within its normal range.


What's a common name for creating and removing objects?

I'm about to name a method in my software. It's going to perform two tasks that are, more or less, inseparable from each other. The first one is to create a table in a database. The second one is to remove. It might sound pointless to do that but the aim of the test is to verify whether that can be done. The currently picked name for the method is _TemporaryTableCreationAndRemoval_. However, I'm not happy about the last part, so I wonder what'd be a good term to describe both the process of creation and, subsequently following, the process of removal. Supposing that such an action is called _to shazoo_ (i.e. _to shazoo_ = _to create something and then, inevitably and directly, remove it_ ), the name of the method would be _TemporaryTableShazoo_.


Use of plural form when applied to both singular and plural cases

There is a situation where I have never worked out the correct thing to do. For example, here is a sentence I just used in a comment on Stack Overflow: > The 'strong disagreement' was about using those methods in this (or indeed > most) cases. If _(or indeed most)_ were removed from the sentence, it should read.. > The 'strong disagreement' was about using those methods in this case. However, if the bracketed part is left in, it just does not seem to 'read right' unless 'case' is plural, as in the first quoted text. Is there a proper way to handle this? If not, how could that first sentence be reworded, restructured or changed, to remove the problem?


"Seriously speaking" or just "seriously"?

Is the expression _seriously speaking_ redundant? For example: > [A asks a question] > > [B replies with a joke] > > [A and B laugh] > > B: No, seriously (speaking), I came to visit my mom. I think writing "No, seriously..." would imply that A is not believing what B is saying (which isn't the case in my example above). I'm not very sure, though. I also thought of the expression _talking seriously_. But I think I'm translating directly from Spanish (hablando enserio).


Is it "invoice receivables" or "invoices receivable"?

The latter follows the analogy of accounts receivable as a post-positive adjective.


How to express this meaning by using "right" as a noun?

> If you have read the whole book, you are in a better position to explain > it.(self-made) Can I change the sentence to be "if you..., you have more right to explain it". If not, how to rewrite the sentence with "right" as a noun?


Is there something incorrect about the phrase "fall back asleep"?

A quick Google search shows that the phrase seems to be in relatively common usage, but for some reason I find the construct very awkward. I would say "fall asleep" the first time, and then "fall back to sleep" if awakened. Saying "fall back asleep" sounds wrong to me in a similar way to "(I tripped but am) back running". Is something wrong with the tense? A case of "coming back to the present"?


What does "in direct line of descent from.." mean?

> Berkeley's argument is in direct line of descent from Parmenides. (The > Presocratic Philosophers, by Jonathan Barnes) J. Barnes was interpreting what Parmenides means by "to think is the same as to be". Then he resorts to Berkeley to make the discussion easier to understand. Does Barnes mean that Berkeley has inherited Parmenides's idea, and there is a historical connection between them? If so, it will be an unnecessary statement,because it will attract too much attention, and need to be defended, so that the attempt to make things easier will be in vain. Or, it just means that their thoughts are very close to each other, very similar, without any claim to historical connection?


Word for "what-if scenarios"

What is the English word that best captures "what if" situation? Something along the lines of "What if something goes wrong". It is close to being pessimistic. But _pessimistic_ is too negative. I am basically looking for a word that captures "what-if situations" rather than the expression "what if" itself. "Worst-case" is not a choice for me.


Word for ulterior motive

Whats a word for making amends for a wrongdoing but with ulterior motives, ie not altruistically. Does anyone know of a word


Does the following sentence with "however" make sense?

"You'll like the book, **however** slow you read." It was the correct answer to the question "You'll like the book, **____________** slow you read." in a placement test which I answered pretended wrong with _"no matter how"_. So I want to know: Does the sentence "You'll like the book, _however_ slow you read." make sense? Thanks for your help!


'susceptible of' vs 'susceptible to"

What are their similarities and differences? The definitions on http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/susceptible look similar: for example, A is 'influenced or affected' by B, if and only if, "A allows B". So same meaning? I see that the examples containing **\+ of** connotes negativity, but does this imply anything (more profound)?


"I'm not X, am I?" vs. "I'm not X, do I?"

Which of the following is correct or better? Can they both be used? >   * I'm not making any sense, am I? >   * I'm not making any sense, do I? >


Stylistic / rhetorical device used by Obama over and over

After reading some of his speeches, I see one rhetorical device used over and over by Obama, some examples for it include:   * large or small   * wealthy or poor   * able or disabled   * gay or straight   * young or old What is it called? Is it a simple antithesis?


Is the above sentence correct?

She has an outstanding relationship with children being as she is caring, kind and thoughtful and fun to be with.


Tense of "lie"/"lay" in a clause

I've been using "lay" but many people have looked at my sentence dubiously. > However, while in secondary school, I abandoned my higher scientific > aspirations because I became more focused on a career rather than finding > where my personal interests truly **lay**. I think I'm trying to use "lie" in past tense, so I used "lay", but is the "finding..." clause present-tense, so does that clash?


"Enter the Fairies" after a sudden clatter or crash?

In my family, who originate from Scotalnd, people cry "enter the fairies!" if something has caused a sudden crash, smash or clatter. I am guessing it comes from a stage direction, such as from Midsummer nights dream, but I cannot find any reference which requires there to be a crash and I don't know why a crash/smash/collape triggers the interjection.   IS it just our family who says this? Nevertheless its fun to say and more original than "taxi" which is heard in bars all over Australia in response to a dropped beer glass.


"Mysterious" vs. "Perplexing"

Is there a difference between 'mysterious' and 'perplexing' when used with regard to some unexplained phenomena?


Meaning of the expression "2.1 kids"

What does it mean to say, "Everyone in this city has 2.1 kids"? Is this an idiom?


Quotation Marks and Symbols

As a programmer who often communicates through text, I find myself frequently having to refer to something in quotes, like _;_. This is fine for most things, but it can get confusing when referring to quotation marks themselves like _'_ or _"_. It can get even more confusing when referring to multiples of something: "#s" could mean literally "#s" or multiple _#_. And then after the message there usually has to be some text to say that the quotation marks aren't included in what you are saying because _#"_ means something different from _#_. Is there any way to simplify this?


Word for skill without passion

I am looking for a word that describes a skill a person possesses but does not enjoy. For example: > Although Robert does not like tennis, he is very good at it. What word could be used to describe Robert's skill?


Key to innovation or key of innovation?

Today, I was working on a write-up and had a sentence that said: _We believe innovation is the key to success_ only to find that my partner had rewritten this as: > We believe innovation is the key of success. Somehow, the latter seemed to have a monopolistic claim to 'unlocking success' than the previous one but somehow it doesn't feel right. I am not sure the two mean the same thing but I'm curious to which is better accepted as it is for publication purposes. Thanks.


Error on wiki page - Is it ok?

Taken from Wikipedia on Windows and Linux > However such an approach has indeed produced several vulnerabilities, > although this is a rare case Is that statement logically correct because it seems to contradict itself or am I just reading it wrong.


"Without further adieu" vs "Without further ado"

I have just seen an email containing the phrase "Without further adieu"; I always thought it was "Without further ado." Which is it?


How would you suffix a phrasal verb being used as a noun?

You may be aware that people often informally suffix a word with '-a-saurus rex' to add emphasis, e.g. 'You Sir, are a douche-a-saurus rex.' I've just been thinking about what the correct orthography for this should be. Is the '-a-' part even a valid construct? Should it be ' _something_ -asaurus rex' instead? Also what if the _something_ is itself a phrasal verb such as 'go away'? When used as a noun it should by hyphenated so would that create something horrific like: 'go-away-a-saurus rex'?


Do I use italics for hotel and restaurant names?

I'm writing a bio for a friend, and I mention many hotels and restaurants, some of which are foreign. Should I use italics?


How to find the best words for my sentences?

Are there any techniques or web-tools to find the best words to fit your sentence? For example, I want to find the best verb/phrase to say > **reply with** a positive feedback the result would be: > **give** positive feedback * * * So far I have been using google search operators, like this: > * positive feedback OR > ~reply positive feedback


Does "hieroglyph" only refer to the ancient Egyption form of writing or to any writing system whose basic elements represent words?

If somebody refers to Chinese or Japanese characters as _hieroglyphs_ are they right or wrong? Aren't there many hieroglyphic writing systems? If somebody says hieroglyph refers only to Ancient Egyptian writing are they merely pedantic or just plain wrong? * * * I know there are quite a few other terms used for Chinese and Japanese characters (han character, hanja, hanzi, ideogram, ideograph, kanji, pictogram, pictograph, sinogram, sinograph ...). And I know that those characters used to be used in Korea and Vietnam, but I don't want to get sidetracked and focus just on the applicability of this term, not whether there are better or less ambiguous or more precise or more technical terms.


"In graduate programs" versus "at graduate level"

I am writing a new CV. I want to choose a title for a section which specifies the courses I've taken at the graduate level. Since I've attended more than one graduate programs, which one of these is preferred for the title?   1. Courses taken at graduate level   2. Courses taken in graduate program


"In a call" versus "on a call"

Is either "in a call" or "on a call" incorrect usage when referring to someone attending a phone (possibly conference) call? If not, what's appropriate usage for both?


A poem written long ago that reminds me of Elliot Rodger

I'm sure most of you have heard now about Elliot Rodger and his angst against young women. A memory of a poem came to me today that I had read way back in highschool, but I forgot who wrote it and was hoping someone here might be able to help me remember. The poem was written (my guess) between 1700 and 1850 by a European poet, and most likely an English one. The poem is about a man's struggle for acceptance from women and how he'll never find love. I believe he described himself as balding (I think) but the one thing I do remember is how he described this woman's bare elbow and forearm. Can anyone help me? I would like to reread this poem.


Perfect continuous tense with the verb "have"

What is the difference between > Do you have a good time? and > Are you having a good time? Thanks


I didn't hear what you've said

Is the sentence > I didn't hear what you've (just) said a natural one? Some tell me that it's unnatural, but not ungrammatical. Others tell me that it's all right. I'm puzzled. What do you think? The trouble seems to be the usage of present perfect ("you've said") after past simple ("didn't hear"). Let me add a subquestion. Would you be likely to use the above-quoted sentence at all? I don't care much if it's grammatical or not, I would like to know if any native speaker speaks like that nowadays.


Expertise and speciality

I was wondering what differences and relations are between _expertise_ and _speciality/specialty_? In a résumé or CV, which one is used?


Compact rephrasing of "In contrast to previous work, our method ...."

I am writing an abstract for a paper, where I say the following: > " **In contrast to previous work** , our method does not rely on ...." Then, about three sentences later, I would like to use a similar construct > " **In contrast to previous work** , where problem X is usually approached > this way ...." These constructs are useful to quickly highlight the contributions of your work in the abstract, but I would prefer avoiding the repetition of the exact same words, since the two sentences are close enough to each other in the text. Can anybody think of a **compact** way of rephrasing either of these two sentences (without changing the structure of the text much) ?


Hypernym for reading a book and listening to an audiobook

I want to state that "I've read 10 books this year", but the books in question can be both dead-wood books and audiobooks. Is there a verb that works here in place of 'read'? Maybe something like 'learned' or 'ingested' (eww)?


How do you insert a complete sentence quote into the middle of a sentence before a comma?

First off, I **do not** believe this question is a duplicate of this one: What is the correct punctuation when quoting a question in the middle of a larger sentence? I want to know how to insert a complete quote in the middle of a sentence where the quote must be immediately followed by a comma _while also_ preserving the punctual tone (ie, whether or not it's imperitive, declarative, interrogatory, or exclamatory). Here's an example: > Before you walk into a room full of glum-looking people and ask, "Who > died?", you should make sure there's not a casket present. I think there are some who will argue that there is too much punctuation in my example. I disagree, however. There should always be consistency in any linguistic construct. Arbitrarily eliminating crucial punctuation on the grounds that there's simply too much of it is a bad call. That said, I chose to keep the question mark and add a comman after `"Who died?"`. If I say `"Who died,"`, the interrogatory tone has to be assumed by the reader which is not guaranteed. Preserving the question mark forces the tone of the sentence which gives the writer more control over how it is received by the reader.


What/How is the time?

> The farmyard was deserted. Dieter had gone down the lane with Rupert and > Nialla to the river, and by now they had probably already made camp. If I > was lucky, I might be just in time for a cup of tea. I felt as if I’d been > up all night. > > **What was the time** , anyway? > > God blind me with a fish fork! Aunt Felicity’s train was due to arrive at > five past ten and I’d completely forgotten about her! Father would have my > guts for garters. > > * * * > > Out of the village I went like the wind, southwestwards towards Buckshaw, > until I came at last to the Mulford Gates, where Clarence Mundy sat waiting, > perched on one of the wings of his taxicab, dragging thirstily at a > cigarette. By the snowfall of butts on the road, I could tell that it was > not his first. > > “Hullo, Clarence,” I said. “ **How’s the time**?” > > “Ten hundred hours,” he said, glancing at this elaborate military > wristwatch. “Better climb aboard.” > > (from ‘ _The Weed that Strings the Hangman’s Bag_ ’) Judging from the words, Ten hundred hours, I can guess ‘How’s the time’ may have the same meaning as ‘What is the time.’ Do the two sentences really have the same meaning?


Using apostrophe s before gerunds (nouns ending in `-ing`)

I understanding that the following sentence is reasonably good for expressing the given idea. _**_(1.) This method is likely to be biased since this requires participants to bring their own laptops.** However, I was curious to know if the following is correct (given that it sounds better at least to me). **(2.) This method is likely to be biased since this requires participants' bringing their own laptops.** Thank you for your help.


Swapping Words in 'Deep' Sayings

Here's an example of a common swapping that happens when people want to sound profound:               The clothes don't make the man     It's the man that makes the clothes      What is this form of swapping called?


"Would you like me to show?", or "would you like to have me show?"

I have two sentences similar in nature and form. 'Would you like to have me show you how it's done?' And 'Would you like me to show you how it's done?' The first seems a little less used and... odd, but to my understanding is correct. If someone could explain these sentences to me - as to how they work and why - that would be very much appreciated! Thank you.


What verb tenses are commonly used in conversational English?

I have been learning the English language for five months. I have learned some basic verb tenses such as simple present, present continuous, simple past, past continuous, present perfect and present perfect continuous. There are quite a few tenses that I haven't learned yet such as past perfect, past perfect continuous, future continuous, future perfect, future perfect continuous and future in the past. I have spoken with some teachers and they told me that not all tenses are used in conversational English. I want to know which ones are commonly used in conversational English.   * Simple Present   * Present Continuous   * Simple Past   * Past Continuous   * Present Perfect   * Present Perfect Continuous   * Past Perfect   * Past Perfect Continuous   * Simple Future   * Future Continuous   * Future Perfect   * Future Perfect Continuous   * Future in the Past


Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? **Edit:** There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.


Nor without neither?

I am correcting a translation for a friend. He wanted to say: "Don't look for treasure nor earthly pleasure." This sounds wrong to me. I would say: "Look not for treasure nor earthly pleasure." The following would be correct: "Don't look for treasure or earthly pleasure," but he wants to use "nor" for emphasis. I have lived abroad for 35 years and so my grammar has slipped. All I have left to go on is how things sound. Which of these is right?


Synonyms for "Inspect"

We have software which currently has these menu items: Map, Talk, Inspect, Analyze, Report, Team. We realize that the word _Inspect_ word is not clear enough for most people. We have all the raw data shown on that part, plus filtering and some other features. It's not a log viewer or audit. It is somehow raw data, but in an organized way. We are looking for a good replacement. We have options like "Input/Output", "Data and Traffic", but unfortunately none of them looks good enough in our case. Does anyone have an idea what to replace the word _Inspect_ with? Something more straight-forward, and more user-friendly (by which we mean that e.g. "Data" is good, but it's somehow scaring off users).


Pronunciation difference between "cycle" and "psycho"

When I speak English, I can't tell the difference between _cycle_ and _psycho_ , I pronounce them the same. And it's not only _cycle_ vs. _psycho_ ; when words end in _-le_ or _-o_ , I always confusee them. How to pronounce them correctly?


More concise word of phrase for "to turn into a process"

I'm looking for a more concise way of describing the process of turning something into a process. Often we have tacit knowledge about things we do frequently, sometimes called muscle memory. What do you call the thoughtful process of turning that into a process or procedure–into something step by step and detailed?


Dean Professor or Dean and Professor

If someone, called John, for example, has two titles that include Dean and Professor, which of the following expressions is better?   1. Dean Professor John visits Oxford University.    2. Dean and Professor John visits Oxford University.


Equivalent for "née" in spoken English

_Née_ is a word borrowed from French that means "born as" and is used to denote someone's former name, such as the maiden name of a married woman. It is usually seen as a parenthetical aside: "Jane Smith (née Doe)." I'm looking for something equivalent that would work when speaking in a formal matter, like for a news report or a speech. I don't think née works in this context, because it sounds more like a negation. The only thing I can think of is _formerly_ or _formerly known as_ , but those almost sound like something you would say about a criminal to me. I'm wondering what are some good alternatives.


What does the term "night moves" mean?

There are a number of songs, films, and other cultural artefacts that use or reference this term, but I can't figure out if it has some kind of idiomatic meaning. Any ideas?


"In back of'' vs. "back of" vs. the spatial sense of "behind" in AmE

What's the difference to these expressions, as in "The little girl was hiding in back of the tree" vs. "The little girl was hiding back of the tree" vs. "The little girl was hiding behind the tree"? In addition, do "in back of" and "back of" have any currency in AE today? Plus, are these idioms safe to use for all proses, even the most formal one?


Is using “maybe” in combination with a conjugation of “to be” bad style?

I've read this answer about the difference between _“maybe”_ and _“may be”_. It contains the sentence _“maybe he is in the office today”_ as a correct example. In the above example _“maybe”_ and _“is”_ is separated by _“he”_ , but when that's not the case I feel it is a bit weird: _“... as this maybe is an interesting subject”_ Is it bad form to place a conjugation of “to be” after “maybe”? Is it better to use a synonym like _“possibly”_?


Is this proper English?

The content analysis study our group undertook clearly indicates that, television advertisements and possibly the media as a whole, present children as exhibiting gender stereotypical behaviour.


Comma before not

If I have this opposition construction with _not_ like > It's all about intimidation(,) not the law. should I place comma before _not_?


Is there a Name for this Style of Capitalisation?

It seems quite common on the web to capitalise certain words in a heading, or navigation bar, but not others. Here are some examples: > Visit the Member's Page > > How to Format _(as seen on this very website)_ > > Create a Corporate Themed Website with our Tutorial To me it seems any "important" words are capitalised, and words such as _and, of, to, from_ are not. Is that the case? If so, is there a name or term for this behaviour? This is generally only seen in titles of web pages, or headings perhaps, and not something I've seen commonly in the body of a piece of text.


Why do we invert word order when asking a question?

What's the difference between an inverted question and a normal-order question? Why invert? Is there a reason or a benefit? >   * I love you? >   * Do I love you? >


"Upper-case" is to "capital" as "lowercase" is to what?

Is there a corresponding word to go with capital to mean lower-case?


Can someone help with these 2 GRE verbal questions?

Requirement: fill the blank with **2** words choosen from the below list, each word should give the sentence the same meaning. >   1. Modern agricultural practices have been extremely successful in > increasing the productivity of major food crops, yet despite heavy use of > pesticides, __ losses to diseases and insect pests are sustained each year. > >     * A. incongruous B. reasonable C. significant D. considerable E. > equitable F. fortuitous > My guess: D, E >   1. The judge's standing in the legal community, though shaken by phony > allegations of wrongdoing, emerged, at long last, __. >     * A. unqualified B. undiminished C. undecided D. undamaged E. unresolved > F. unprincipled > My guess: B, D It would be great if you could give the answer, as well as explain why made the choice.


Origin and exact meaning of the phrase "I have to go see a man about a dog"

I hear my older coworkers use this idiom/phrase occasionally. It seems possibly to be a humorous way to get out of a conversation. Even as a native English speaker, I've never figured out the exact situation you would use this phrase. It almost sounds like it may have once been a punchline to a joke in a movie or something. I'm curious what is the exact meaning/usage of this phrase/idiom? Where does it originate?


Is "conservativism" a word?

I know that "conservatism" is the more commonly used term, but is "conservativism" a less preferred, but legitimate word, or just a misspelling? www.dictionary.com has "conservativism", but I'm not sure I view them as a credible source.


What does 'educated risk' mean?

Can anybody help to explain what 'educated risk' means? I recently met this phrase and need to translate it into another language. The sentence I met is 'Encouraging educated risk'. Thanks...


Meaning of "more original computer science"

If I write > Knuth has written **more original computer science** than anybody else does it mean _computer science that is more original_ or _more computer science that is original_? It seems like it should take on the latter meaning. Is there a good way to clarify this with a hyphen or comma? Should I rephrase the sentence?


What do you call a person who deems themselves unworthy when given criticism?

What is an appropriate word for a person who when criticized seems to think that they are completely unworthy in that particular category? For example: > Me: "I wish you could be nicer when you speak to me."   >  Person: "Well I guess I am just a terrible person." Another example: > Me: "I wish you could pay attention to me when I'm speaking to you."   >  Person: "Well I guess I am just the worst boyfriend to you."


What is the name of combination, in error, of similar or related words? (E.g.: segueway)

Is there a technical term for combination, in error, of similar or related words? This question is prompted by the following malapropism or solecism, from an article by Elizabeth Montalbano in InformationWeek: > The project also serves as a segueway into the next-generation Joint Polar > Satellite System (JPSS), a program by NOAA that also will collect weather > and climate data. The writer presumably formed _segueway_ by miscegenation of segue with Segway. The problem does not seem to be a simple typographical error, which "includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors." It also seems unlikely to be a neologism. Some processes of word formation \-- agglutination, back- formation, blending, _etc._ \-- of course are in play here, but those terms don't imply error.


Proverb: "have fate without destiny"

I was looking for an English equivalent of the Chinese proverb (有缘无分) which describes couples who meet but who do not for whatever reason stay together. My friend (native speaker, no Chinese backgroud) suggested "have fate without destiny". I am half contented with and half confused with this suggestion. It seems to make perfect sense while I can't figure out the subtle difference of "fate" vs. "destiny" in this context. And, why not "have destiny without fate" instead of "have fate without destiny"?


What word would you use to describe someone who tries to one up everything you say?

What word is appropriate for someone who tries to one up everything you say? For example: > Me: "You are a great friend"   >  Person: "Well, you are my best friend"


Do you use "pore over"?

As in, _I spent all night poring over those legal documents._ Or, do you use _pore through_? Not to be confused with _pour (some sugar)_.


"Each" vs. "both"

I have this sentence: > Each of the datasets _HapMap 6_ and _CEU HapMap 610_ is stored in two > schemas. Background: a schema is a namespace within a database. Possible variations include: > [Each of/Both] the datasets _HapMap 6_ and _CEU HapMap 610_ [is/are] stored > in two schemas. _Each_ means I am referring to the databases separately. _Both_ means I am referring to them together. I don't have strong reasons for preferring one of these over the other. I'm leaning towards _each_ but without a strong reason. I would be glad to hear of strong reasons to prefer one. As far as _are_ vs. _is_ , I think _is_ goes with _each_ because _each_ is singular. _Both_ is plural, so that should go with _are_. Is that correct? On a side note, is there any reason to prefer "the datasets HapMap 6 and CEU HapMap 610" to "the HapMap 6 and CEU HapMap 610 datasets"?


What is the difference between "exemption" and "exception"?

It seems that _exemption_ and _exception_ have the same meaning. However, they seem to be used differently. When should we use one and not the other?


"What number is our wagon?" or "What's our wagon number?"?

Which one of these two is correct? Which one is more common? Or, if none of them is correct, how would you ask this question?


Meaning of "Be Mr Late Better Than Late Mr"

Not long ago I found on the Internet a lot of different road signs from India. Here is one of them: ![Be Mr Late Better Than Late Mr](http://i.stack.imgur.com/q9Aiy.jpg) It says: "Be Mr Late Better Than Late Mr". I can't understand the meaning of this phrase. I understand that it's some word play but can't catch the idea. Can you explain this to me?


Is "keep updated" proper usage of those words?

I'm far from being an English major, but I have a simple question. If someone were to say _keep updated_ in a sentence, is that correct? I know the usage, tense, and other things matter, but is it _incorrect_ to use those two words together? If you were to suggest that someone _keep updated_ [a statement], would that be correct? I read another post here (which was similar), but it didn't say anything specific about "keep" or "updated" together.


OED Appeals: Antedatings of "DIY"

The OED has made a public appeal for help in tracing the history of some English words, including: > ## DIY > > abbreviation _earlier than 1955_ > > _DIY_ is of course an abbreviation of _do it yourself_ , and both terms > refer to the carrying out of a task by oneself, especially around the home. > The entries for these terms are currently being revised by _OED_ editors. > The earliest use of _do it yourself_ as a phrase found so far dates from the > nineteenth century (without the later associations with home improvement): > >> **1845 Richard H. Barham _Ingoldsby Legends_ (1905) 288 If it’s business of consequence, _Do it yourself!_** > > By 1910, the phrase being used as an adjective: > >> **1910 _Popular Science Monthly_ May 493 At the Boston Tech a method has been in vogue for long that is there deemed highly satisfactory—it is known as the ‘do-it-yourself method’.** > > But our evidence for the initialism _DIY_ currently goes back only as far as > 1955: > >> **1955 Titusville (Pa.) Herald 22 July 8/4 (advt.) DIY means ‘Do It Yourself’ and you can.** >> >> **1955 _Practical Householder_ Dec. 203/1 A central pool such as a ‘D.I.Y. Club’ from which..tools can be hired is the obvious advantage.** > > We suspect that earlier evidence for _DIY_ may exist. Can you beat our DIY > efforts?


"shown to produce"

I am struggling with understanding of the following: > It might be shown to produce the same changes in the sound of the voice as > saddness. I do not get why there is "shown to produce", it is like "It might be seen as producing the same changes.."?


What's a cover note for a CV?

I sent my CV to get a job into one company. But they rejected it. The reason was: **"Please do not send your CV without a cover note."** English is not my native language and it is hard for me to understand what _cover note_ means. What is it?


The word "getting" in "getting a divorce"

> My parents are getting a divorce Is the _getting_ just an auxiliary verb or does it have some real meaning? Why not: "My parents is going to divorce"?


What did Old English writing (letters and formatting) typically look like?

I am wondering if there is a specific kind of writing that people would typically associate with Old English language. Are there well-known manuscripts that typically represent the kind of writing (letters, formatting, etc.) that would be used at the time and in the regions where Old English spread? As a related question, are there any specific typefaces that people would typically associate with the Old English language? Are there typefaces designed from Old English manuscripts, or that convey this distinctive look, if it exists?


Ways to say "Can't be bothered!"

How else can I express a feeling similar to "can't be bothered!" Words or phrases would be appreciated as well as variations from across the English speaking world.


What is the name for group of people who line up to create a corridor?

What is the proper name for group of people who line up in two lines to form some kind of a corridor for other people to pass between the two? ![](http://mc-k26.ru/images/com_fwgallery/files/62/livcor_02.jpg)


What is the difference between a "prefix" and a "combining form"?

According to ODO, _mini-_ is classified as a _combining form_. How exactly is this different from a prefix (or an affix, in general)? Can combining forms also be prefixes?


What's a word that means the same as "tumbleweed in a desert" symbolizes?

Is there a word that adequately describes the same context as invoked by tumbleweed rolling through a desert? E.g. when someone tells a really bad joke and there is an awkward silence.


What is a word for a review of a review?

I need a word to describe a review that has been made on a review. The review itself I will call a "review", but if someone reviews the reviews, what can I call this? I can't call it a review as well as that would be confusing. I need a short understandable word for it. Any ideas?


Order of Footnote Marks On Single Page

Is there an official (or standard) order for footnotes in a single page or article? The first footnote is usually marked with a: * (asterisk). The second with a # (hash mark). I've seen the third marked with a triangle but I can't seem to figure out what it's called. Is there a list of offical footnote marks based on order?


When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

The typographical symbol dagger (†) has several meanings. Possibly its most common use is as a footnote marker. According to _You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and Its Allies_ (Partridge, 1953), when it is used for this purpose, it must be used for second footnotes only; the first footnote should be indicated by an asterisk (*), the third a double dagger (‡) and further footnotes other symbols or numbers. Where does Patridge's rule fall on a scale of one to ten, where one is "this is just one guy's random opinion" and ten is "this is a widely accepted rule of English and any deviation from it is unarguably incorrect"? _This question was inspired bythis Meta Stack Overflow question about the use of daggers on Stack Exchange site FAQ pages._


Should you always start a new paragraph when starting a new speaker even if the sentence directly before that is directly related?

When a new speaker starts a new line of dialogue you start a new paragraph at the same time. Does this rule still hold true if the sentence before the dialogue starts relates directly to the dialogue? For example, can you write: > Simon stared at her.   >  "Are you serious?" like this: > Simon stared at her. "Are you serious?" instead? Is this a simply style choice or an error?


Correct usage of disorganised vs unorganised

Under what circumstances should one use _disorganised_ in place of _unorganised_ , or are they proper synonyms?


Is “even when” a conjunction?

Does _even when_ grammatically work the same as _even though_ and _even if_ work? Or is it more of a time expression?   * Following the rules is essential, **even when** it’s difficult.    * Following the rules is essential, **even if** it’s difficult.    * Following the rules is essential, **even though** it’s difficult.


Proving that "at" is a preposition in "he laughed at me"

> He arrived at 10 p.m. _At_ in this sentence is clearly a preposition because it can be replaced with another preposition. > He laughed at me. How can we prove that _at_ in the above sentence is a preposition?


"May not" -- no choice vs. mere restriction

This is from the tabletop game Warhammer 40k rulebook: **The turn Marines arrive they may not assault.** I always assumed it means they are not allowed to assault. But the meaning "they may choose not to assault" (as opposed to "they must always assault") would be perfectly legitimate too, as far as game rules go. So how do you tell whether it limits your choices (not allowed to) or extends them (allowed not to)? How it should be worded if the meaning was "allowed not to"?


What is the difference between "He saw me talking" and "He saw me talk"?

Can anybody tell me the difference between the following two sentences: > He saw me talking to her. > > He saw me talk to her. Please let me know if both the statements are valid and grammatically correct. If valid, please explain the meaning of both the statements and what is the difference between the two.


The word parliament used other than politics

Describe the word parliament other than politics?


Idiom for someone who forgets their roots

I am having difficulty finding **English idiom(s)** for these situations:   * A person who was previously poor then becomes arrogant because she/he is rich now.   * A person who has been helped (because she/he really needs it) but she/he just walks away (and forgetting the person who has helped her/him) after achieving a comfortable state. Does this ring a bell: "A rolling stone gathers no moss"? My native proverb is: **_"The nut that forget its skin"_**


How can I spell out Pope Francis’s remark on gay priests, ‘Who am I to judge?’

In a _New York Times_ article from July 29, 2013, introduced Pope Francis’s remark on gay priests which was made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil. > “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, **who am > I to judge**?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the > English word “gay.” Pope spoke this in Italian. Is ‘Who am I to judge?’ a right translation? Couldn't it be ‘Whom am I to judge?’, or "Who am I if I were to judge?" How can I spell out this phrase? **P.S.** Ross Douthat provided full text of Pope’s remark including “Who am I to judge.” in NYT Jul 30 issue: > “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will - well, **who am I to > judge him**? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. > It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into > society. The problem isn’t this orientation — we must be like brothers and > sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for > this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.” http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/pope-francis-in-context/?hp&_r=0 I was under the impression that “Who am I to judge” was just a clip from a short Q&A between Pope and reporters aboard papal plane, but it was a part of well-structured discourse. It seems I made a premature post, without checking full context of Pope’s message. Now meaning is pretty clear to me.


Word for sphere of reality surrounding each individual?

Is there a word for the sphere reality that is being perceived by an individual? One can consider that there are two parts to awareness, first one is the subject that is aware and secondly what the subject is aware of/perceives, the best description I can think of for that is “sphere of (realised) reality of each individual (cognisant being).” So if the word _cognisant_ describes the individual in the above model, what word would describe the thing that the individual is cognisant of?


How does one use the adjectival noun "l'enfant terrible"?

I have seen this phrase bandied about from time to time, usually in more "academic" works; my problem is that I remember it rarely being applied to children, as a direct translation might imply ("terrible infant"?) I think I usually just skipped over the meaning when I read it, so I don't know how to use it. What are connotative elements of this noun that I'm missing? **NOTE** : This _is_ an English Language question; I'm not asking about the French, and really have no idea how they use the word -- which would be an inappropriate question for this site. But this phrase does find usage, and I believe has its own distinctive meaning, in English corpora. E.g.: ![Google N-gram of "L'enfant terrible"](http://i.stack.imgur.com/2PSd7.png) As always, example sentences would be appreciated.


Why use these words in plural form?

I'm always uncertain what form the following words should be used. In normal situations, they seem always in plural form but when singular forms can be used (or never be used)? > Corporate earnings > > Company financials, financials sectors > > savings account versus checking account (why not checkings account?) Maybe someone can point out a list of these words mostly in their plural form and rules of using them? Thanks


Fancy quote usage

I considered posting this on Stack Overflow, but I figure this question is more about English syntax than programming rules for it. So, currently I have this:               $fancyquote = preg_replace('/"\b(.*?\b.?)(?:"|$)/m','“$1”',$input);      What this basically does is look for a (straight) quote that comes right before a word character (letter, number or underscore), followed by the string in the quote, and ending with either the end of a line, or another straight quote. So this will work with: > The man said "Hello!"   >  "This is a whole line" and this: > "I am going to talk for a long time, and tell the story of my life all the > way until today, but I could also tell you about today if you like.   >  "Or maybe not. Let me just get on with it." But not this: > x = x' + x" Are there any other rules for quotes in use for dialogue that I have missed?


Can I use the term "ageographical" to refer to multinational corporations?

I came across the following sentence and checked it in the Corpus of Contemporary American English: > Ideologues, be they left or right politically, are fundamentally > ageographical. I know that the a- negative prefix is from Greek, and appears only on Greek roots, but the word is the COCA. So, can I use the word 'ageographical' this way in an PhD essay I'm writing? > Multinational corporations, be they based in Europe or America, are > fundamentally ageographical. Or is there a better word/phrase?


Writing quotes of a business name with star as hyphen

I have a business with a name e.g. "my business". Wherever you see the company name it's always written as **my ★business** \- the company logo is similar and anywhere we write the name on the website that's how it looks. My question is: Is there a wrong way to write this when quoting someone who has mentioned the business? For example, on our site we have a quotes section, a collection of quotes from users which we publish. One of them might be: "I started using **my ★business** after a friend told me about their website" Is that the correct way to write the company name or should it be "my business" without the star? Or doesn't it matter? Not sure how to tag this so apologies if incorrect.


Explain the phrase "Old Norwegian History Professor" and provide other examples

I remember the phrase "old Norwegian history professor" being offered as a good example of confusion that can arise in certain English phrases, but can't explain it well. (That is, is the professor an old professor that teaches Norwegian history? Is the professor an old Norwegian that teaches history? Is the professor a teacher of old Norwegian history?) More specifically, I'd like to know if there are other examples of this confusion.


What is the proper preposition for "(job title) in / at / of (company name)"?

I am writing a cover letter for my job application, and I am not sure which preposition is proper to use at a sentence as below. "Hereby, I am applying for the position of AAA (position title) **in** BBB (company name)." I am not sure if "in" is the correct one or not. How about "at" or "of", instead of using "in".   * I am applying for the position of AAA (job title) **in** BBB (company name).    * I am applying for the position of AAA (job title) **at** BBB (company name).    * I am applying for the position of AAA (job title) **of** BBB (company name). And if you can tell me why, I would appreciate. (Using proper preposition is the most difficult part for/to(?) me.) Thank you in advance!


Is there a verb that fits in the pattern: quarter, third, halve (divide), [???], double, triple, quadruple. . .?

If these were nouns, I would assume "single" fits in between: > **1/4, 1/3, 1/2, _1_ , 2, 3, 4 . . .** > > quarter, third, half, _single_ or _one_ , double, triple, quadruple . . . Note that each word has a cardinal as part of its etymology: _quarter_ evolved from the Latin _quattuor_ ("four"), _double_ from Latin _duplus_ (“twofold”), and so on. However, in the case of verbs, is there a word to indicate **multiplying (or dividing) by one** that fits into this pattern? The closest I can think of is _unify_, "cause to become one", but it wouldn't make sense in context: > She _doubled_ the number, i.e. multiplied by two.   >  She _unified_ the number, i.e. multiplied by one. The word wouldn't necessarily have to have the _mono-_ or _uni-_ prefix, but the etymological root ought to contain the cardinal for **one** (i.e. "she _maintained_ the number" wouldn't work) _in keeping with the pattern_.


"He is better than _____." (1) I (2) I am?

Which of the following constructions is / are correct?   * He is better than I.   * He is better than I am. PS: I'm unfamiliar with this site and its workings, so forgive me if my question fails to follow the community guidelines. If there are any improvements I can make to the question, please do point them out.


What is a good adjective for something I do a lot?

I think a lot about various things. While not working, I think about something, and this is what I do during most of my available time. What would be a good adjective to describe that. At first I thought " _big-time_ thinker", but looks like that has a different meaning. Any ideas?


Origin and usage of "a shambles"

"Shambles" is one of the few singular nouns in English that blatantly resembles a plural noun. What is the origin of "a shambles"? Why do we really need to prefix an "a" in front of "shambles"? Which of the following is perfect?   * The country's economy is in shambles.   * The country's economy is in a shambles.   * The country's economy is a shambles.


Is it preferable to generally use nested prepositional phrases or a hyphenated adjectival phrase?

I've recently run into some sticky situations involving how to write out complicated concept descriptions. Take this example: > Which metrics are appropriate for evaluating the accuracy of a prediction of > difficulty level? My visceral response is that the nested prepositions ("for...of...of") bog down the reader. One option is to wrap one of the prepositional phrases into a hyphenated adjectival phrase: > Which metrics are appropriate for evaluating the accuracy of a difficulty- > level prediction? If I wanted to compress this even more, I could fold in another prepositional phrase: > Which metrics are appropriate when evaluating difficulty-level-prediction > accuracy? Unfortunately, these hyphenated cases look ugly and are arguably (especially in the 3rd case) as hard or harder to understand than the original sentence. Have any style guides or other sources justified using nested prepositional phrases over hyphenated adjectival phrases, or vice versa?


"Hear hear" or "here here"

Which one is it really: _hear hear_ or _here here_? Where does the saying _really_ come from?


What does "reputee" mean?

I wonder what does the word "reputee" mean? What is the meaning?


Is "so" more feminine than "very"?

Many Japanese textbooks of English mention the "feminine 'so'": the use of "so" for "very" is more typical of a feminine speaker. I don't think this is true in the US (I learned English living in Southern California and have now lived in the US for 10 years), but is it at all true in the UK? In other parts of the world? Most Japanese textbooks teach American English, by the way. [edit (responding to Mitch)] I don't have access to textbooks, but some finds online: Yahoo! answer Japan: http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q139835853 To a question about feminine speech, the feminine 'so' is the only example given. I think the belief is relatively widespread. A blog post: http://ameblo.jp/yoakemae2/entry-11040928287.html "昔は feminine soと よばれ、論理的たるgentlemanは そのような 表現を 使うべきではないとさえ 言われていたようです。" (Translation: "In the past, it was called the feminine so, and it seems to have even been said that a rational gentleman should not use such an expression.") So perhaps this is only in older Japanese textbooks (like the infamous recommendation of "had better do" as a polite suggestion). Still, I'd be interested to see if there's any basis for it.


How strong/vulgar is using "to bitch" in the meaning of "to complain"?

I understand that calling a woman _a bitch_ is a very strong language. However, is the word vulgar _per se_? Specifically, when used as a verb _to bitch_ in the meaning of _to complain_ (see What's the meaning of "bitching"?), is it also so strong? Could you use it in front of your grandmother? :) ADDED: Is it acceptable to use it towards kids? As a parent: > Stop bitching about the food. As a teacher: > If you keep bitching about the homework, I'll give you even more. As a bonus, could you place here some _examples_ of _to bitch_ in the above mentioned meaning so the wider context (such as prepositions which may follow etc.) is made apparent?


Is the verb "hustle" used mostly positively or negatively these days?

I am confused about the uses of the word _hustle_. According to the dictionary, _to hustle_ means a lot of negative things, like: > force (someone) to move hurriedly or unceremoniously in a specified > direction. > > obtain by forceful action or persuasion. > > coerce or pressure someone into doing or choosing something > > sell aggressively > > obtain by illicit action; swindle; cheat. However, it is used in positive inspirational quotes, such as: > “Good things happen to those who **hustle**.” - Anaïs Nin > > "What you lack in talent can be made up with desire, **hustle** and giving > 110 percent all the time." - Don Zimmer > > “Good things come to those who wait, but only the things left over by those > who **hustle**.” – Abraham Lincoln Why are the dictionary definitions so negative? There is not a single positive mention of the word in there, isn't that deflecting the reality?


Is "nice to meet you" an appropriate online salutation?

When one makes a new acquaintance with somebody in person, you may say "it was nice to meet you", e.g. when you leave. What if you make a new acquaintance over the internet, what do you say when you finish the conversation, business transaction, etc.? You didn't actually _meet_ the person, you only exchanged some emails. One could say "it was nice to talk/do business/etc. with you" but that doesn't confer the fact you made a new acquaintance and it was enjoyable experience for you. Does the word "meet" really work in this case or something else is better?


<Grammar/Style> Ambiguous "it"

I recently stumbled upon this joke employing some grammar: > Q: How can you drop an egg on a concrete floor without cracking it? > > A: Any way you want, concrete floors are very hard to crack. My questions are:   1. When it is apparent that _it_ refers to the egg (or at least I’d assume that most people also interpret it this way), is it fair to use _it_ instead of some other word?    2. Or would we have to remove the so-called “ambiguity” by not using a pronoun there?    3. Could the sentence be improved?


Word for a far-out archivist?

Jesus was a carpenter. According to some sources, when his dad couldn't fit a board for a bed, the young Jesus just stretched them to make them the same length. Still, he is called a carpenter. If Jesus was an archivist, and could perform similarly superhuman feats (such as re-filing all the records in Library of Congress with simply a spoken command) -- would he still be called an "archivist", or something, how should I say? _Grander sounding._


Synomyns for undoable

I'm gathering for an English/Russian dictionary words that are encompassed under the aegis of the word "undoable". Here are the words I've got down so far: unfulfillable, unworkable, unexecutable, unachievable, unattainable, unrealizable, unreachable, unaccomplishable, utopic, imperformable, impracticable, infeasible, unviable, impossible. Any additions will be highly appreciated. And to make what I want to see here perfectly clear I'm going to throw some exemplarily idioms in here which are as follows: 1\. Well, man it's as doable as herding cats ,in other words, totally undoable. 2.It's as doable as a two- bit whore i.e. very doable. It doesn't matter to me if an idiom is dirty or squeaky-clean as long as it is widely understood by native speakers and still in use.


What's the meaning of the expression "The take home is ..."?

There is one expression I came across recently - 'The take home is ...'. The full sentence was “The take home is that regular use of caffeine produces no benefit to alertness, energy, or function”. Can anyone explain what does the beginning of the sentence mean? And does it have something in common with another expression "to drive your point home"?


"Soundness in body" vs "Soundness in the body"

Which one of the following is correct? > Soundness in body is abundance in itself or > Soundness in the body is abundance in itself


Why does one run around like a blue-arsed fly?

I have been a bit busy recently; too busy to give this website the attention it warrants. In fact, I said to myself yesterday, I have been running around like a blue-arsed fly. I stopped to think: why a blue-arsed fly? Is there such a creature? There are many things called red-headed, red-tailed, red-legged, red-breasted and so on, but none I have heard of named for the colour of their posterior. In any case, why would one "run around" like a fly of any sort? Can anyone shed some light on the matter?


Does "No more" by necessity imply there was some before?

If I say "I have no more apples" do I have to have had some apples to begin with? Is there an instance where I could start with none and still say I had no more sensically?


Word or phrase for writing that "reads fast"

Is there a word or phrase to describe technical writing that _is quick to read_? Some technical writing is so clear and concise, even a novice at the material will find himself flying through it. For lack of a better word let's call this "good". Some technical writing _is slow to read_ , not only because the subject matter, but _also_ by virtue of the way the writer chooses to express himself, and by virtue of the _very_ words he uses. I guess you might call it "clunky", but I want a better word than that. I want to call it "sludgy" writing because you tend to get stuck in it, and can end up in a loop, reading the same words over and over. For example: > We shall distinguish between two perspectives on rotations in the plane, and > shall determine the effect which each has on coordinates of points in the > plane. The first is rotation of the coordinate frame with respect to fixed > points (vectors) in the plane; the second is rotation of points (vectors) > with respect to a fixed coordinate frame. It's not so much that this writing is hard to _understand_ — an expert in the field will read through it and understand it on the first take. _But_ , the following puts the same information in a format that is _faster_ to read for the expert, and easier to understand for the first-time reader: > There are two different types of planar rotation that we shall now discuss. > >   1. A rotation of the actual coordinate frame with respect to fixed points > in the plane. >   2. A rotation of the points with respect to a fixed coordinate frame. > There has to be a word for writing that _"reads fast because it's very clear, has no gimmicks, and isn't unnecessarily flowery"_.


Is there a term for if someone uses their own words on idioms consciously?

For example, instead of "barking up the wrong tree", someone uses "pulling out the wrong plant". Consciously or not, is there a term for saying idioms in your own words?


How to form a word to represent "drawing quote ideas"?

I'm a graphic designer. I have a project at hand in which I want to draw the underlying concepts in famous quotes. I want to name this project, and I thought of something similar to "quote- drawing". First, I thought of "quotography", but turns out that it's not a uni-lingual term, and it's a compound word made of English and Greek languages. Is it OK to create a new word, which is composed of heterogeneous languages? As an alternative, and as many technical terms in English are basically, morphologically and etymologically Latin or Greek, I checked the Internet and found that "παραθέτω" is the Greek word for "quote", and as we know, "graphy" can be used to denote "drawing". So I thought of "parathetography". Is this word a correct English combination?


"In both an accurate and commercial" vs "in a both accurate and commercial"

Which of these two sentences is (more) correct? >   1. I can translate your texts in both an accurate and commercial way. >   2. I can translate your texts in a both accurate and commercial way. >


What's the difference between the words "journey", "travel" and "trip"?

As they always were interchangeable in an article, I just want to know the difference.


What is another way of saying 'my feet felt stuck to the ground' and 'I was frozen to the spot?

Would a native speaker say 'I was frozen out of fear'?


Can "to me" be used adverbially?

> [...] which, to me, has a strong [...] Provided that the excerpt above is correct regarding the commas, can I omit them? As in: > [...] which to me has a strong [...]


Quotation marks in names of events

I'm not sure if I should leave out quotation marks in names of events. Should it be: Choir competitions “Legnica Cantat”, “Canti Veris Praga”, “IFAS Pardubice”, “Advent and Christmas Music Festival Praga”, “Folk Festival” in Bratislava, “Tonen 2000 International Choir Festival” and the International Choir Festival "Per Musicam ad Astra" in Toruń, among others. or Choir competitions Canti Veris Praga, IFAS Pardubice, Advent and Christmas Music Festival Praga, Folk Festival in Bratislava, Tonen 2000 International Choir Festival and the International Choir Festival Per Musicam ad Astra in Toruń, among others. One more example: International Festival of University Choirs "Universitas Cantat" or International Festival of University Choirs Universitas Cantat? I'm confused, because it seems like leaving it without some quotation marks blurs the difference between a title of an event (Universitas Cantat) and the features of the festival (International Festival of University Choirs). What do you think about? I found one source which openly forbids inverted commas in such circumstances (here is the link https://www.wmich.edu/writing/punctuation/quotationmarks), other style guides focus on book titles, names of academic papers etc. I hope you can help me resolve this problem. Thanks in advance, Mariusz.


Should I use "in" or "on"?

Which is the correct form in this sentence: "in" or "on"? > "I'm sending you the requested permission for using my photographs in/on > your project"


Ending a sentence with "and thanks"

I have a colleague who ends many emails with "and thanks". To me it sounds awkward and random, but I wonder if anyone has seen this usage before? Examples (note particularly the third one!): "That time will work and thanks." "Please send over the password and thanks." "Any ideas and thanks?"


"Perhaps" or "Maybe"?

As a non-native speaker of English, I was once told in London by a learned British man that I should not use ' _maybe_ ' for ' _perhaps_ ' in the UK, as by doing so, I'd be following an American usage (so I'll be recognized as not speaking really 'British', but mixing things up, which is never good, he insisted). Is it indeed American to use **_maybe_** for **_perhaps_** , or is just a matter of formal vs. informal (or less formal)?


Difference between "voters", "electorates" and "constituents"

I'm reading an English text about politics, and in one paragraph I found "voters," "electorates" and "constituents." Now I would like to know if they are absolutely the same, or if they have slightly different meanings. Here is the whole paragraph: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Nsill.jpg) Any help is appreciated


Synonyms for "taking cover"

What are synonyms for _taking cover_? Is there a word that means "running to shelter or refuge to save myself from incoming pain or trouble"? I want to use it in these contexts: > Taking cover time. > > Time to take cover.


Fickle people who agree just to annoy

During an argument one person capitulates, not because they agree, but just to irritate the other with phrases like: _Yes, of course you are right_ etc. Is there a specific word to describe this person?


How does a "research scientist" differ from a "scientist"?

I have seen the term "research scientist" in several job descriptions. Does the qualifier "research" distinguish a special kind of scientific role, or is this actually a redundant phrase. How can you work as a scientist without doing research?


What is the origin of the phrase "There goes the neighborhood" and does it have racial connotations?

I understood the meaning of the phrase to be relatively benign and mostly used facetiously. Can it be viewed as offensive in contemporary conversation?


Why is the "J" in San Jacinto pronounced like an English "J" instead of an "H" in Texas?

Many Spanish words taken into English have a "J" sounding like "H", but San Jacinto follows a different rule:   * San Jose    * La Jolla    * San Juan    * Jiminez Why is San Jacinto not pronounced San Hacinto in English? The languagehat article mentioned in comments shows that the J in Jacinto is under attack in Texas, but it doesn't explain why Texans don't pronounce Jacinto like every other Spanish J word.


Pronunciation of 'Commentary'

I hear sometimes a longer version (reading fully the ending '-tary), and other times a version as if ending in '-try'. Why is that? Are these choices a matter of dialect? What other examples can be given?


"Waiting list" vs. "wait list", "visiting card" vs. "visit card"

Should one say "I’ll put you on the waiting list" or "on the wait list"? Likewise, is it "I will give you my visiting card" or "my visit card"? I am very confused when to use the _-ing_ form or not. Is there a general rule?


Adjective request for fast, lightweightness and multitasking

I am deciding some product name which has characteristics like Fast and lightweight and multitasking. Please suggest some name which includes these meaning or bird or animal which has such qualities.


What’s the correct plural possessive of “kids”?

I know that _children’s books_ is correct, but for some reason I want to say _kids books_ , even though I know that it’s a plural possessive noun ending in an _s_. A quick search on the web turns up Barnes & Noble, who have a web page title that reads **_“Children's Books, Kids Books”_**. Is the major bookseller wrong here? Or is there some exception I don’t remember? More simply, is it _kids books_ or _kids’ books_ — and why?


Causing catastrophe by the act of trying to avoid catastrophe

Is there a word in the English language which means either:   * to cause a catastrophe by an act intended to avoid that very catastrophe, or   * a catastrophe caused by an attempt to avoid that catastrophe? (Note that the term "catastrophe" might represent any unfortunate outcome.) For example, the case where someone knocks over and breaks a fragile item precisely because their desire to avoid knocking over that item was altering their behaviour (and not necessarily because of nerves). This has been bugging me for months, and I've not been able to think of or find a word which fits this situation. If there's nothing in English, is there a word from another language which is a perfect match?


What is the opposite of Optimal?

Obviously something can be sub-optimal or poor, minimal, bad or terrible... But is there a word that means the exact _opposite_ , the antonym, of optimal?


Multiple people but a singular object?

If I am referring to one thing, but multiple people, is it "is this ___ one of yours?" or "one of you all's"?


Usage of "Between"

Mr. Rao will meet the candidates who cleared the test between 9.00 AM ____ 3:00 PM. What is more appropriate here? to/and/till/upto? Also can you brief upon the usage of "between"?


Mrs. Malaprop = Malapropism - any other examples

Are there other literary examples where-in a character or subject eventually morphed into descriptive verb/genre?


A collective noun when referring to a group of people with the same name?

How can I refer collectively to a group of people with the same name, for example: > Having so many Johns around is confusing. or > Having so many John's around is confusing. Which one is the correct usage? Or should I only refer to them as "people named John"? This could be somewhat compounded when surnames are used, if the pluralized version is also common.


Is there any common context for "enoughs"?

I noticed today that ENOUGHS is valid in Scrabble(tm), and I realize "enough" can be used as a noun ("I've had enough!"), but I'm unaware of any context where one might use its plural. Perhaps it's used in some setting I'm not aware of?


Displaying two things scaled differently - ratio?

If got a picture that displays things. As thing A is alot bigger than thing B, I have downsized A. Not mentioning this size adjustment may confuse viewers and transport a wrong message. How can I tell the viewer with as little words as possible that the sizes of A and B are not comparable without adjusting the scale. > A is displayed with smaller ratio Is this okay, or should I use `in` as a preposition? Is there a best practise way of saying this?


Can I say “to be a person (man) of something”?

In Russian, we have a popular poetic construction that can be literally translated as _to be a person (man) of something_. For example, if some person is very active, we can say that he is _a man of action_. I try to translate this construction in English so that it wouldn't lose its poetic character. I try _to be a personification of something_ , but it sounds odd and pretentious. Example: _Tatiana is a personification of broken dreams._


How could Ronald Reagan be compared with God in Sarah Palin's list of American authentic, and why?

Further to my question about the usage of ‘Blood libels’ I posted yesterday, I found the following lead-copy of an article referring to Sara Palin’s rhetoric in today’s Washington Post. It seems the article is hinting a problem of her presidential quality in terms of choice of words. However, I don’t understand why on the earth , **God** appears in a file of Founding Fathers, the Constitution and Ronald Reagan, even though it may be a rhetoric gimmick. It looks to me an odd combination (or comparison). Do you understand my question? Can somebody clarify? ‘Sarah Palin's effort to defuse controversy backfires with 'blood libel' comment: The presidential-quality stagecraft was there: an American flag over Sarah Palin's left shoulder and another over her heart. So was the rhetorical polish, with its invocations of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, **God** and Ronald Reagan.’


Sentence Structure: Relative Clauses with "who"

I can't analyze the structure of relative clauses. > We are to look only to God, who as He wills makes angels "ministering > spirits" to the heirs of salvation. I guess > ... who makes angels as "ministering spirits" to the heirs of salvation. is plausible. If so, where "He" and "wills" comes from?


Opposite of misnomer

Is there a word that means the opposite of 'misnomer'? I've done a Google search with no success. I found this site and am hoping that someone here can assist me.


"He thought that that might be awkward." I know this sentence is a bit awkward, but is it grammatically incorrect?


"noone", "no one" or "no-one"?

What is the correct form? Does context play a role? Are there noticeable trends towards the awkward "noone" or is it just a by- product of careless orthography on the Internet?


In natural disasters: died or killed?

What is appropriate to use in cases of death in natural disasters: _killed_ , or _died_? Lets say, I wanted to say, "Earth destroyed this morning, everyone [died|got killed] in a parallel universe." I am not sure what is more appropriate to use. _Died_ seems to me as if someone died from injury, or disease or something that does not intend to kill it. While _killed_ seems more like an external factor that caused the death of someone purposefully.


What does “make the leap into the Richmond (or any name of the place) fishbowl” mean?

Washington Post (July 13) reports the gift scandal of Maureen McDonnell, wife of Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell under the headline, “Va. first lady plays central role in gift”. The article reports that Maureen received a $50,000 check and other monetary benefits from a wealthy businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. and that the state and federal investigators are looking into the relationship between the McDonnell and Williams. It says: > Some of Maureen McDonnell’s closest friends are surprised by the reports, > saying she is as sweet as her public image. But some people she has worked > with at the governor’s mansion and in state government paint a different > portrait: one of someone unable to **make the leap into the Richmond > fishbowl.** What does “one of someone unable to make the leap into the Richmond fishbowl” mean? I know what “pop out of the fishbowl” means, but I cannot get the idea of _deliberately_ “leaping into the fishbowl.” If "the fishbowl" means the brilliant cream of society, isn’t the Virginia’s First Lady already there in the luminant fishbowl? Who is “one of someone,”? Is it a person who has worked with Maureen, or Maureen herself? **Additional question:** The line, “some people **she has** worked with at the governor’s mansion and in state government paint a different portrait” confuses me. Does Virginia Governor’s wife **work** at the governor’s mansion and in state government like a staff? Shouldn’t it be “some people who have worked with her paint a different portrait”?


Right usage of word "Galvanize"?

Please consider below meaning of dictionary > Galvanize: shock or excite (someone), typically into taking action What is the right usage of this word? Please consider below sentences > A sudden sound in the doorway **galvanized** her.   >  He was **galvanized** to see a column of smoke. Is this right usage? or do I need to use differently? I have been observed that _startle_ also perfectly suits here? Does it always acceptable to replace **startle** with **galvanize**?


What's the logic behind adjectives constructed with a hyphen?

I'll give you a lovecraftian stanza: > Thro’ the ghoul-guarded gateways of slumber,   >  Past the wan-moon’d abysses of night,   >  I have liv’d o’er my lives without number,   >  I have sounded all things with my sight;   >  And I struggle and shriek ere the daybreak, being driven to madness with > fright. > > _Nemesis_ — Howard Phillips Lovecraft _Ghoul_ is a noun, and _guarded_ is the past participle of _to guard_. He combined both words to create an adjective to describe his "gateways of slumber" properly. But then you have _wan-mooned_. An adjective plus the past participle of _to moon_ or some bizarre usage of the noun _moon_ to explicitly say that the "abysses of night are full with moons." That's where I think: What's the logic behind this after all? To which extent I have the power of freedom to create my own bizarre adjectives by combining random words? I could replace the second verse with: > Past the wild-river’d clouds of mars It would not make any sense, but the _logic_ of _wild-river'd_ is pretty much the same of _wan-moon'd_. What's the _insanity-guarded_ logic/rule behind this?


"Become acquainted", "be connected" with the connotation of "take the initiative"

Would the following sentence be idiomatic and correct? > At the conference, she became acquainted with more than 20 scholars, > exhibiting excellent networking skills. I was thinking saying something like "connected to more than X scholars". I'm just not sure which expression better conveys the meaning that _she_ took the initiative to approach those scholars and got to know them.


Is it a fashion to omit “is” as in “this a problem that can seem unanswerable.”?

I often see cases that a verb and a preposition are omitted as I posted a question the other day about the omission of “in” in the line, “Perry has had have difficulty planting doubt about Romney.” Today I saw the case “ _is_ ” is omitted as “ _this a problem_ ” in the following sentence of New York Times article written by Michael P. Lynch under the title, “Reason for Reason. “Disagreements like this (Evolutionism and Creationism) give rise to an unnerving question: How do we rationally defend our most fundamental epistemic principles? Like many of the best philosophical mysteries, _this a problem_ that can seem both unanswerable and yet extremely important to solve.” I think it should be “this is a problem.” But if it is the case, can we use “ _a_ ,” not “ _the_ ” when “the problem” is modified (or defined) by “that clause”? (though I feel like an article maniac these days ). Is the omission of “ _is_ ” a today’s fashion, or just a typo? You may say the author isn’t NYT’s writer unworthy for digging in each phrasing. But according to opinionator @nytimes.com, Michael Lynch is a contemporary philosopher, who must be the master of logic and rhetoric.


What is a word for an employee of a company that deals with community-related matters?

As in someone who interacts with the greater community and enforces an ethical code within the company. We came up with a few possibilities like "Crime Prevention Officer" or "Public Liaison Officer", but we are not entirely sure. My uncle works in customer service for a utility company and his colleague stumbled across a house that had about 10 tenants in the past month. After discussing it, the colleague raised it with management and the manager didn't want to do anything, so my uncle would like to put in a formal request to get one of these officers in the company. However, he feels that management will pay more attention if proper terminology is used.


Is the usage of idiom, “get hold of the wrong end of the stick” situation specific?

I came across the idiom, “get hold of the wrong end of the stick” in the following sentence of the scene where Barry Calvert, an FBI agent tells his colleague, Mark Andrews about the statement of an illegal Greek immigrant on suspected assassination scheme in Jeffery Archer’s fiction, “Shall we tell the President” P.37: > “I don’t believe a word of it,” Barry said immediately. “With his English, > he could easily have **got hold of the wrong end of the stick**. It was > probably quite innocent. People curse the President all the time. My father > does, but that doesn’t mean he would kill her.” I checked the meaning of “get hold of the wrong end of the stick” with a couple of dictionaries: Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “to not understand a _situation_ correctly.”   The FreeDictionary defines it exactly in the same way as Cambridge - “(informal). to not understand a _situation_ correctly” Kenkyusha Publishing’s Readers English Japanese Dictionary defines it as “make an error of the judgment (of _situation_ ). While the definitions of the above three English and English Japanese dictionaries are all “ _Situation specific_ ,” Collins English Dictionary defines it as “a complete misunderstanding of _a situation, explanation, etc_.” Can I use “get hold of the wrong end of the stick other than a “situation,” e.g. for meaning of word(s), message, statement, somebody’s notion, view, intent, and idea? Can I say “I get hold of the wrong end of the stick on his remarks (or instructions)”? Secondarily, what is the origin of this idiom? **Correction:** I was reminded of that I dropped “end of the” from “get hold of the wrong end of the stick by TimLymington's advice. It’s careless but a great mistake that occurred when I was transcribing the original text of Archer’s fiction. My apology. I suspected if I should cancel this question. However, the definitions of all dictionaries of the idiom, and my question about whether the idiom is “situation specific,” or not remain the same. So I ventured to leave it as it is by making necessary corrections.


"To [put a] boot in the ass to do something" — uncertain meaning

Could someone explain the meaning of the "to [put a] boot in the ass to do something" idiom? Cambridge Idioms Dictionary only mentions _put the boot in_ as "to make a bad situation worse" and I'm not really sure if this is what I need. **Edit.** More precisely, I'm thinking about such an example: > Does Google need a strong engineer to put boot in ass in developing the next > XXX ...


On the usage of commas with nonessential clauses near the end of a sentence

How would you punctuate the following? > A decent if long novel.   1. _As is_.   2. A decent, if long, novel.   3. A decent, if long novel. I feel uncomfortable leaving the "novel" dangling at the end of the sentence, and also think I'm littering the sentence with superfluous punctuation. However, if one eliminates the last comma, why not finish the job and remove the first one too?


confusing use of "of which"

Here's a sentence I find confusing: > The job of a family therapist is to understand the family culture of which > the larger culture, with its many layered meanings, is a part. Which interpretation is right, 1 or 2?   1. the family culture is a part of the larger culture   2. the larger culture is a part of the family culture To me, 1 _makes more sense_ than 2. But the structure appears to say 2 is correct. Could someone explain this, please? And could you tell me why the prepositional phrase "with its many layered meanings” has been placed between commas?


"tried so far" vs. "so far tried"

These two sound quite different, and the second form even sounds more sophisticated, but is there any real difference?


Etiquette in responding to service desk email

I just asked EA Support to send me a serial to my old game(Battlefield 2142) and they did it. Should I replay and say "thx a lot" or should I just enjoy my game and ignore them? EA is an english company, so I'm asking how would you act in english speaking country like US or GB. I do feel they did an amazing job and thought I would have to fight really hard and long for that serial number(and it would end up with me buying a new copy of the game).


Verbs of inaction

It seems to me that most English verbs always convey some action. That is, no words (to my knowledge) convey that absence of an action. Let me explain. Let's assume that I wanted to say that a certain person is not running. Notice, I don't want to say that he's "standing around" or "sitting" or "lying down", because those verbs _explicitly suggest other actions_. In other words, I don't want to say that this person is doing a thing _different from_ running. Only that he's _not running_. What's he doing? Oh, I don't know, he could be doing absolutely anything. All I know is that he's not running. My question: Does English have such words? Or do any other languages you know? I'd guess not, because words like this would be too limited in meaning to justify their existence in the lexicon when simply appending "not" would do. Still, I'd like to know.


What's the meaning of 'ever'?

What’s the meaning of ‘ever’ in this sentence? “Now, yer mum an’ dad were as good a witch an’ wizard as I ever knew.”


What if + would

I have a question about what if... Here's the thing:   1. Do you think they shouldn't attend that school? What if they would become great musicians?   2. Do you think they shouldn't attend that school? What if they became great musicians? Which sentence with 'what if' is correct? (I'm leaning towards the second option, but somehow, the first makes me feel it better conveys the meaning.) If example two is correct and one is wrong, is there any sentence where what if + would is grammatically correct? Thanks.


Can enjoy or will enjoy

In the marketing copy for a cookbook, should "can" or "will" be used before enjoy: > The Blood Type Cookbook: Easy, Healthy and Delicious Recipes for the Whole > Family shows you how to quickly prepare scrumptious meals that all family > members, regardless of blood type, **can enjoy**. Your family will rush to > the table for meals bursting with flavor and supercharged with foods > approved for the blood type dietary guidelines. Includes 50+ mouthwatering, > mix-and-match recipes for breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert, Prep Tips > and a Grocery Shopping List.


Meaning of "broken off short"

What does "the handle broken off short" mean when referring to an axe? Does it mean the handle is broken off and it is a little far from the rest, or that it is broken close to the axe and there is only a small part of the handle still attached, or something else? (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - Chapter 13 - Rescuing the Tin Woodman)


Is the "Sir" title appropriate to use in business meetings?

I'm assisting a daily phone meeting with people from Asia, Europe and North America. One of the Americans is using "Sir" sometimes to address the team leader. Is it appropriate to address a colleague in the same job rank, by "Sir"?


"Let's plan to meet at three o'clock" vs. "Let's meet at three o'clock"

What's the differences between the two? Personally, I'd say _let's meet each other at three o'clock_. Is formality the only difference between them? Here is the complete conversation: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/btswh.png)


What is the term for a Monarchy with only a King or a Queen, but not both?

A typical Monarchy can have a king, queen, or both. What is the term for, like the current British Monarchy, having only one of a king or a queen ~~in power~~? Surely there is a term that distinguishes that situation from one where there is a King _and_ Queen sitting. To clarify: The answer to the question is a term, not a historical or political definition. The usage of the term I am looking for would be to illustrate needing to have both a king and a queen, not just one or the other. In other words: what is the common nomenclature for having a king, or a queen, but not having both? It is irrelevant who has the power. What matters is that the king doesn't have a queen.


How to verbalize a mathematics expression in English?

How do we express a simple mathematics equation in a way that could be understood by most people bad in mathematics? I have a formula like this:               Processing Fee = Base Fee x ( Your Bid / Original Price )      My initial thought is to verbalize it as such: > The Processing Fee is computed from the Base Fee multiplied by Your Bid > divided by the Original Price. But somehow I feel that this does not elucidate the fact that Your Bid divided by the Original Price is actually a ratio. How can I improve on this to make the statement clearer?


Name for the top left cell of a table

What is the name for the top left cell of a table? The one next to the column headers and above the row headers. Does it even have a technical name? E.g. the cell with `???` in this table:               +-----+------+------+     |???  |Yes   |No    |     +-------------------+     |A    |1     |4     |     |B    |2     |5     |     |C    |3     |6     |     +-----+------+------+


Longest word in English

What is the longest word in English?


What's the meaning of "what am I to do"

Is "what am I to do" be commonly used in daily lives? Also what do following sentences imply? What should I do the next? What am I to do the next? Please.


Successfully submitted vs Submitted Successfully

When data has been submitted through a form online, which sentence below make the most sense to use? Is one grammatically correct more than the other? > Your information has been successfully submitted.                                                                               or > Your information has been submitted successfully.


How do I compose an imperative sentence that tells a parent to "Ask" a child?

We are putting together a kit of picture books and a narrative on how parents can use the books to help a child with early literacy. We want to use an imperative sentence to tell the parent to ask the child some specific points about the book. For example, when explaining how a parent should interact with the child when reading "Little White Rabbit,' we want the parent to ask the child questions. This is how we word it now.... Ask: What is the little rabbit afraid of? Is the sentence formatted correctly? How should the sentence be worded?


What does the enterprise to “feed the duck on Epsom Downs” mean?

There is the following sentence in the ending part of Jeffery Archer’s “The Forth Estate,” which I waded to after months. In the showdown of the media owner Dick Armstrong and Sir Paul Maitland, Chairman of the media, who is critical about Armstrong’s foolhardy takeover at a board meeting, Armstrong says; > “Perhaps I deserve some praise for this monumental achievement rather than > the continual carping criticism I get from a chairman whose idea of > enterprise is to **feed the duck on Epsom Downs**.” – P 672. I surmise an idea of the enterprise to “feed the duck on Epsom Downs” means to consider the activity of the enterprise as a petty charity, but I’m not sure. Is “feed the duck on Epsom Downs” a popular phrase? Does the name of place (Epsom Downs, a pond, the lake) vary by the locale?


Why is this that-clause a subordinate?

> she was **so** tired **that** she couldn’t think. (Oxford) Oxford says that-clause above is a subordinate clause expressing a result. Semantically ‘she was tired’ seems to be the main clause, but there also is the possibility ‘she couldn’t think’ might be thought as the main one, and ‘she was tired’ is a subordinate expressing the reason of that-clause. So the words below that do not use ‘subordinate’ sound to be better explanations for the case. Then on what ground does Oxford say the clause is subordinate? > Cambridge: to introduce a clause that gives further information, although it > can often be left out. Longman: to introduce a clause that shows the result > of something: