What is the articulatory logic behind the "a/an" rule in English?

Is there some articulatory reason behind why we choose to preface consonant sounds with the article _a_ and vowel sounds with _an_? The reasoning I've read in the comments somewhere, I don't remember exactly where, is that we are trying to avoid consecutive vowel sounds, but why exactly are we trying to avoid these consecutive vowels? Are they harder to articulate for some reason? (If so, can that be explained as precisely as possible?) Are there many cases that can pointed to in English where we similarly avoid consecutive vowel sounds? Why not dipthongnize the vowels? Is the whole thing mere idiosyncrasy on English's part?


"A English nerd" versus "an English nerd"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When should I use "a" vs "an"?   >  "a" or "an" for words that don't start with vowels but sound like they're > starting with a vowel On some forum today I referred to myself as _a English nerd_. Now I'm wondering whether maybe I'm _an English nerd_. My gut feeling tells me that there is a slight nuance in meaning between the two phrases and that even though the general rule is to use _an_ in front of a word starting with a vowel, I think _a_ is more appropriate in this case. The _a_ in _a English nerd_ refers to the word _nerd_ and the adjective is only added to denote the type of nerd that I am. Whereas using the phrasing _an English nerd_ would imply that I am a nerd who happens to be English (I'm not). Now, my question is: Did I analyze this correctly and is there in fact a nuance in meaning? Or should I have used _an English nerd_ to comply with the general "a versus an" rule?


Using `an` before consonants

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why shouldn't we say "an user"? I've personally seen the indefinite article `an` coming before consonants in many places whereas I think that should be a mistake.   I'm wondering if that's the case or using `an` before consonants is grammatically a mistake?   For example consider this: > Insert an user into the database. Taken from Worepress Trac (line `1028`).


When using symbols instead of words in writing, do I use "an" or "a" before the symbol?

The sentence in question: > Every list item that is marked with an `*` is optional. The word "asterisks" isn't spelled out, so I'm not sure if "an" or "a" is the correct word to put before it.


Is the word European the only word that doesn't go after "an?"

I can only think of the word **European** as a word that doesn't go after the word **an**. Is there any other words that start with a vowel, but don't go after **an**?


“a href ” or “an href ”

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is it supposed to be a HTML or an HTML   >  When should I use “a” versus “an” in front of a word beginning with the > letter h?   >  How does one correctly pronounce the letter 'H': “Aych” or “haych”? While not strictly a programming question, it does appear when talking about programming and in documentation, etc. It is proper to say _a href_ or _an href_? (This anchor has (a/an) href element.) I am familiar with the English rule of using an iff the next word starts with a vowel, but many blogs are saying _an href_. I was wondering if _href_ is an exception or those blogs have incorrect usage.


Is it "a user" or "an user"

Since _user_ starts with a _vowel_ shouldn't we use "an" ? I've seen many cases of using "a" .


"a" or "an" in this situation?

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  "A" vs. "An" in writing vs. pronunciation   >  Use of "a" versus "an" I know that "an" should be used when a word is followed by a noun that starts with a vowel. But what about a numerical value that isn't formally written out and used as an adjective? Such as "a 8x8 grid" is it that, or "an 8x8 grid" ? I've received some disagreements on this in the past, so I'd just like some clearing up. Any reference to formal rules would be much appreciated.


Article when there is an adjective before a noun

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Use of "a" versus "an" **When to use _a_ or _an_ before a noun** when there are adjectives before that noun? like the following example: > An operator pressed the button. should that make: > **A** professional **operator** pressed the button. > > **An** professional **operator** pressed the button. same for: > **A** Hypertext markup language. > > **An** Hypertext markup language. Sometimes it seems a bit confusing, especially when there are more adjectives like: > **An omen** was revealed to the priest. > > **A** terrible **omen** was revealed to the priest. > > **An** overwhelming terrible **omen** was revealed to the priest. What is the rule?


When to use "a" vs "an"

When is the appropriate time to use "a" vs "an"? For example, " _I have a array of..._ " vs " _I have an array of..._ " I may be mistaken but I would typically use _an_ in this case. Firstly, am I correct to use _an_ in this case? Secondly, is there a rule of thumb or grammatical rule that defines the appropriate usage? Lastly, If there is a grammatical rule, what is a recognized resource to its definition?


When is "an" used instead of "a"?

Please resolve an "argument" Which of the following is correct: Post an HTML snippet Post a HTML snippet I believe it's the first - that the sound/vocalization, not the spelling, is what requires "an" instead of "a"; in other words "HTML" has an "A" sound and is, thus, verbally, a vowel. Am I wrong? The second possibility grates on my ears, and is as dissonant as all get out.


A MPR vs AN MPR

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms? I searched google for "a MPR" and "an MPR". The first one returns about 52000 hits while the second one returns about 34000 hits. None of them actually looks incorrect to me. MPR stands for multi-packet reception. So, which one is the correct one, "a MPR ..." or "an MPR ..."?


"an html link" vs "a html link", which is correct?

In colloquial speech, when discussing the web, people almost always say "an html link" as opposed to "a html link" and for some reason, using "an" just seems to flows off the tongue better. Further: ### There are 3.2 million hits for "an html link" on Google as opposed to 1.2 million hits for "a html link". The more common usage clearly doesn't follow the traditional rule of only using "an" before words that start in a vowell. Thus, I'm wondering: ### Which is correct?


An or A with acronyms which sound like they start with a vowel?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms? Should you use An or A with acronyms which sound like they start with a vowel when read literally? ...is covered in an FAQ located at.... or ...is covered in a FAQ located at... When I read the sentence I pronounce eff-eh-queue but I'm not sure if most people do that.


Is it "an hyphen" or "a hyphen""?

I'll use the following sentences as examples: > "You're missing _an_ hyphen" > > "You're missing _a_ hyphen"


Is it "a uniform" or "an uniform"?

On a Physics specification, it says: > 6.7 Know how to use two permanent magnets to produce a uniform magnetic > field pattern. Isn't it "produce _an_ uniform magnetic field", or is the existing "produce _a_ uniform magnetic field pattern" correct?


Is it supposed to be a HTML or an HTML

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  "A" vs. "An" in writing vs. pronunciation   >  Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms? I've often seen people calling a HTML page an HTML page. I'm wondering what's the grammatically correct usage?


Why is it called "an" F not "a" F

Usually we use "an" if the following word is a vowel. Example: > An Elephant If it's a consonant, it would be > A Car I came across to this sentence on youtube > I remember one of my best teachers once telling me this... "If you do > everything the way I taught you... you'll get a C. If you do everything > totally differently... you'll either get an A or an F." I found that both > very fair and also... really good life advice. So I was like, really `an F`? Then I searched through google, I've seen numerous results that gives `an F` > Bart Gets an "F" - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Letter Grades > > Deserve an 'F' - Jessica Lahey - The Atlantic Understanding the > > Consequences of an "F" grade — The ... So my question is, why is it called `an F` not `a F`


What is the rule for using "a" or "an" in a sentence?

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  "A user" or "an user"?   >  Use of "a" versus "an" If I remember correctly back to my school days, the rule is to use "a" if the next word starts with a consonant, or "an" if the next word is a vowel. For example:   * This is _a_ banana.    * This is _an_ egg. If the above is correct, then why does this sentence sound wrong...?   * The account requires _an_ username.


An Ozibox user OR a Ozibox user is correct?

Which one is better and why? 1) Are you an Ozibox user? 2) Are you a Ozibox user? Ozibox is the name of a web application


Should I use "a" or "an"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When should I use "a" vs "an"? Which one of the the following is correct?   1. _a_ F-test   2. _an_ F-test The _F-test_ is pronounced as "ef test".


Is the English correct? What's the best translation or interpretation?

I'm reading a technical IT document that can be found here. So, the question is, in the phrasebelow: > A challenge password is it correct write "a" instead of "an"? Why? What is its' best interpretation? Should I put a clue for my password (that looks like case because this part isn't appears on plain text and passwords usually are hidden) or put a password that is hard to find? I'm Brazilian and the Google Translation writes "a challenge password" as "a Senha desafio", which makes no sense--first because "a" was not translated and second because it looks like we are naming a password as "desafio".


"There is X" vs "There is a/an X"

> 1: There is **a** reluctance on the part of European companies to buy from > American sources.   >  2: There is **an** emphasis on the organic roots of spirituality.   >  3: There is **a** tendency to make the distinction between 'art' and > 'entertainment' too rigid.   >  4: There is **a** sense that something about the suggestion is incoherent I feel there must be more to this than simply "idiomatic preference". What is it about the first two examples that _allows_ (but doesn't _require_ ) an article? And that _requires_ an article in the other two? And are there any similar constructions where the presence/absence of the article affects meaning?


A or an XML report?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms?   >  Does one use 'a' or 'an' before the word 'X-Ray'? Quite simply, should a sentence read "a XML report" or "an XML report"?


"An RPG" or "a RPG"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When should I use “a” vs “an”?   >  Do you use “a” or “an” before acronyms?   >  Does one use 'a' or 'an' before the word X-Ray? Hello people, English is not my primary language, so it is just natural I make such basic questions... Is it correct to say "An RPG" (where RPG could be the common "Role-Playing Game" term), or do I have to say "A RPG", without the "n"? Considering RPG does not begin with a vowel... yet, it sounds like it does.


"An html" or "A html"

> **An** html file with above form structure is given to you. or > **A** html file with above form structure is given to you.


Should it be "a established" or "an established"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Use of "a" versus "an" I have always been using `a established`. > The CPM is **a** established theory that explains......... But when reading print material, I sometimes find `an established` being used: > The CPM is **an** established theory that explains......... My English teacher taught me to apply `a/an` based on how the word sounded. Is that a/an established principle?


Does turning a noun into an acronym always change its indefinite article (a/an)?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms? Take "StackExchange" and its acronym, SE, as an example: _I read a StackExchange thread the other day about the history of bananas!_ If you were to use the "SE" acronym instead of "StackExchange," you would probably write: *I read **_an_** SE thread the other day about the history of bananas!* The way in which this differs from my situation is that it's very reasonable to assume that when you write "SE," that you are perfectly fine with the two letters "ess" and "eee" standing in for "Stack Exchange," much like FCC, SEC, NASDAQ, NATO, etc. completely stand in and are even far more well-known than their longer, official names. Let's say, however, that you're talking about "solar-powered asynchronous communication transmission," which you abbreviate with "SPACT" because you don't want to keep retyping "solar-powered asynchronous communication transmission," not only because you want to be lazy but also because reading those words more than one time every sentence can get in the way of comprehension. Now, if you were to pronounce this "ess-pee...etc." then, of course, you'd say " ** _an_** SPACT device," but let's say you don't want "SPACT" to be referred to, phonetically, by its letters (or even "SPACT") and are simply using it as an abbreviation? Does it retain its indefinite article ("a") from its original version ("solar-powered asynchronous communication transmission")?


Why "An HTML editor" not "A HTML editor"?

I always see `An HTML editor` but surely it would be `A HTML editor` as the H isn't a vowel nor does it sound like a vowel. Why is this?


"A" vs. "An" in writing vs. pronunciation

When starting a word with a vowel, the preceding "a" becomes an "an". I often find that when writing words that start with letter "N" or "M", I will pronounce them "EN", "EM", etc. (This is because in programming, letters are often pronounced in certain terms.) So, when writing a question on SO, do I write "an NSString" or, "a NSString"?


"An RV" or "a RV"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms? I am writing about Random Variables, which I am abbreviating to RV. Should I write 'an RV' (an Arr-Vee) or 'a RV' (a Random Variable)?


What does a restrictive ‘as’ clause modify?

> We discussed socialism **as allowed by law**. A learner on ELL asked whether it is “socialism or the discussion itself” which is _allowed_ by law. I responded that the phrase could only be understood as involving “legally allowed discussion” if “set off with a comma (or expressed with corresponding comma-intonation in speech) or moved to an earlier position”; > without a comma, _as allowed by law_ is understood to be a restrictive > modifier on _socialism_ : what we discussed might be expressed as “legally > allowed socialism”. I think that absent some contrary context I was substantially correct. On consideration, however, another angle on this occurs to me: that the meaning of the _as_ clause does in a sense ‘overflow’ onto the verb: it is not merely _socialism_ which is restricted to a specific aspect of that topic but the discussion of it as well. I was in part prompted to this reflection by another question, raised first on ELL and subsequently in somewhat different form on Linguistics: Do predicative adjuncts modify nouns or verbs. The very cogent answer provided may not be directly relevant but it is at least suggestive. How do we parse _as_ clauses like these? > We discussed socialism **as allowed by law**.   >  **As written** , the sentence implies that it is socialism which is allowed > by law. ADDED: > That is, supposing that it is given that we are discussing socialism **_only > insofar as socialism is allowed by law_** and not as it is in other > contexts, does not that also imply that _discuss_ as well as _socialism_ is > modified by the clause _as allowed by law_? And if it is given that it a > sentence has certain implications **_only insofar as the sentence is treated > as a written text_** and not under other categories, does not that also > imply that _implies_ as well as _sentence_ is modified by _as written_? And does it make any difference if we write > We discussed socialism **as it is allowed by law**.   >  **As it is written** , the sentence implies that it is socialism which is > allowed by law.


Looking for a word or words meaning to change something so it's more widely used and more efficient to use

I'm writing a proposal regarding website development work and would like a meaningful name for the proposal. I currently have a system for developing websites that isn't the most efficient and costs a substantial amount for each site. I'm hoping to redevelop my system so that the bulk of the set up effort is automated or more efficient. My intention is to enable use of the system by hundreds of people rather than the dozen or so that are currently using it, without an increase in support needs. I think something like "Website Generalisation Project" is on the right track, but doesn't really communicate the message I'm looking for. Optimisation isn't really what I'm looking for (it implies no further room for improvement), though "streamlining" might be ok. However, there might be a more suitable word relating to the increase in the number of people using the system. Related question: Word meaning "to make more efficient"?


Usage of "and" and comma when writing numbers UK style

I am trying to understand the rules for writing numbers in words under the UK rules (with "and"). I understand how to write small numbers (up to a few thousands), but I am not sure when to use "and" when the number is bigger. I tried Wikipedia, but the rules are not clear. Here are a few numbers I'm reasonably sure of:   * 102: one hundred and two   * 120: one hundred and twenty   * 1002: one thousand and two   * 1203: one thousand two hundred and three (though I'm not sure whether I should add a comma after "thousand" in this last one). Here are some bigger numbers. Is it okay to have multiple "and"s like this? Should some "and"s be commas instead, or just be omitted altogether?   * 102003: one hundred and two thousand and three   * 102304: one hundred and two thousand three hundred and four Here are some numbers bigger than one million (I use a space to separate digits for easier reading):   * 1 000 002: one million and two   * 1 000 020: one million and twenty   * 1 000 200: one million two hundred   * 1 002 000: one million two thousand   * 1 002 003: one million two thousand and three   * 1 023 045: one million twenty-three thousand and forty-five   * 1 203 450: one million two hundred and three thousand four hundred and fifty And some bigger ones still:   * 100 000 300 : one hundred million three hundred   * 102 000 003 : one hundred and two million and three   * 102 304 567 : one hundred and two million three hundred and four thousand five hundred and sixty-seven


I found the article of New Yorker magazine dealing with U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia’s scrupulousness of the usage of words under the title’ “Salia’s word game” very interesting as an English language enthusiast. After introducing Scalia has quoted Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, Timothy Cunningham’s A New and Complete Law Dictionary, Random House College Dictionary, and others of more recent vintage in Supreme Court opinions, the author says; > “More than any other sitting Justice, he sees himself as both an authority > on and an arbiter of our mother tongue. This makes him, in some instances, > **the last word on words** ". > http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/scalia-word- > games.html?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz34w5n6onk What does “make the last word on word” mean?


"I use to", or "I used to"

Which is the correct way of saying the following sentence (if there is a correct version)?   * "I use to be a hitman"   * "I used to be a hitman" I've read the 2nd recently in a book, but was sure it should be "I use to"


would it be use to or used to?

Jasmine use to take piano lessons, but now she is learning to play the trombone. Jasmine used to take piano lessons, but now she is learning to play the trombone


Another (perhaps humorous) term for "The Gold Standard"

Gold Standard as in: > an example against which others of the same type are compared   >  \- http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/gold%20standard Any other humorous ways to refer to this? Something like "the holy mother"...


What do we call a grocery store’s action to hand milk and egg to a boy who was asked to buy them by his dad?

In connection with my previous question - What does “make the last word on word” mean?, there was the following sentence in New Yorker’s article titled, “Salia’s word game” > “true buyer” of the handgun in question was not Bruce Abramski, who went to > the counter, filled out the forms representing himself as the purchaser, and > bought the gun, but his uncle, who had given him the money and, as arranged, > took possession of the gun just after the sale. This, to Scalia, is > sophistry. “Abramski’s uncle was not the "In his dissent, Scalia heaps > contempt on the majority’s view that the > > ‘person’ to whom the gun was ‘sold.’” The “plain language of the Act” makes > that obvious; so does “ordinary English usage.” “If I give my son $10 and > tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, **no English speaker would > say that the store ‘sells’ the milk and eggs to me.** ” > http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/06/scalia-word- > games.html?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz34w8wi3l5 What have the store done to "my son" in this case, "in ordinary English usage," if the store didn’t "sell" to me as Scalia asserts no English speaker would say? The store just “gave,” “handed,” “passed,” "offered," or “entrusted” milk and eggs to the boy? I’m asking what verb is used for the shopkeeper’s action to the buyer instead of “quote unquote" sell,” **regardless** the son is actual, in effect, nominal purchaser, or just an erand boy.


Can one "marry one's wife"?

I was vacantly reading the paper the other day when I came across a strange formation in the obituary: "he married his wife in 19XX". I was rather taken aback by this; surely he can't marry his own wife. He could attempt to marry someone else's wife, and that would be bigamy. But surely marrying one's own wife is a logical impossibility?


Inversion in "Only when the virus introduces its nucleic acid into a cell does disease occur"

Given this sentence, > Disease occurs only when the virus introduces its nucleic acid into a cell. Is the following inversion grammatical? > → Only when the virus introduces its nucleic acid into a cell does disease > occur. Especially the "does disease occur" part. I think that "occurs disease " is right. Can you explain a rule about this kind of sentence?


Why is it a “Dangling participle,” not independent, disconnected, isolated or alike participle?

When you open an English grammar book written in Japanese, you’d be puzzled or even chuckle to find Japanese translation of dangling participle – 懸垂分詞, which literally means ‘chinning exercise’ or ‘chin-up’ particle. It shows ‘Lying in my bed, everything seemed so different’ as an example. I don’t know who put ‘chin-up participle’ to dangling particle as its Japanese counterpart. At least it was named this way by an English language scholar(s) at the dawn of civilization and enlightment in Meiji era (1868 – 1911). However, I feel somewhat foreign about the naming of ‘dangling participle’ per se in comparison with present / past participle. Why was it defined as “Dangling participle”? Yes, it’s a custom, consensus, and it's the rule that you can not argue about. But I feel same awkwardness as I feel with ‘chinning exercise participle.” I thought there would have been easier and more understandable choices of the terminology than Dangling, for instances, independent, disconnected, isolated, bipolar, parallel participle, you can name it. What was the origin of “Dangling participle,” and why was it named this way?


What's the difference between do and make?

Don't answer that you make a cake and you do your homework hahaha


"Truth, Justice AND the American Way"?

Folk-blues artist Richie Havens, in his 1972 album "Live at the Cellar Door," made a comment about the Superman introduction which said that the Man of Steel fought for "Truth, Justice and the American Way." Havans rephrased it as a question: "'Truth, Justice AND the American Way'? I always thought that Truth and Justice WAS the American Way." He implies that the phrase was an accidental revelation by Society and the Government that pursuance of the American Way did not necessarily require the powers that be to include "Truth and Justice" -- those values could be left to aliens from another planet, like Superman, to pursue. So does the word "and" really exclude "Truth and Justice" from being the "American Way"?


Where are you AT?

Is the use of the redundant "at" a regional idiosyncracy? As in "Where are you at?" when asking someone their physical location, or progress in a project? It seems to be a Chicago regional saying.


Is "Where is your mother at?" grammatical?

When querying: > Where is your mother at? Is that considered to be proper English language usage? Alternatively, you could just state more simply: > Where is your mother? Is adding the trailing preposition considered slang here, does it have no value and should it just be eliminated?


"I know where you work at" vs. "I know where you work"

Which one is correct? >   1. I don't need to know where you work at. >   2. I don't need to know where you work. > Could you also please tell me about this rule is called in grammar so I can learn more about it?


Where my employers/professionals at?

I want to use something like this in a cartoon, animated banner advertisement: > Where my employers at? or > Where my entrepreneurs at? Are there connotations of the phrase I should consider, for example is it too slangy or is its use too closely linked with hip hop culture to be acceptable in the business sector?


What does “make it cross” mean?

I believe it's a British phrase. I found it in that website, as: > Fiat's Panda can offer an affordable route into 4x4 ownership. You just have > to make it Cross. If you happen to know more meanings except for the one example I've provided, please let me know.


_Long time no see_ is a typical example for Chinglish, though it is said that _long time no see_ has been accepted by the mainstream English speakers. Recently, there is a neologism movement in the Mainland, and a few new Chinglish words have been invented to demonstrate the characteristics of the Mainland. The most outstanding examples (in my opinion) are:   * _shitizen_ \- a citizen without citizen rights   * _freedamn_ \- the freedom for _shitizens_ (no freedom)   * _democrazy_ \- the democracy for _shitizens_ (no democracy)   * _smilence_ \- the speeches under the _freedamn_ of speech (ref)   * _z-turn_ \- to make effort in vain (zheteng (Pinyin)) Here are my questions. Has there ever been any neologism movement in the history of English? What are the criteria to adopt new words into English?


When does a word become a 'word'?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Creating a new word The rule of thumb used to be that when a word hit the Oxford Dictionary, it was considered to be an accepted word - this, however, seems to have transitioned into a lagging indicator in the last 5 years, primarily because so many new words are being created around the technological advances/services/products which seem to dominate our lives. When does a word 'officially' become a word - usage, social impact, cultural acceptance, mass media propagation?


How is a word coined?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Creating a new word   >  What are the criteria to adopt new words into English? What if I want to use the term _supertibi_ somewhere accompanying _superego_? We have _superego_ in dictionaries all over the world, but _supertibi_ is a new term morphologically based on the same components (super = great, tibi = you, ego = I) and it is not used anywhere. How can we coin new terms? Is there a formulated procedure?


What makes an English word, an English word?

There are many new words being added to the dictionary at all times. These include "twerking" or "Google" but who decides if it should be in the dictionary and be an English word? Here is my theory. One super big company like Oxford, decides that this particular word should be added. Then many other companies just copy them like sheep? Show what really makes an English word an English word?


Is it possible for a word not to exist?

I was corrected that funner is not a word. After looking into it, it seems that it is a word in the sense that it is frequently used and people know what it means. Since a word is a sound with an associated meaning, can one ever conclusively say anything is not a word? If no, then what can be said about words such as "hommie" or "dethaw" (or "bestester").


Is "be-gruntled" a word?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When does a word become a ‘word’? Someone in work asked about the welfare of my girlfriend, to which I replied "She's fine, a little be-gruntled but fine." People knew what I meant, although on reflection perhaps I should have said _disgruntled_? I'm just wondering why I said it this way, was I improperly abbreviating *to be disgruntled"?


When a foreign word or phrase becomes English

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What are the criteria to adopt new words into English? There are many words or phrases in English that are clearly of foreign origin yet become so commonplace they are indiscernible from the rest of English and make their way into English dictionaries. Examples include _deja vu_ , _carpe diem_ , _kosher_ and _rendezvous_. However, there are plenty of foreign-language phrases, such as _c'est la vie_ and _hasta la vista_ that are used in English and will probably not appear in an English dictionary or be considered English. So, how and when does a foreign word or phrase become adopted as English and how and when does it remain foreign?


Is there a word that means "the wife of one's brother"?

In some of the non-Latin-based languages that I know there is a special word for your brother's wife. Is there such a word in English? Usage would be something like: > She is my **__** (My brother's wife)


What does the writer mean by "green fatigues"?

I already know the expression _green envy_ or _a green hand_ , but this is the first time I heard of _green fatigues_ : > _Everyone stares at him briefly, at his congealed Wheatenea-and-lint > carcass, but no one breaks stride; and who knows how long it will be before > finally two policemen have to come in and hold their breath and scrape him > out of the gloom and into the bosom of the law, from which he will emerge > with **a set of green fatigues** , at least, and an honorable seat at night > on the subway bench._ (from the _Kandy-Kolored-Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby_ , by Thomas K. Wolfe)


Are 'upload' and 'download' interchangeable?

I hear it quite often (usually on TV or in movies) that people want to download things from their computer to an external server (or whatever external method of storage). When I hear this I cringe because I know they mean upload. When I actually think about it, something IS getting downloaded, just not from the point of view of the user. The server is actually downloading it from the client, etc. And when we download something from Facebook, for example, the Facebook server is uploading it to our computer's hard drive. Is my prior mentioned cringing appropriate? Are these words actually interchangeable?


Is there a word for the sound that is made after taking a sip of hot coffee/tea?

Sometimes, after people take a sip of hot coffee or tea and send it down their throat, they make this sound originating from the front of their mouth. Something like "Aaah" - exhaling a little steam. Usually to express delight in the deliciousness of the drink. Is there a word for this sound? For example: `He took a slurp from his coffee and ____ in delight.` What could go in the blank?


Difference between a synecdoche and metonym?

From the definitions of these two types of figures of speech (tropes, if you will), I have always understand them to mean the same thing. Essentially, that is the usage of either a specific attribute or a generalisation of a thing to refer to that thing. Could anyone perhaps qualify the difference between a _synecdoche_ and _metonym_ ; is one a sub-category of another, are these essentially equivalent, or are they mutually exclusive in some subtle way?


"Awfully" or "awful"?

_Awfully_ is a word, as noted in Merriam-Webster's definition of awful. I recently said this: > Your snoring is **awfully** bad. I was in a group, and the majority agreed that _awful_ was correct: > Your snoring is **awful** bad. Which is correct: _awful bad_ or _awfully bad_ , and why?


Please paraphrase a sentence from "Lord of the Flies"

In _Lord of the Flies_ , there is a paragraph: > This toy of voting was almost as pleasing as the conch. Jack started to > protest but the clamor changed from the general wish for a chief to an > election by acclaim of Ralph himself. None of the boys could have found good > reason for this; what intelligence had been shown was traceable to Piggy > while the most obvious leader was Jack. But there was a stillness about > Ralph as he sat that marked him out: there was his size, and attractive > appearance; and most obscurely, yet most powerfully, there was the conch. > The being that had blown that, had sat waiting for them on the platform with > the delicate thing balanced on his knees, was set apart. I just can't understand the last sentence: > The being that had blown that, had sat waiting for them on the platform with > the delicate thing balanced on his knees, was set apart. Could anyone please paraphrase or interpret that sentence for me?


In a square, which is the correct term: 'upper-left corner' or 'top-left corner'? To be more specific: in the context "the x-coordinate of the upper-left/top- left corner", which should I use?


what does the term "might as well" mean?

Can anyone explain to me the usage of the words "might as well do something" for these two expressions. The definition on the web is very vague, it says > a phrase indicating that it is probably better to do something than not to > do it. 1: If you are going all the way to [some place], you might as well pick [something] up. 2: If someone is still not happy, then they might as well just hang themselves.


Grammar: "Just because A, doesn't mean B"

I hear this all the time, and often from writers, but it never sounds _right_. I found myself using it in something I was writing. For example: "Just because I stopped eating doesn't mean I'm full." Just the "just because A, doesn't mean B" sentence structure in general. Is it grammatically correct? If not, why not?


Error Grammatical - Use of preposition A

What's wrong in this phrase?               Yesterday I was talking with a russian ...      My teacher putted like wrong "a russian".


What image do you recall when hearing 'Fluffy'?

In Harry Potter’s story, **Fluffy** is a monstrous looking dog with three heads. But if I look up dictionaries the word might have the meaning of ‘very cute fluffy dog’, I thought. So I like to call him ‘bok-shee-ree’(복실이) in Korean – it generally means a cute puppy or a kind looking girl. I wonder what kind of images do English natives recall, except the Harry Potter’s Fluffy, when they hear the word?


Use of "nay" as an adverb

I researched help and examples on the uses of the word _nay_ but found these inadequate/insubstantial. The Free Dictionary has described: >   1. an archaic or dialect (except in voting by voice) word for no >   2. (noun) a. a person who votes in the negative b. a negative vote >   3. (adverb) (sentence modifier) an emphatic form of no > as an instance for an adverb, I found the following line: > and not only so but; not only that but also; indeed: many good, _nay_ , > noble qualities. I see _nay_ in the latter example as one that contains a compound connotation(s.) so could the same example be re-written in the following ways? a)"not only did he have (many) good qualities, he had noble ones too" or b)"not only were his qualities good, they were noble too" I'm very uncertain and critical as to how _nay_ is understood to describe the situations a) and b) because I understood all along that _nay_ was another word for no. I'm looking for a detailed review and examples of the meaning and utilisation of nay


Secular alternative to "preaching to the choir"?

Is there a secular alternative to the phrase "preaching to the choir"?


Which preposition should be used when referring to an exact date?

I read this in a text book: > My test is on 22th of June. I saw this in a YouTube tutorial: > My test is at 22th of June. Which sentence uses the right preposition?


Difference in Usage of Specificity & Specification

I found two noun words such as Specificity and Specification. When can we use Specificity over specification.


Usage of the word 'burlesque'

Here, in the place where I am being hosted, almost every evening there is an event usually called "burlesque".   * Is "burlesque" normally used by Americans?    * How is the word used generally? In what context do we refer to this word?


Zero article before the word "part" - what is the particular reason for this?

Please consider the following sentences: "It's part of the life." "It's a part of the life." What is the difference in the meaning between these sentences? Why is it allowed to omit the article in the first sentence? Thank you in advance.


Boogie - Negative connotation?

I work in a company which has a product called "Boogie" (for reasons that the original owner knows). The product has been called that way for years in our French Canadian environment. Our few English Canadian clients are used to that name. Now, somebody said that the word "Boogie" does not sound good in English. It would have some negative connotation. Is that true? What would be the negative meaning attached to that word? I ask the question because people are thinking about changing the name of the product, which is no small task.


Mild red condiment

Is 'paprika' the English word describing mild red condiment consisting of the dried finely ground pods of various sweet peppers? I have noticed that 'paprika' is rarely used for this pourpose by other cooks.   Note: I am a cook in foreign country.


A derogatory word for a splendid person

In Swedish there is a word "präktig" that can be used to describe a person that is annoyingly decent, reliable and good in every way. The common translation is "splendid" but that doesn't sound derogatory at all. "Pompous" is the closest I've come, but that is a character flaw and doesn't really fit. So is there an English word that can be used to describe a perfect person that also indicates that he/she is too perfect?


Do we need the definite article before designation plus organization?

If I write `Mr. ABC, President of the XYZ Corporation, . . .` do I need to use `the` before `President`? I know it is must when we are mentioning organizations, but what about designation (more specifically, designation with organization, if it matters at all)?


What does 'even' mean in the context of this sentence?

If you have the following sentence:               if you got an even number of a's and b's      What does even mean? The sentence can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feAikjPqOq8 last seconds of the video.


Difference between a "movement" and a "campaign"

A campaign means: > an organized course of action to achieve a goal A movement means: > a group of people working together to advance their shared political, > social, or artistic ideas Are there any differences between them?


What are English counterparts to Japanese Honne (real intent) and Tatemae (public position)?

I think many foreigners who have lived or worked in Japan heard this set of words, “Honne 本音– real intent” and “Tatemae 建前– outward reason.” Actually many expatriate colleagues I had worked with in office used to use “Honne and Tatemae” as it is in Japanese. According to Kenkyusha’s Japanese English Dictionary (KJED), Honne is ‘one’s real intention, underlining motif.' Tatemae is ‘principle, a rule, one’s public position’ For example, we use “Honne” and Tatemae” as in,   * What you are saying is Tatemae. You cannot live only on Tatemae. Look at the reality.   * He says he decided to live apart from his wife, considering the convenience of commuting office, but it’s Tatemae. His Honne is to get divorced from her.    * The company says they transfer a group of middle managers to the frontline of sales force to give them a chance for self-development. But it’s Tatemae. The company’s Honne is to get rid of them.   * North Korea says development of the rocket is for space exploration purpose. But it’s Tatemae, their Honnne is development of ICBMs with nuclear-head. I’m fine with the KJED’s definition of ‘Honne’ as one’s real intent, but not comfortable with the definition of ‘Tatemae’ as a principal and rule, because it isn’t principal or rule, but is outward / superficial, sometimes a disguised excuse (reason / claim) as shown above. Interestingly, Google Ngram shows that the usage of ‘Honne’ can be traced back to circa. 184o, which had been leveling off at 0.000001 emergence level until 1980, when it suddenly started to draw a sharp rise in combination with ‘Tatemae’ to 0.000005 level. I don’t know what made a leap of the incidences of both words during 1980 – 2000. With that said, do you have a set pair of words in English corresponding to ‘Honne and Tatemae’? Do you have the time to have to manipulate Honne and Tatemae in your actual life, as we do, not very often, but as needed? Could you suggest to me English alternatives that you think are closest to the original meanings of ‘Honne and Tatemae’?


Pronunciation of "r"

How would you describe the pronunciation of _r_ to somebody who speaks English as second language?


"Peel", "pare", and "skin"

I lately learnt these three words of similar meanings: _peel_ , _pare_ , and _skin_. In what case do you use each of them? Could you give me example sentences along with a concise description for each?


Why is "t" sometimes pronounced like "d" in American English?

Why, in American English, is the word _Italy_ is pronounced /ˈɪdəli/ and not /ˈɪtəli/?   What is the rule that is followed in the pronunciation of _Italy_ to make the letter t pronounced like a d? Why is the same rule not followed for _Italian_ , which is pronounced /əˈtæljən/ or /ɪˈtæljən/?


Is it correct to say that English has the dative case?

Is it correct to say that, nowadays, English has the dative case, or was it only present in Old English?


How to use the word “restriction”

I am not sure about the usage of the word “restriction”. I would like to use it in a sentence like: “This video has some distribution and/or age restrictions”. Can I use “has some” or is there a better way?


A question of interpretation: single word parenthesis

To my mind this: > Entity foo varies seemingly at random. is semantically equivalent to this: > Entity foo varies, seemingly, at random. However, is this necessarily the case? What alternative, dissimilar interpretations might exist for each sentence?


Where does the word "button-down" come from?

I was wondering where the term 'button-down' comes from. I tried to do some research but I was not very successful... How was the word button-down formed? Is it a compound ? Does it originate from the noun "button", which then became the verb "to button" meaning to fasten? Then, how did it become an adjective ? If the adjective "button-down" originates from the verb "to button (stg) down", shouldn't the adjective be "buttoned-down"? If so, how did it change to become only "button-down" ? I looked up etymonline and the online merriam-webster but could not find any answer. Can anybody answer this ?


Word To Describe A Virtue/Attribute For Someone Who Is Connected (perhaps business-wise)

I can't quite find a good word to describe someone who is networked, or has connections. Particularly business wise. Only thing I can think of is "associations", but doesn't quite fit the mold because it needs to be a skill.


doubling as a “door stop”?

> With only a handful of commands, the SQL data statements look deceptively > simple. In my opinion, many of the available SQL books help to foster this > notion by only skimming the surface of what is possible with the language. > However, if you are going to work with SQL, it behooves you to understand > fully the capabilities of the language and how different features can be > combined to produce powerful results. I feel that this is the only book that > provides detailed coverage of the SQL language without **the added benefit > of doubling as a “door stop”** (you know, those 1,250-page “complete > references” that tend to gather dust on people’s cubicle shelves). What is exactly **doubling as a door stop** supposed to mean? Does it mean that you are going to use that big reference book, if you purchased one instead of this one that you're reading, as a second door stop because the book is useless and because your door stop is not good enough to hold your door ajar?


What does "throw down (an order, an idea)" as in "The offer was thrown down to join the Sith" mean?

What's the actual meaning to "throw down something" as in "His offer was thrown down"? Is it the same as saying "His offer was rejected", or is it like saying that the offer was made for consideration? The definition given by FOE is [http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/throw%20down) But, please consider the definition given by MW source, plus these sourced examples: > US investment bank Goldman Sachs today threw down an offer of 810p a share > source>/ > > My MIL offered before I left to do a Skype shower with her family and I > threw down the idea because I thought it would be awkward. source > > It was raining, as it did most of the time. We were on the Sumshine Coast, > so Gus threw down the idea of hitting "the pub" for tea. source > > I immediately threw down the offer to write a review... source > > I didn't want to force him so I threw down the offer that when we were done > we were going out for ice creams! source > > There was a low sound of impatience from the person at the writing table, > and a rustle of paper as the plan was thrown down. source > > Another idea was thrown down. The idea was from Ron Clements. source > > Instead they threw down their offer.source > > ...he was a stiff and threw down my offer instantly.source > > The offer was thrown down and the old bark taken to Clifton to tie up for > the winter. source > > Some of the aldermen, it said, are in favor of the plan to add a story to > the building, which plan was thrown down by the council. source > > When mankind wished to build a tower to reach the heavens where God was, > their project was thrown down. source > > If this project was thrown down at a Staff Meeting... source


Subject Verb Agreement

In what ways did the points made by the writer in the introduction contradicts her conclusion? (in the question listed above, shouldn't "contradicts" be written as "contradict" - since we are referring to the "points" made by the writer?)


Meaning of " ‘Western’ world" and alternative terms

The discussion on the meaning and connotations of the world 'Oriental' got me thinking along similar lines on the usage of 'Western' world or 'the West' to denote North America and Europe. I find it interesting how in many situations Africa and Latin America aren't considered belonging to the 'West', even though in a strictly longitudinal sense they _are_ to the west of 'the East' / 'Orient'. Has anyone come across situations where using 'the West' is considered pejorative, and, if yes, what alternative terms are / can be used?


How can I describe it when you want to "sell" your personal image?

How can I describe when you want "sell" your image, sell how good you are at your job, for example? What phrase or idiom can I use for that? Here in Brazil (Portuguese) we have a metaphor like: "He sells his fish...", which means that the guy did his job very well. Is there something like this in English?


The meaning of "People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading."

I am having a hard time understanding the following Logan Pearsall Smith quote: > People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading. Googling didn't help much other than whose quote it is. What exactly does the above quote mean?


Can you say "feral waters"?

I'm trying to think of a name for a game I'm creating. Since it's underwater I thought of "Feral Waters". Can you say that in English or is it rubbish?


Is there a word which means whatever you want it to mean? Or has no meaning?

I'm looking for a word which can be used in any situation to describe something in whatever way you want, i.e it's not a word and just fits in to places..., but is there an actual word which does that?


Is this sentence correct with "irreverent"?

> You people were irreverent to POP's speech. irreverent = _disrespectful - flippant - impious_ Is it a correct sentence according to syntax and semantics? If it can be written in a better way, please post your example sentence.


How do you say to "connect nails with heads"?

I was chatting with a non native speaker and they said "we will connect nails with heads" or something along that line, and asked if that was the right way to say it in English. I knew what he meant: "get things done" but wasn't sure if that was a common thing to say. So is there a colloquialism involving nails and heads (or hammers) that means to get things done or produce results, and what is the common way of saying it?


Existential sentence...in the passive voice?

Now, a friend over the internet wanted me to explain the passive voice to him. He began by providing his story's "readability statistics" of Microsoft Word, which said that 7% of his sentences were passive. Luckily, this story was at my disposal, so I investigated whether the statistic was correct or not. Then I came to this sentence: > There was something placed on the table... First off, existential sentences are "newish" to me, but I believe that to be one. I also believe it's passive, but I'm unsure. I made several google searches, with only one outside of google books (the book was probably too advanced for me) talking about it. Now the reason that I think that is passive is the same reason why the person made that post (but in reverse). When turned into a nonexistential sentence it is passive (EDIT: I've been notified that the nonexistential sentence doesn't correspond to _was placed_ but rather _had been placed_ ): > Something had been placed on the table [by X]... Although, another reading could be that it isn't passive. _Placed on the table_ may be seen as a (past) participial phrase modifying _something_. This interpretation seems untenable to me. So am I right to think that this is a passive existential sentence?


Is ‘There is no there there’ a normal and very natural expression? I was amused to find the phrase, ‘ _There is no there there’_ in the article titled, ‘Wrong resume’ in today’s New York Times commenting on Mitt Romney’s proposition for amending the Constitution to require the President to have at least three years business experience before he could become president of the United States.’. It reads: “Romney has made business experience the main reason to elect him. Without his business past or his projections of business future, **there is no there there**. But history shows that time in the money trade is more often than not a prelude to a disastrous presidency. The less experience in business, the better the president.” I interpreted ‘there is no there there’ means ‘without his business experience, there is no place of success that he enjoys today. Though spell- checker keeps demanding me to delete one of three theres there from the text I’m typing in, I don’t think there’s any grammatical problem with this line. However, it makes me hiccup for unknown reason. Is this just a pun of words played by the writer? Is it 'cool' or a very normal and natural expression?


Is the expression "Say your piece" or "Say your peace"?

I have googled this one and seen arguments for both sides. _Say your piece_ would imply that you've had the opportunity to make your part of the statement on the subject. _Say your peace_ would imply that you've had the opportunity to speak and set your mind at ease. Clearly, they both make perfect sense in those contexts. To be clear, I want to know which is the form used by most people?


What exactly does "sweep me off my feet" mean? (And why?)

Although the phrase "sweep me off my feet" probably means, "make me fall in love with you in a short time", what does it exactly mean, because "sweeping" can be difficult to be associated with "love". (It can be difficult to read the words "sweeping" and "feet" to get a feeling that it means love). Below is one of its usage in Steve Jobs's letter to his wife: > We didn’t know much about each other twenty years ago. We were guided by our > intuition; you swept me off my feet. It was snowing when we got married at > the Ahwahnee. Years passed, kids came, good times, hard times, but never bad > times. Our love and respect has endured and grown. We’ve been through so > much together and here we are right back where we started 20 years > ago—older, wiser— with wrinkles on our faces and hearts. We now know many of > life’s joys, sufferings, secrets and wonders and we’re still here together. > My feet have never returned to the ground. -- Steve Jobs


Asking someone to let you know something

Is there a grammatical point difference in the following 2 sentences: Please let me know **what is the plan**. Please let me know **what the plan is**. I am so used to the first method that I think that it is actually the wrong way of saying it, due to habitual direct translations from my mother tongue.


On the part of speech of "now"

I recently had a conversation about the Spanish word "ahora", in which my conversant claimed that "ahora" is _always_ an adverb, and never a noun. This lead me to investigate the part of speech of similar words, both in Spanish and English (my native language). According to dictionary.com, "now" _can_ be a noun, as in: > ## noun > > 10\. the present time or moment:   >  _"Up to now no one has volunteered."_ What makes "now" a noun in this context? In the Spanish equivalent of the example ("Hasta ahora..."), "ahora" is considered an adverb by the dictionaries I checked with. The gist of the question: How can I know when _now_ (or any word, for that matter--especially one which is commonly an adverb) is a noun? What test can be applied? In the example quoted above ("Up to now...") it is not at all obvious to me why 'now' should be a noun while with, say "Until tomorrow", 'tomorrow' is an adverb. They seem like the same grammatical construct to me, so I would (apparently quite naively) expect the same part of speech to follow "Up to" or "Until."


Referring to the last item of a list in the next sentence

> She spotted things she'd never seen before like three-wheeled bikes and > elephants. She caught the sight of **one** of them on the sidewalk. I want to replace **one** with a word that would make it clear that I'm referring to an elephant.


Is my use of "knee-jerk reaction" correct?

Does it sound correct if I say "After the big earthquake, whenever I feel a slightly big quake, I immediately put myself under a table. It's like my knee- jerk reaction." Or should I use some other phrases rather than "knee-jerk reaction" in this case?


"Have not" versus "do not have"

As a non-native English speaker, I have a little doubt about using, or not, the auxiliary verb "to do" with the verb "to have". Are there differences in meaning between "I have not" and "I do not have"? Is a British vs. American thing?


Look at the below image. Do you see the water in few feet radius around a land? How do you describe this? Let's assume that the land is a park and there is no fountain. Can I express it as "A water circle of few radius is around the park"? I'm not sure if that sentence is grammatically and logically correct. Or can I say, "The park is surrounded by a circle of water having few feet radius"? ![](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ovs2Oonh1rao1byo1_1280.jpg)


Is a comma needed before or after "which" and "such as"?

Is a comma needed before the word "which" and "such as" in the following examples? > Ethical clearance was essential which was obtained very early in the > research process. > > There are several reasons for this misconception such as a false belief in > one's ability.


Why did Napoleon III coin the term "Latin America"?

> The actual term "Latin America" was coined in France under Napoleon III and > played a role in his campaign to imply cultural kinship with France, > transform France into a cultural and political leader of the area and > install Maximilian as emperor of Mexico. — Wikipedia


Is it appropriate to use short form of "have" ('ve) when it means possession?

I feel uncomfortable saying sentences like the following:   * " **I've** a car" instead of " **I have** a car"   * " **They've** a great time" instead of " **They have** a great time"   * " **He's** a pen" instead of " **He has** a pen"   * etc I ask this because I read this sort of thing in a book. Are they correct? And what is the rule? Can you use such forms in a formal setting?


Can you contract the main verb in a sentence?

One can contract _I have_ to _I've_ when _have_ is a helping verb, e.g. > I've got an octopus in my pants. Is contracting the main verb technically incorrect or merely antiquated? My father loves to say, > I've a month-old smoked shoulder I can cook for dinner, and he sounds like a crazy old man when he does. I would like to know if I can shut him down by informing him that he is incorrect. :)


[pronoun]'ve for possessives

My sister just wrote me, "I've a meeting a noon." The contraction "I've" stuck out. I've always thought the contraction was limited to the perfect tense, and do not recognize it as an indicator of possession. Is the contraction [pronoun]'ve commonly accepted to mark possession?


"I have" = "I've". Is that always correct?

> **Duplicate:**   >  Is it appropriate to use short form of "have" ('ve) when it means > possession? I feel uncomfortable saying sentences like the following:   * " ** _I've_** a car" instead of " ** _I have_** a car"   * " ** _He's_** a pen" instead of " ** _He has_** a pen"   * etc I ask this because I read something like that in a book. Are they correct? and what is the rule?


Which punctuation for definition

I have the following sentence: > To this end, I first devised a novel algorithm to enumerate all possible > partitions; ways of dividing a network into meaningful parts. I was told that the final semi-colon fragments the sentence and that I should change it. I am not sure what punctuation I should here, or if the sentence needs to be restuctured. In case it isn't clear to anyone, a 'way of dividing a network into meaningful parts' is a definition of a partition. Any suggestions appreciated.


Past tense of 'dive'

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  UK English: Is "dived" a valid word? Can anybody explain the difference between _dived_ and _dove_ in the following sentence? > He   **__**   in to the pool yesterday to have swim. Which one is better to fill the blank field?


"Which" or "what"

> Much of (what/which) scientists know about dinosaurs has been recently > discovered. > > The phenomenon of (what/which) are known as corporate networks has also > attracted attention. And yes, the answer is _what_. But why?


"The point is moot"

I was recently called out for using the phrase " _the point is moot_ " incorrectly. My intent was to indicate that I felt that the point wasn't really worth debating or discussing. I was then shown that the definition also includes "open to discussion" which left me scratching my head. While the two definitions are not strictly opposing, they do seem to go off in rather distinct yet related directions. I am left feeling like this discussion is perhaps moot — is it best to just avoid using the word entirely? Is there a proper or accepted way to use it correctly?


Pronunciation of 'aunt' in the US

I was under the impression that all Americans pronounced _aunt_ like the insect, _ant_ (`/ænt/`), or relatively similar sounding variants such as the southern _aint_ (`/eɪnt/`). According to both Webster and ODO, _some_ Americans pronounce it as _ah-nt_ (`/änt/`, `/ɑnt/`, or `/ɔnt/`) which is pretty close to the British _ah-nt_ (`/ɑ(:)nt/`). Webster offers a similar alternative for the contraction, can't. Who are these Americans who favour the British pronunciation?


How to use quotes in a list with commas

This is a sentence that I wrote: > In the text, words such as greenbacks, ironclads, and blockade were used. However, I think there should be quotations around the words. How would I place them? Would I include the commas in the quotations? Also, would the word _greenbacks_ need to be _Greenbacks_?


"To" vs. "for" in "gold for your business"

As a marketing slogan could the following sentence be considered grammatical? > Because happy customers are gold for your business. Would it be better to say _to_ instead of _for_? Or a rephrasing like: > Because happy customers are their weight worth in gold to your business.


How should I understand "short of " in this sentence?

I learned the following sentence from _The Economist_ (December 3rd-9th 2011). ... The implications seemed nothing **short of** revolutionary. I've looked it up at this online dictionary. It is said that it means "of a lesser degree than". What's the function of this phrase here? How should I understand this sentence?


sentence formation using such and so

I have two questions: 1) i have the following sentence: "It was so extensive an area that" why do we prefer to write the above sentence instead of "The area was so extensive that" 2)Can we use "such" instead of "so" like: "It was such an extensive area that"


Is "default" used for "a value used when nothing has been explicitly set" outside of IT world?

In a discussion at another question, rajah9 mentioned that **_default_** is used to mean _to fail to repay a loan_ , but that in the computer world we now use it to mean _a value used when no value has been explicitly set_. Somewhat closer to the IT meaning, _default_ can also mean to lose a game or a lawsuit by failing to show up, as in _lose the baseball game by default_. At least, I can see a similarity between _this is what you get if you don't say what you want_ and _this is what you get if you don't show up_. Is there any context outside of IT field where _default_ is used to mean _what you get if you didn't say what you want_? Particularly, is there such a usage before IT people started using the word in this sense?


What is the noun for 'self-evident' or 'obvious'?

I am looking for a noun to describe something that is self-evident. I don't think I can say 'this is a self-evidency', but searching online and on this forum, I haven't found a proper alternative yet.


What's the meaning and origin of "Herp Derp"?

I have seen, usually in Internet meme jokes, the term "herp derp" being used in a derogatory sense, but I don't know what it means exactly — apart from the fact that it seems to be related to dumbness or irrelevant statements. What does it mean exactly? Is it some kind of slang? What are its origins and meaning? (Urban Dictionary doesn't help much in this case).


Are "come round" and "visit" interchangeable?

> Some friends will come round for dinner. > > Some friends will visit for dinner. > > Some friends will visit me. These are OK, but "some friends will come round me" isn't OK. The answer is simple, but it needs some thought.


What does 'should' mean in this sentence?

'She walked through the forest, and who should she see, but the Big Bad Wolf!'


Why is the historical present tense used so often by sports broadcasters?

When discussing a pivotal event that happened in the past, whether 5 minutes ago or 50 years ago, sportscasters often use the historical present tense. For example, after an error we might hear, "If he catches that ball, the inning is over." Or, "if Babe Ruth stays with Boston, the Yankees don't win all those pennants." A similar usage seems to occur when discussing battles and wars: "If Stonewall Jackson survives, the South wins at Gettysburg." Is there an explanation for this phenomenon of language?


Capitalising the definite article in names

When I was a youngster some _mumble-mumble-mumble_ decades ago, I was taught that, in the instances of names of persons, places, and things which carried the definite article _the_ , the article wasn’t capitalised. Hence, the Batman, the Empire State Building, the Medal of Honor. In the last twenty years or so, I have seen the capitalisation of _the_ in names proliferate. Now, it’s The Batman, The Empire State Building, The Medal of Honor. When I point this out as an error, I’m generally met with the argument, “No, those are names, and all words in a name are capitalised.” Did I get it wrong, way back when? Or is it one of those things in which style has trumped rule, and now the standard is to capitalise the definite article in names?


If you cut a part in two (parts vs. pieces)

If you cut something in half, do you get two _parts_ or two _pieces_? Do they convey different meanings? This is in the context of a mechanical part physically cut in two.


A word that refers to something that had lasted most of one's life?

> She wants to get rid of an affliction that had been haunting her most of her > life. I was thinking if I could make the passage above shorter, say using an adjective instead of _that had been haunting her most of her life._ Is there any adjective I can use?


Is "all that he have" correct?

Should I say "All the things he have will be given to her" or "All the things he has will be given to her" ?


Is it ok to write "Good to see you" in an email or facebook message?

An old friend of mine wrote some greetings to me on facebook. Now if I want to answer his greetings, is it ok to write: "Hi, Jhon, good to see you again"? Because I don't "see" him by e-mail or when writing a facebook message. What would be the correct way to write that expression?


Parenthetical pluralization of words ending in '-y'

Sentences constructed with a word written in the singular and parenthetically in the plural are straightforward when that word does not end in _-y_ , e.g.: > List all applicable **employee(s)**. How does one handle words ending in _-y_? Is this correct: > I will attend the **party(ies)**.


What is the correct way to indicate a singular/plural that ends in (ies)

I would like to know what the correct way to indicate a singular/plural pair is when the singular ends in _-y_ and the plural in _-ies_. With book you can use _book(s)_ to indicate in writing how to form the plural from the singular, but with _party_ , would you use _party(ies)_ or _party(s)_ or something else? Is there a reference where rules are provided for this? This question deals with this ‘optional _(s)_ ’, but does not mention how to add the _(s)_ if a change in the base word also has to occur.


Is there a formal name for when the same word appears twice (or more) in a row?

Sometimes I read, write or speak a sentence where a single word appears twice in a row. For example: > The book he **had had** a torn cover. I was curious if there was a formal term for such a pattern. Thanks


When describing something's colour, would you hyphenate the words? Eg, "blood-red" versus "royal blue"

Generally, as a rule, I always hyphenate words to make them into a single adjective, so I've been putting "blood-red", "forest-green", "royal-blue" and the like, but the moment I typed "royal-blue", my instincts kicked in. It didn't look right to me. Perhaps it's because this is an official colour or the fact that the word "royal" is unrelated to blue, but I'm not sure. What do you guys think? P.S. I'm using British English, if that helps.


What is the formal version of "8 a.m. until"?

Is there a formal version of the term "until," used in the context of "The event will run from 8 a.m. until," signifying an indeterminate end time?


What does “saving the world, one X at a time” mean?

Does it mean that you are using X to save the world, or that you are saving the world by eliminating one X at a time?


I wonder if there are some other ways to express the fact that I have been learning something for a certain period of time but still haven't mastered the ABCs of it? The following is what I am not quite sure about:   * I am a green hand at fixing cars. I haven't even touched the door to fixing cars. Fixing cars is just like learning Chinese to me. Can I say the above? Any other better expressions? Thank you. :)


What do these quotes mean?

What do these quotes mean? These quotes came to me together as a compliment. Does it mean good luck or does it mean something bad? Like dogs in a wheel, birds inside a cage, or squirrels in a very chain, ambitious men still climb and climb, with great labor, and incessant anxiety, but never achieve the top. What we actually learn, from any given set of circumstances, determines whether we become increasingly powerless or more powerful. _Edit:_ The two quotations as usually quoted or misquoted are shown below. > Like dogs in a wheel, birds in a cage, or squirrels in a chain, ambitious > men still climb and climb, with great labor, and incessant anxiety, but > never reach the top. – Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621, as > misquoted and often misattributed to Robert Browning. > > What we actually learn, from any given set of circumstances, determines > whether we become increasingly powerless or more powerful. – Blaine Lee, in > _The Power Principle: Influence with Honor_


What is the adverb here and the adjective?

(It's not actually homework, I am actually studying for a competitive exam.) The following sentences have been taken from Wren and Martin and I am providing their solutions for figuring out adjectives: > He gave the boys **_much wholesome_** advice Now Wren and Martin says **much** is a different adjective and **wholesome** different, shouldn't it be just **wholesome in superlative degree**? and can two adjectives come one after another? shouldn't one become an adverb because now it's modifying an adjective? > Lead is heavier than **any other** metal Now again Wren and Martin says **any** and **other** are two different adjectives, shouldn't **other** be the adjective and **any** adverb?


What does the “they” stand for here?

I meet this sentence: > In the early days, **_very few people_** interacted directly with database > systems, although without realizing it **they** interacted with databases > indirectly — through printed reports such as credit card statements, or > through agents such as bank tellers and airline reservation agents. Does _they_ here stand for _very few people_ who interacted directly with database systems? If it is, then the first part of this sentence means they interacted directly, but the second part means they interacted indirectly. I am a little confused.


What are the correct spelling and regional distribution of "X, schmX" to indicate dismissiveness (e.g., "evidence, schmevidence")?

There is a curious construct in American English in which a word is stated and then repeated with the prefix "schm-" or "shm-" in order to indicate the speaker's dismissive attitude toward a concern that somebody else has. For example: > "Smokers have lower life expectancies? Correlation, schmorellation—I'm going > outside for another cancer stick." Is the commoner or more "correct" spelling "shm-" or "schm-"? Is this construction used outside the US? What is its origin? I've found this impossible to google.


"Improviser" or "improvisor"?

I'm trying to determine whether I should use the _~er_ suffix or the _~or_ suffix for a person who improvises. What I've learned on the web is that technically one should say "improvisor". The _~or_ suffix is for words of Latin origin, and apparently the word "improvisation" derives from the Latin _improvidus_. However, "improviser" seems to be the more common of the two, and I have to admit, it _feels_ more natural to me. I've been using both, but I want to be consistent and settle on one. Which one should I commit to using, and why?


Difference between "think of" and "think about"

Is there a difference between "think of something" and "think about something"? I've also met "have heard of/about something".


Why do people use the word "or" when offering a translation?

I have encountered many times speakers & authors who use the word "or" in the process of translating. Here is an example I ran across tonight: `Could you keep a different kind of fast such as a fast of silence or a Maun Vrath?` Normally, "or" is used in situations where either side of the "or" can be true: `I want an easy job or a short job.` The job can be easy, the job can be short, or the job can be both easy and short. In the translating example, both sides are exactly the same. 'Maun' means silence and 'Vrath' is a promise to do something; together they mean a 'fast of silence.' Why don't speakers/authors use a different method, such as `Could you keep a different kind of fast such as a fast of silence (Maun Vrath)?` or `Could you keep a different kind of fast such as Maun Vrath, literally a fast of silence?` or `Could you keep a different kind of fast such as a fast of silence, traditionally called a Maun Vrath?` Also, how/when did this practice start?


What’s the rule for using “who” and “whom” correctly?

I can never figure out whether I should use _who_ and _whom_. Most people use _who_ for both colloquially, but that’s not correct. What’s the rule for using _who_ and _whom_ correctly?


Which one is correct: "The friend who I met is cute" or "The friend whom I met is cute"?

Or maybe both are correct? I would be inclined to think that 'whom' is correct, because its case is in sync with the verb 'met'. I know that in the languages with developed cases (like Russian), only the equivalent of 'whom' would be correct. But what about in English?


Many of who or many of whom?

In the sentence "The convention was attended by hundreds of executives, many of _who/whom_ stopped by our stand to.." should it be "many of who" or "many of whom"?


"With who" vs. "with whom"

Is this correct? > The person with whom I'm doing the project should be here soon. If it is, is _with_ always a dative preposition (like _mit_ in German)?


Should I use who or whom when the subject is plural?

I realise there has been a lot of discussion of who vs whom on these forums, but as far as I can tell none of the previous posts answer my question. Which of these sentences is (more) correct, and why? "South American footballers, including the likes of Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé **whom** I have met, are coming to the party." OR "South American footballers, including the likes of Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé **who** I have met, are coming to the party." Please assume that the writer isn't taking the stance that who should be used all time, but instead wishes to use whom where it would be traditionally appropriate to do so.


Question on who vs. whom

I answered two questions incorrectly during my SAT prep class, and they seem to contradict each other. The first question was: > The district manager agreed to promote the employee _**who he saw improve**_ > sales by the end of the year. > > (A) who he saw improve > > (B) who he saw was improving > > (C) who he will see improve > > (D) whom he saw improve > > (E) whom he saw to be improving I picked A but the correct answer was D. Now, for my second question: > During the auditions, the show's producer looked for those actors _**whom he > thought**_ would be suitable for the many roles in the play. > > (A) whom he thought > > (B) whom he has thought > > (C) who he was thinking > > (D) who he thought > > (E) whom they thought Again, I picked A here but the the correct answer was D. I don't understand why one uses "who" while the other uses "whom", since they seem to have the same sentence structure (but obviously different words).


Who(m) I have left out

In the acknowledgments of my thesis, after a long list of names, I (also) want to thank "[...] all other supportive people who**m** I have inevitably left out". Does this look appropriate? In particular, I'm concerned about the usage of "whom" vs. "who". I tried to google the phrase "who(m) I have left out", but both versions yield millions of hits. [about 10:1 who vs. whom]. Note that I'm no native speaker, but write English by feeling. Many thanks in advance!


with whom - Is this the appropriate use?

Please let me know if there is a more appropriate manager at Seaside Resort with whom I can discuss these issues.


A situation of who vs. whom

The sentence in question is "I had known (who/whom) my opponent was". Would you use who or whom in this context, and why? Thanks.


Fill in blanks {who vs whom}

Please provide a answer with {WHO/WHOM} to the following sentence : > Agencies have informed us that he was one of those ___ _ they arrested last > month. Please note: I am aware of usage of both the words, but my answer is just in contradiction with a book's answer. So please don't provide links or references. A simple one word answer would suffice.


> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? "Don't forget [who/whom] you're dealing with." I know the rules for who vs. whom, but I'm having trouble determining if the person you are dealing with is an object or not.


“By whom?” vs. “Who by?”

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"?   >  With who vs. With whom Are “by whom?” and “who by?” perfect equivalents? I have the feeling that the use of “who by?” is just a way of avoiding use “whom” but I have no evidence or proof. The anglophone people I talk to hardly use “whom”. Are both expressions equally used, or is the difference between them only regional?


The use of nominative "whom" in legal contexts (and possibly others)

From page 48 of _Law_ , by Raymond Wacks: > In other words, you owe a duty to persons **whom** it is foreseeable are > likely to be harmed by your conduct. I tried to parse this by temporarily overlooking the expression _it is foreseeable_ , but then _persons_ is the subject of the verb phrase _are likely to be harmed_. So, according to this question, shouldn’t the relative pronoun for _persons_ be _who_? Am I parsing this phrase incorrectly? It has been mentioned that this style is common in law texts. Is this a verifiable claim or is this actually a typo? If this is acceptable grammar, what is the general rule? Is it commonly used in other contexts as well?


"Who versus whom"

I want to know whether who or whom should be used in the following sentence _The panel interviewed several candidates **who (or whom)** they thought had the experience and qualifications._ Please explain. Thanks.


There were ten people, of who/whom 5

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? Please help me with the grammar here. An explanation would be extra nice, that way I can get it right myself next time. "There were ten people, five of who/whom collected hats." I understand that if the "who" is the object, it becomes "whom", and if it's the subject it stays "who". From this page (yeah I'm a dummy) However, I am confused by "five of who" - I expect it to be the subject of "collected", but it somehow references the "ten people" and that leaves me clueless.


Should I use who or whom in the following situation?

> "I do," said Mr Takeda. > > The priest repeated the same question to the bride who/whom gave the same > reply. > > They exchanged rings and the priest declared them husband and wife. What should I use in this case, who or whom? How to deal with this kind of confusion in the future?


How to determine whether to use "with whomever" or "with whoever"

In these sentences, should I use whoever or whomever? I'm going to the park with whomever/whoever. I'm going to the park with whomever/whoever I want. Thanks!


Am I using "whomever" correctly?

> _So sad to lose you, yet happy for_ **_whomever_** _has the pleasure of > working with you next._


Is "Whom you are singing for?" correct?

Sorry I am not a native English speaker but in an English language country. My colleague was singing and just to kid her I said: > Whom you are singing for (I wanted to say to her, for who she is singing this song) but I'm not sure if my use was correct or not.


Correct Question word: Who or whom?

I'm wondering which option is the right one: >   * _Who_ is he having lunch with? >   * _Whom_ is he having lunch with? >


Who vs whom in "Who is the right person to turn to?

Take the sentence: > **Who** is the right person to turn to? I'm not sure whether _who_ or _whom_ should be used in this position.


Can a phrase be the object of a clause and how would its subject change?

Take the sentence: > I speak all over to whoever will listen. ...at first blush, I thought, "Ah — _whoever_ should be _whomever_." However, I then noted that in the phrase "whoever will listen", _whoever_ is correct. I think the central issue is that if the sentence had ended without the "...will listen" then it would be correctly stated, "I speak all over to whomever." As it is, it seems like the last part of the sentence ("whoever will listen") ends up being the object of the 'to' rather than the single word: 'whoever'. Is this sentence grammatically correct, and why?


"Put me in touch with whomever created it"?

He created it. Put me in touch with him. So which is correct and why:   * Put me in touch with whomever created it.   * Put me in touch with whoever created it.


What is the correct usage of "whom"?

I am still very confused on when to use _who_ and _whom_ , I understand the idea these sentences are correct: >   * He is the person who won the competition. >   * That is the person whom I went on holiday with. > But what would be correct in the following sentence: > This image shows a patient who is... or whom is? Would it be _who_ because the patient is the subject, or is it?


"Who" vs. "whom" in tricky sentence

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? Which is correct? > A certificate is a statement that states **who** is entitled. > > A certificate is a statement that states **whom** is entitled. Is _who_ a subject?


"Whom" or "who" for object of a subordinate clause inside a relative clause

> They interviewed several candidates **who** he thought had the experience > and qualifications he required. My test prep book says this should be "who" because of the subordinate clause's predicate: > They interviewed several candidates **_who_** he thought **had the > experience and qualifications** he required. I feel like it should be "whom" as it's the object of the main clause. > The interviewed several candidates **_whom_ he thought** had the experience > and qualifications he required. Who's right?


Who vs. Whom for: "...Satan, who/whom everyone imagines with horns."

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  What is the correct usage of "whom"?   >  Using "who" and "whom" I'm not sure what the clause is called, but it usually describes something (such as Satan). I would think it's "whom" because, in this context, everyone is imagining _him_ with horns. They don't imagine _he_ with horns. That's how I reason it, but it's confusing at times. Thoughts? What if it were: "...Satan, who/whom everyone imagines has horns"? Would you use "who" or "whom"?


Double "whom" sounds clunky, but is correct?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? I believe the following sentence is correct, but am slightly unsure as it sounds a bit clunky - plus, the irony of it being incorrect would be unbearable. > "Thank you to Bill and Ted, whom I'll never be able to thank in person but > without whom my education would not have been possible."


what is the difference in the usage of the following?

What is the difference in the usage of "whom" and "who"? please also tell me the rules behind their usage and some examples to clarify their difference.


Case of Pronoun

I want to know **_** you talked to. (who or whom) I want to know **_** the culprit is. (who or whom)


What is the best rule for determining when to use "Who" and/or "Whom"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using "who" and "whom" This is a topic that always causes me to take pause. I never really know if I am using who correctly or if whom would be better in each instance. Say for instance, I want to ask about software and try to determine the author. I ask, "This software was written by who?" or should I ask, "This software was written by whom?" How shoudl I determien which to use? I often find myself rewording a sentence conatining who or whom so that I won't sound uneducated.


"who" or "whom" as a relative pronoun - not always so easy

I take it for granted we all know when to use the relative pronouns "who" and "whom". And we also know that since the early nineteenth century there has been a steady decline in the use of "whom" especially in speech, and people tend to use "who" most of the times. Let's assume, however, that someone is writing a formal letter and that he prefers to use "whom" whenever possible. He got stuck on these two sentences: >   * They chose the candidate who they thought would have the best > initiative. >   * They chose the candidate whom they thought would have the best > initiative. > If "whom" is the right relative, he will have no problem using "who" because it's also acceptable. But if the right relative is "who", then it would be a mistake to use whom. My question is: "In the above sentence, is the relative pronoun the object of "thought" or is it the subject of "would have". PS I'm aware that some scholars advise against asking questions about "whom" because "who" is the relative pronoun most people use. But I understand it is not obsolete and is still used by a few people, in formal speech, in documents, etc, especially in the UK.


Subject vs. Object marking for whoever?

I know similar questions have been asked before, but I'm having trouble reconciling the following sentence, received in an email: > Can we ask whomever is your contact there to email us a job so we can check > backward compatibility? I could understand using objective case if the sentence were "can we ask (him) to email...", but I get tripped up considering "whomever" to be the subject of "(he) is your contact there".


who or whom in this context?

I am unsure which is the grammatically correct one in the following context: > ...trying to find a programmer with _who_ / _whom_ I could collaborate. Which one is the correct usage?


Is this a correct use of 'whom'?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? "The negative may be insecurity, in lieu of an absolute authority whom can to confirm your beliefs." This is the sentence. I am unsure whether to use who, or whom. Thanks


Who vs whom in a sentence

Which of the two sentences is correct? _Everybody **who** we need_ or _Everybody **whom** we need_ Please explain the grammatical reason behind it. Thanks


Whom vs Who: object Judas + whom

> The test itself lies in attempting to apply this new update to a card > belonging to Judas, **whom is** a legitimate user of the system. Is _Judas_ considered the subject or the object? I'm considering _Judas_ to be the object and hence applying _whom_ after the comma. Is this correct? I read about _whom_ vs _who_ at LINK, but I'm not sure if I'm applying it correctly to this case. I've also tried the _whom+him_ test by asking _Whom does the card belong to?_ with the answer _It belongs to him_.


who/whom after I

What is the correct usage of who/whom after first person pronoun "I" > I ___ am most concerned, was not consulted. I think it should be who?


Is there a simple explanation on where to use "who" vs "whom"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using who and whom I can usually guess which to use where, but I can never explain it to others, is there a simple explanation (with examples) that makes sense?


Whom or who in this case? Google thinks who

I was asking someone "whom were you horrible to?" And thought, is it who or whom? I believe it's whom but when I typed the phrase into Google search It felt differently.


"Tiger eats who" or "tiger eats whom"

I have an answer to a question _Tiger eats rabbit_. What would be the question for this? > Tiger eats who? > > Tiger eats whom? Which is correct among these two sentences?


"Whoever" Vs. "Whomever"

On the subject of "whoever" and "whomever", I was reading this but I am still confused: http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp What is the correct use of whoever/whomever in the following sentence? > I like your copy, congratulations, whoever is writing it. Whoever? Whomever? Is there a difference between US and UK English?


'whom' vs 'who'

How does one use 'whom' in a sentence? Is this sentence correct? Ex: I am delighted for all my cousins who have found happiness.


Which is correct

I want to know which sentence is correct "I know what you are doing and with who" or "I know what you are doing and with whom"


"Whom"/"Who" in subordinate clauses

I've come across the following sentence in a book: > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country > might have specialized knowledge of it.” I know that the _whomever_ is the object of the preposition _from_ (hence _whom_ ). However, isn't it at the same time the subject of the subordinate clause? Therefore, should it not be _whoever_? (Like in: “I was escaping from I don't know what.” NOT “I was escaping from me don't know what.”) In my view, the sentence would be more elegant if it read: > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whoever in the country > might have specialized knowledge of it.” > > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the > country.” > > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country > who might have specialized knowledge of it.” > > “I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country > with specialized knowledge of it.”


Which one is the best answer and why?

I am really looking for the answer. I will be happy to hear your answers. Thanks Question: > She brought her three friends, none of .... I have ever met before. > >   1. who >   2. which >   3. whom >   4. whose >


Contemporary written usage of "whom" in objective case

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the rule for using "who" or "whom"? I was writing a LinkedIn recommendation one day, and ended up pondering for a while which of these forms to use: > … is a great developer **whom** I always found easy to work with. > > … is a great developer **who** I always found easy to work with. Both are basically correct in contemporary English, right? But is one or the other preferable, and if so, why? (In this case I went with the latter, as it seemed more common (Google) and I wanted to avoid sounding unnecessarily “archaic”, although I’m not sure whether that would have been the case. Also note that I try to write in a “friendly professional” style instead of overly formal one. :-)


What does 'graft probe’ mean? Is it well-received word?

I found the word ‘graft probe’ in the headline of a Associate Press news in today’s Washington Post (April 11) reporting that former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak is presently in detention in Sham El-Sheikh in Egypt. Though I guess ‘graft probe’ means investigation of criminal act such as bribery, corruption and abuse of authority, I can’t find the word in any of English Japanese dictionaries at hand, Merriam, Webster Free Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary Online. What does 'graft probe’ mean? Is it a day-to-day English word? The article begins with the following line: "Mubarak detained for 15 days in _graft probe_ : Egypt’s prosecutor general has announced a 15-day detention for the country’s former president to investigate accusations of corruption and abuse of authority."


Word meaning "of many different kinds" in this context?

I'm looking for a word that describes a meal that consists _of many different kinds_ of food (in a way that gives pleasure) similiar to the word _varied_ I guess, but used in this context: let's say Johnny and his little sister arrived at the dinner table for dinner their mom prepared. They're blown away by what's in front of them; there's fish, chicken, pork, soup, and even Johnny's favourite spaghetti and meatballs and more. Dinner is usually pretty plain with only a few simple dishes that's it, but I guess mom's in a good mood today so she decided to treat them with a special dinner. And Johnny may say "wow mom, today's dinner is pretty [that word]!" What is the word I'm looking for?


"Were you" or "You were"

In a sentence like the following: > You want to know how long **you were** unavailable. Should I write "you were" or "were you"? Second version (with "were you") is: > You want to know how long **were you** unavailable.


"Don't mistake me"

Many times during conversation I hear the phrase _Don't mistake me_. Is it grammatically correct when used to mean _Don't take negative connotation of my word_. Shouldn't they say _Don't take me by mistake_?


"My personal opinion is..." Is it always pointless to use the words "personal" and "personally"?

Is this kind of redundancy acceptable in both speech and writing, formal and informal ? Would the following sentences have their meaning changed if we omitted "personal" or "personally" ? Would they lose anything at all ? >   * She is a personal friend of mine. >   * It's my personal opinion.... >   * Personally, I would advise you... >   * The manager said he will examine the matter personally. >   * Personally, I don't care whether... >   * I have a personal interest in the matter. >


“All X-related things” / “All things X-related” / “All things X related”?

My French origins (probably?) would have me intuitively write “all X-related things”, but it seems usage favours the construct “all things X-related”, or even without a hyphen: “all things X related” (see Google results for “all related things”). So, are any of these incorrect? Which one would be best? (If that's any help, I want to say “software engineer with a passion for all things user related”. Also in this particular case, should I write “user **s** related” instead?) Thanks!


Idiom/phrase for someone who faced a lot of difficulties in life

I came across the Kannada saying "Benkiyalli aralida hoovu", meaning someone faced lot of difficulties in life. Is there an equivalent idiom/phrase in English?


'Preclude' vs 'Exclude' vs 'Prevent'

I'm trying to really understand how the word `preclude` differs from either `exclude` or `include`. Merriam Webster defines preclude as               to make impossible by necessary consequence : rule out in advance      Which sounds a lot like either `prevent` or `exclude`. Does prevent block a future action from happening, while preclude eliminates the possibility of that action altogether?


Word describing one who is not aware of their own actions

I'm reading a book and writing an essay where I need to describe the main character's personality traits, but I can't quite find the word for unaware of one's actions


Choose the proper variant to complete the sentence:

... misses the kisses, ... kisses the misses. A) An rejected lover, a accepted lover B) An accepted lover, a rejected lover C) A rejected lover, an accepted lover


"To refuse oneself" vs "to refuse"

In which cases can we use "to refuse oneself" instead of "to refuse"? Can you use "oneself" to give more emphasis to the sentence, or are you only allow to use it when you refuse something done to you? In particular, I know this example is acceptable: > I **refuse myself** more food than I can fit in a small plate But can you use it like this? > While the expression is acceptable, I **refuse [myself]** to say it.


When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word?

Some words are written without hyphens ( _nonaggression_ , _nonbeliever_ ), and some words are written with a hyphen ( _well-intentioned_ ). Is there a schema in the use of a hyphen?


Are hyphens needed in a noun-phrase that precedes 'manner'?

I sometimes use "manner" to use noun-phrases as adverbs, like "in the manner of a vigilant watchdog". If I reverse the order, does the noun phrase then have to be hypenated? Like so: "in a vigilant-watchdog manner"


"Company-assigned" or "company assigned"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it appropriate to use a hyphen? In phrases describing something that has been assigned to someone, should the phrase be hyphenated or not?               He uses a company-assigned phone number.      or               He uses a company assigned phone number.      What is the rule for similar phrases?


Should "two-week" be hyphenated in "a two-week all-expense-paid trip"?

Which is correct — "a two-week all-expense-paid trip" or "a two week all- expense-paid trip"?


husband-and-wife team or husband and wife team?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word? Referring to a sentence from an online magazine: "Lonely Planet was started in 1975, when the British hippie **_husband-and- wife_** team Maureen and Tony Wheeler self-published a guide to cheap travel in Southeast Asia." I have noticed that in other resources also: that **_"husband-and-wife_** " team is used instead of **"husband and wife** " team. What is the right usage?


Hyphenating “steady state”

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it appropriate to use a hyphen? I am unsure if and when to hyphenate **steady state** (in a mathematical context), i.e.: > We now calculate the steady-state concentration from the given formula. I looked at this generic hyphenation question, but the links given there did not give a clear rule for this case. To me, it seems most natural to write: > This is the steady state described by the formula. But, at the same time: > This is the steady-state concentration described by the formula. That is, hyphenate if it describes another noun but not if it stands on its own. Does that make sense? Searching for books on Amazon brings up titles with both **steady state** and **steady-state** which seem to at least partially conform to this rule. Or would it be better to just chose either hyphenation or no hyphenation and then stick to that consistently?