What is the connotation or meaning of "exclusive thinking"?

How should I interpret the expression "exclusive thinking"? The expression "exclusive thinking" is one I've seen in criticism against some views or opinions that are called "exclusive thinking". Is "exclusive thinking" like a "cognitive bias" or a bias, does it depend or context, has a certain connotation depending on the speaker as it seems it is refered to both as negative and positive depending on context. This expression has also been translated literally to my native locale (.se "exklusivt tänkande") where it is basically solely used to criticise views and opinons that are referred to as "exclusive thinking". Does it mean to take something out and focus only on that thing and everything else is irrelevant? If so, then isn't it the same as a "selection bias"? ## Update The closest wording I can remember (inexact) that preserves the larger meaning of what was said is close to > Religious fundamentalism is exclusive thinking and exclusive thinking should > be avoided.


Word/phrase meaning: during debate, telling opposing party to read 1000s of pages

I'm currently engaged in a debate where the opposing party has said: "I'm right because I've written 1000 blog posts on this issue. Go read them before replying" Is there a name for this technique/fallacy? I realize it's an "argument from authority", but I'm looking for something more specific. The general idea is that, instead of arguing the subject directly, you claim the opposing party has insufficient knowledge, and tell them they should read a timeconsuming corpus before responding. Note: this isn't the same thing as saying "we've already answered this argument in these 3 posts" or "read the FAQ", since, in both cases, you're directing the opposing party to short, specific documents. The technique/fallacy I'm looking for is the one that intends to overwhelm the opposing party with the quantity of documents, with the implication the opposing party is unqualified to continue arguing until he/she has read the large quantity of documents.


"These include" or "This includes"

I am writing a user manual and am stuck upon _these include_ and _this includes_. Do I use _This includes_ when there is only one thing involved? For example, "This includes normal users" and "This includes the front door". And do I use _These include_ when there are two or more things? For example: "These include the lights and doors", "These include administrators and normal users".


Word-Grammar choice improvement

I have an example: > I have two bikes. Both of them are expensive models. The first one has a red > color and the second one has a green color. One of them is damaged because > of its old age. And one of them (not the damaged one) also is not in very > good condition. I am afraid. The main problem is I am using "one" too many times. That sounds a little bit "crazy" IMO. Does anyone have any other structure which also can express the similar meaning above?


Correct pronunciation of historic

Here in the UK I have observed an odd change in perhaps the last five years and I’m curious to learn whether we have drifted away from or arrived at the correct pronunciation. It seems that the “H” in historic has now become silent, e.g. this was an ‘istoric victory. When I was at school I used to study “history” not “istory” so why the change? Surely the “H” should be silent in both instances or neither?


What voice should I use when explaining how to program a computer?

I'm planning on writing a blog about computer programming, and I'm having trouble finding the right voice. I'm looking for something that feels personal and conversational. Third person seems sterile, first person singular comes across egotistical, second person comes across as bossy. I've been using second person plural, which has an inclusive feel to it, but that takes away from the conversational feel of the non-technical parts of the piece. Here's a quick example:               Let's say that we have a pipe delimited text file called 'addresses.txt' where     the first line of the file is a header with column labels:           First Name | Last Name | Street Address         | City        | State | Zip   |      Homer      | Simpson   | 742 Evergreen Terrace  | Springfield | OR    | 97477 |      Marge      | Simpson   | 1094 Evergreen Terrace | Springfield | MO    | 65802 |      Bart       | Simpson   | 1092 Evergreen Terrace | Springfield | IL    | 62704 |      Lisa       | Simpson   | 59 Evergreen Terrace   | Springfield | ME    | 04487 |      Maggie     | Simpson   | 94 Evergreen Terrace   | Springfield | WI    | 53176 |          We can use a for loop to pull and print each field of the header          for i in {1..6};     do          header="$( head -1 addresses.txt |  cut -d '|' -f $i )"         printf "%d: %s\n" $i "$header"     done      This works when I'm describing how I want the reader to write a piece of code, but it doesn't work when I'm describing the programming language as a whole:               The Bourne shell is a full fledged programming language, complete with     branching and looping constructs.  These constructs can be used on the     command line, affording us a great deal of expressive power without a     lot of typing.      This comes across as dry, and the token 'affording us' is weak. Furthermore, writing the whole blog in the first person plural seems artificial. How should I approach this?


The same than / that

On math.SE, I wrote: > In particular, g(x) is rational iff f(x) is rational, i.e. g has the same > property than f. My sentence had been corrected to: > In particular, g(x) is rational iff f(x) is rational, i.e. g has the same > property that f. Can anyone explain to me why the first sentence is not correct, whereas the second one is?


If conditional "didn't" vs "hadn't"

Grammar rules say that _hadn't_ is used for unreal past conditions, but why can't we use simple past negation instead of past perfect? > If I hadn't come to the meeting, it wouldn't have happened. > > If I didn't come to the meeting, it wouldn't happen. Does the second sentence also imply that "I did come, that's why it happened"?


What is "a canary in a coal mine"?

I've found that expression on a website, and I don't understand it. At first I thought it was because the canary is yellow and the coal black... but it doesn't make much sense.


The usage of "the" in a general statement

"Gas prices are going up." Which of the following is also a general statement about gas prices: >   * The price of gasoline is going up. >   * The gas price is going up. > And could you tell me why? I have this question because although I know, for example, both "Tigers are big" and "The tiger is big" are generic constructions, but I am not sure how to use "the" when it is a noun phrase instead of a single noun.


Word for software less harmful than malware

Is there a word for software less harmful than _malware_? In particular,   1. The software provides functionality you need, and actually it is you who download and install it.   2. However, it steals your data and uploads it for its own use.


'Statistically significant associated to' — [Adv + Adj] as Adv?

Is 'XXX is _statistically significant_ associated to YYY.' grammatically correct ? One of my friends says this is seen in many papers with statistics. Shouldn't it be '... _statistically significantly_ associated to ...' which has one Adv (statistically) describing another (significantly) ? Or this [Adv + Adj] can function as Adv as well ? (I don't think so) Or I misunderstood that it must be an adverb there ? * * * [EDIT]   Testing and Contrasting Road Safety Education … > In model 4 we observe that variables RSET and DT are positive. This implies > that a male driver who either had not graduated from a professional driving > school or had not been issued a traffic ticket is less likely to engage in > DD, than a male driver who had graduated from a professional driving school > and had been issued a traffic ticket. However, between these two variables > only DT **is statistically significant associated to** the odds ratio of DD. > This association remains significant even with the introduction of two > control variables which are also statistically significant. Specifically, > both a decrease of YFE and an increase on YDE are associated to a decrease > of the odds ratio of engaging on DD. [emphasis mine -Kris]


"Functionalities;" According to Firefox, this word doesn't exist

I was composing an email and needed the plural form of the word "functionality." To my surprise I saw the dreaded red underline indicating a spelling mistake. ![spelling mistake](http://i.stack.imgur.com/XCOYp.png) It made me wonder whether this was a false alarm. I searched for the word and found it being used at www.thefreedictionary.com It then struck me that this was the browser's fault, as it comes with a spell checker. (Initially, I thought it was Gmail's fault). Which brings me to my query: Is it wrong to pluralize "functionality?"


How to express a chronological dependency?

How do I express a chronological dependency between two events? Is it alright to say : > "Event A must be chronologically after Event B"? Any suggestions are welcome.


Word for substances which help you escape your problems

Is there a word like dopamine, which can be used to describe a substance that helps you escape/forget your troubles? E.g. > Sleep is my dopamine > > Alcohol is my _unknown word_.


Weird wording in our FAQ

This is completely minor, but it caught my eye in the signature section: > Please don’t use signatures or taglines in your posts, or they will be > removed. Maybe it's me, but the "or" feels redundant in there. It feels like "as", "because", `.` or `;` would be better. _(Asking this here as opposed to meta, because it is about word choice)_


"Male/female" is to "gender" as "man/woman" is to what?

What is the hypernym for _man_ and _woman_? I don't think it is _gender_ because that would've been _male_ and _female_.


Using present perfect continuous without mentioning time period

I am having a problem understanding the meaning of a sentence that uses the present perfect continuous without stating a period of time (how long, since, for, etc). Can the sentence still indicate that the activity is happening from the past until now if time period is not mentioned?   If the time period is mentioned, can the sentence means that the activity was recent or just ended? > I have been looking forward to the holiday. Does this sentence mean that I am still looking forward to the holiday and that it is not currently the holiday? Or does this sentence mean that I have stopped looking forward to the holiday since I am on holiday now? Or can it mean both? > I have been feeling sad. Does this sentence mean that I am still feeling sad now? Or does it mean that I felt sad before and that I no longer feel sad now? Or can it mean both?


"Did it go down your *muffler*?"

I read a narrative where the author was talking about her childhood. She said that one day she and her father, a brother and a sister were inside the car, the kids were eating popcorn and drinking cream soda. Someone said something funny at the very same moment in which she was drinking the cream soda. As a result she aspirated the drinking and choked. The situation got pretty serious, but after a while she recovered. So, her brother asked: "Did it go down your windpipe?" She replied: "I don’t know—I don’t know what happened". Her father answered: "Probably". And her six-year old asked: > Did it go down your muffler? What does the word "muffler" mean in this contest? And, why is it funny? I know it's something funny, because she said that it made everybody start laughing again.


Best etymological calque of the word Schadenfreude

This question is purely theoretical (i.e. I don't foresee actually trying to use the word), but using arguments based on etymology, as well as euphony and (least importantly) comprehensibility, what is the most etymologically faithful English equivalent for the German **_Schadenfreude_**? Other Germanic languages use etymologically translated calques: **_skadefryd_** (Danish & Norwegian), **_schadevreugde_** (Dutch). English has a cognate word for German **_Schaden_** , Dutch **_schade_** , Danish & Norwegian **_skade_** , Swedish **_skada_** (all of which mean _damage/injury_ ) in the form of **_scathe_** (which also means _damage/injury_ ) – all descended from Proto-Germanic *** _skaþô_** ( _damage/injury_ ) – so it is reasonable to propose that the first part of the theoretical English word should be _scath-_ , _scathe-_ or _skaith-_. The difficulty lies with the second part – English does have a word **_frith_** ( _peace/sanctuary_ ) that is a distant cousin of German **_Freude_** , Dutch **_vreugde_** , Danish & Norwegian **_fryd_** (all of which mean _joy_ ); but it is a closer relation to German **_Frieden_** , Dutch **_vrede_** , Danish & Norwegian **_fred_** (all of which mean _peace_ ), these words and **_frith_** all being descended from Proto-Germanic *** _friþuz_** ( _peace_ ). One could opt for - _frith_ : **_scathefrith_** is viable. Or one could take the Swedish option ( _skadeglädje_ ) and replace the last part with a different word for joy ( ** _glädje_** = _gladness_ ) : **_scathgladness_** or **_skaithgladness_** are options. The question(s) are which of these three options ( ** _scathefrith_** , **_scathgladness_** or **_skaithgladness_** ) is the best, and is there a better option? Can someone pull a (perhaps obscure, perhaps archaic or even Old) English word out the bag that is a closer relation to **_Freude/vreugde/fryd_**? Or perhaps a word with a slightly different etymology that is better for other reasons? P.S. Apologies if such questions are not appropriate on English SE, but it is a technical question looking for a technical answer, however theoretical it may be.


When do you use "Cheers" instead of "Thank you" in spoken English?

A lot of time, people say "cheers" instead of "thank you". As I am not a native speaker, I wonder in which case you can use what. It is used a lot for polite gestures, such as holding a door or giving someone a light. It is also more used if you know the person you are talking to. Are there any rules?


A word to express "removing some parts of history from history books by authorities"

In some countries some parts of history books of students have been removed by authorities of the time. For example, it has happened for _Achaemenid Empire_ (a part of ancient Iran history) 2 years ago in history books of Iranian students. It is a kind of ideological censorship but I am finding for a better term or word to describe it. Iranian authorities justified it as an attempt to focus on the Islamic part of Iran history and avoid of reading something complicated which may not be according to Islamic culture of Iran nowadays. However, Iranians think there is nothing offensive and criminal in those ages but it has been removed because talks about a different religion, handwriting, and culture that Iranians had and caused golden ages for Iran history without Islamization. It is ironically strange because the other authorities remove dark histories like criminal attacks and genocides but Iranian authorities removed the most glorious part of Iran history! I think we have to find or create a new word to describe it if there is nothing similar! _Censoring_ is too broad and general. The word or phrase should not be one that is used for censoring sexual or offensive materials from art or literature, or removing something which seems vulgar or offensive. _Historical revisionism_ might be the correct kind of word, but it refers to Communism ideas about revision about the history, religion, and political ideas, so it may be a correct word for North Korea but not about Iranian kind of it.


Opposite words with the same meaning

_Is there a term for the phenomenon when you can replace one word in a sentence with a typically opposing meaning word and maintain the meaning of the sentence?_ Examples: > I'm **down** for that!   >  I'm **up** for that! or > **Slim** chance.   >  **Fat** chance. Admittedly, "fat chance" probably originated as a sarcastic derivation of "slim chance", but in practice, they convey the same thing. This is slightly related to this question, but that one's asking about a specific case (which may or may not fall into the phenomenon I'm asking about). I'm just looking to see if there is an established term I can use to search for more examples.


"Younger" or "youngest"

I came across an odd-looking usage in the paper today... > The wife of President Assad listens to her husband yesterday with her two > _younger_ children The sentence suggests that she has some other children somewhere, as otherwise it would just have referred to "her children". But if there are three or more children, ought not the two on show be the _youngest_? But the _youngest_ should only be one child; more than one can't be the _youngest_? Or are they _younger_ because they are a group, and there may only be one other? Can anyone help me out with this?


Why is the surname Gray more common than the surname Grey in the UK?

An EL&U question from 2010 asks Which is the correct spelling: "grey" or "gray"? The answers very sensibly point out the split between the UK and former British commonwealth nations preference for _grey_ and the U.S. preference for gray. But if you look up the phone listings for the surnames _Gray_ and _Grey_ in an arbitrarily selected UK city (I chose Sheffield, Yorkshire), you get many more for _Gray_ than for _Grey_. For example, for Sheffield, I got 52 matches for _Gray_ versus 6 for _Grey_ at the BT The Phone Book site, as of September 1, 2014. A quick trip to Samuel Johnson’s 1756 _Dictionary of the English Language_ reveals this entry for _gray_ : > GRAY, a. [ʒɲæʒ, Saxon; _grau_ , Danish] 1. White with a mixture of black. > _Newton_. 2. White or hoary with old age. _Walton_. 3. Dark like the opening > or close of day. _Camden_. And this entry for _grey_ : > GREY, a. [ _gris_ , French] See GRAY. Does it follow that most _Gray_ surnames were adopted on the model of the Danish _grau_ and/or during the period of dominance (assuming that there was one) of _gray_ in British English, while the surname _Grey_ reflects a preference for the French antecedent _gris_ and/or a later adoption of or switching to the current UK preference for _grey_? If not, what is the explanation? And when (if ever) did British English abandon Samuel Johnson’s evident preference for _gray_ as the standard spelling of the non-surname word?


Is the sentence “As though Bill Donohue didn’t have enough to be cranky about” self-complete?

I’m a regular reader of New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd’s column, which provides me with lot of input of contemporary English expressions that I cannot learn from ordinary English text books and readings. Today’s (February 14) New York Times carries her article titled “That Old Black Magic” starting with the following statement: > As though Bill Donohue didn’t have enough to be cranky about. > > The perpetually apoplectic Catholic League president is on the rampage about > President Obama trying to make sure women working at Catholic institutions > get insurance coverage for birth control. > > What’s wrong with the rhythm method anyway? That’s how I got here. I wonder if the first line and the second copy block is a single sentence connected with the conjunction, “As though.” Why did she put a period after “be cranky about” and separated it from the following line, “The perpetually apoplectic Catholic League president is on the rampage ...” with a space. Are they separate sentences? If so, what is the function of “As though”? Is this Dowd’s special writing style?


Can someone please explain the need of quotes in the following text?

I saw this as a slogan in an episode of _Drop the Dead Donkey_ and just wanted to know why were quotes needed on the word **synergise** : > Let nowness "synergise" with excellence. I think it makes sense to take the quote off.


Does the electricity "go or cut" "off or out"?

Which of the following choices are correct? > While I was reading a book last night, suddenly the electricity `______`. > >   1. cut off >   2. cut out >   3. went off >   4. went out > What are the differences between them, if any?


Any other words that use “dis-” as an amplifying prefix?

I remember hearing once about the etymology of _disgruntled_ , probably based around a joke about how people can not be _gruntled_. The explanation given was that there was never a word _gruntled_ , rather the _dis‑_ in _disgruntled_ is actually a usage of the old prefix where it acts like an amplifier. Firstly, is this true? Secondly, are there any other words that use this prefix in this way?


Is it correct to say "Yesterday night"?

I have heard a lot of people say "Yesterday night" is that considered correct? I have always said _last night_.


"Glen" and "Gael" people

My question is about etymology of the name "Glen". **Question 1:** What is the meaning and root of the name "Glen"? **Question 2:** In which regions of Britain is the name "Glen" more frequent to use? **Question 3:** Is there any relevance between the name "Glen" and "Gael" people? For example can we consider "Glen" as an abbreviation for the "Gaelean" (a person from Gael people)?


sentence structure

I was reading a grammar book where the author said " what happened? " as a complete meaningful sentence. I am not clear how can it be a complete sentence? Can someone explain me the logic behind it? I consider a complete meaningful sentence as a sentence which has both subject and verb. In this sentence which is subject and which is verb. Please help me in getting this understood. Thanks in advance.


"A year ago" versus "a year back"

I recently came across an article printed in our school magazine, which read, "I studied that a year ago". But, doesn't "I studied that a year back" sound better? What's your say?


Is it grammatical to split either/or into different sentences?

I came across the following sentence in Wikipedia: > The bitangent lines can be constructed **either** by constructing the > homothetic centers, as described at that article, and then constructing the > tangent lines through the homothetic center that is tangent to one circle, > by one of the methods described above. The resulting line will then be > tangent to the other circle as well. **Alternatively** , the tangent lines > and tangent points can be constructed more directly, as detailed below. It took me a while to parse it because I was hopelessly looking for the missing **or**. Leaving alone the fact that this passage is clumsy, is it grammatical according to the rules of standard English?


Calamity vs Catastrophe

Catastrophe - An event causing great and usually sudden damage or suffering; a disaster. an environmental catastrophe Calamity - An event causing great and usually sudden damage or suffering; a disaster. emergency measures may be necessary in order to avert a calamity Is the only difference between these two words is where they originated/etymology? **NOTE** calamity (n.) Look up calamity at Dictionary.com early 15c., from Middle French calamite (14c.), from Latin calamitatem (nominative calamitas) "damage, loss, failure; disaster, misfortune, adversity," **origin obscure.** Early etymologists associated it with calamus "straw" (see shawm); but it is perhaps from a lost root preserved in incolumis "uninjured," from PIE *kle-mo-, from base *kel- "to strike, cut" (see hilt).


"Birmingham" or "Manchester" screwdriver?

I occasionally use the phrase "Birmingham screwdriver" to mean "hammer", but this evening I heard a hammer referred to as a "Manchester screwdriver", by someone with no association with either city. It set me to wonder which is most common/popular/historic, and if any other city is associated with this popular and convenient tool?


What is the female equivalent for "handsome"?

In the first days in a relationship, a girl welcomes a guy with _"hey handsome"_. Would be _"hey honey"_ an appropriate response?


Definition for a sentence used in thesis/dissertation cover pages

I was looking at some cover pages and see that most of them use the following sentence; > A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE > OF.... What does it really mean? "partial fulfillment" i am not sure if to use that in my cover page


Why is "sew" pronounced as "so"?

Why is _sew_ (`/səʊ/` or `/sō/`) pronounced similar to _so_ rather than to _few_ or _sue_? Looking at its etymology, > Old English siwian "to stitch," earlier **siowian** , from Proto-Germanic > *siwjanan (cf. Old Norse syja, Swedish sy, Old High German siuwan, Gothic > siujan "to sew"), from PIE root *syu- "to bind, sew" (cf. Sanskrit sivyati > "sews," sutram "thread, string;" Greek hymen "thin skin, membrane," hymnos > "song;" Latin suere "to sew, sew together;" Old Church Slavonic sijo "to > sew," sivu "seam;" Lettish siuviu, siuti "to sew," siuvikis "tailor;" > Russian svec "tailor"). Related: Sewed; sewing. Sewing machine is attested > from 1847. _siowian_ appears to be the only word which could have been pronounced with a `/səʊ/`. But the later spelling of _siwian_ sounds unlikely to have been pronounced so. Also, are there other similarly spelt words which have the same irregularity in pronunciation?


Can "e.g." be used to indicate that the preceding clause is an example?

I was advised not to use "for example" in academic work. If I have the following sentence: "The state of New York, for example, uses Auctions to assign...", is it possible to substitute the "for example" with "e.g.", such that the sentence is "The state of New York, e.g., uses Auctions to assign..."? I'm confused because "e.g." is usually used to indicate that the following clause is an example.


Wrong Comma Use? Weak Sentence?

Could someone tell me what’s wrong with this sentence? > She also goes on dates with herself, and she ends these nights with bubble > baths. Is the comma here wrong? Any other issues? How would you write it?


Replacement for the annoying habit of saying "I was like"

I am new here, so my first question would be to ask about an annoying habit that I, as well as many other people out there, seem to have... During the telling of a story I will often say this one phrase: "I was like" (and I was like, "Don't be dumb, it's not weird to say it at all!"). I would really like to throw something into my brain that would replace this. I hate using this term, it disgusts me...


What does it mean to "talk a dog off a meat truck"?

He is someone who could _talk a dog off a meat truck_. What does this idiom mean?


For X going to be developed, this is enough. Correct grammar?

I am wondering whether this is a correct usage:               For the system going to be developed, the diagram is shown below.      I said that without thought and now I wonder as Google yields no hits on similar sentences. I am concerned with the usage of "going to be" in this context. Or should I say "For the system TO BE.."?


Can the word "majors" used as a verb be followed by "on"?

Which of the following is correct? Are both acceptable?   1. "Acme construction majors on quality remodeling and renovation."    2. "Acme construction majors in quality remodeling and renovation."


Is the usage of "forfeit" correct here?

«The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with **clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property**.» [source] What I think this means: [...] clear and convicting evidence before seizing property. What I read here: [...] clear and convincing evidence before returning already seized property. Can you explain what's going on? Is this sentence in error and, if not, why?


"Doctor's appointment" or "doctors appointment"?

I've looked this up online, but I can't find any explanations from reasonably credible sources, so I'm posting my question here! (Was that a comma splice?) Should I refer to the appointment that I made with my doctor as a "doctor's appointment" or "doctors appointment"? What if I'm referring to more than one appointment with two different doctors?


What does "period" mean at the end of the American phrase?

What does **_period_** mean at the end of a sentence? For example: > The stronger your core the easier your YRG(yoga) is gonna get **_period_** I didn't heard the sentence clearly because of the speaker's American accent.


Education or training

Is the word "education" or "training" correct? For example:   * I attended the HTL, where I got a 4-year education in "Electronic, Technical Informatics".   * I attended the HTL, where I got a 4-year training in "Electronic, Technical Informatics". Thanks in advance. Best regards, John.


The years had or has laid

I can't figure out which of the two words are correct...   * The years had laid the foundation of my achieved knowledge.   * The years has laid the foundation of my achieved knowledge. With the correct sentence I want to explain that the years (of my education) are the root of my knowledge I'm having today. Hope you understand that?! Best regards, John.


Third person equivalent of "yours" and "mine"

What is the third person equivalent of _yours_ or _mine_? For example, > It's not your book; you should take yours. > > It's not my book; I should take mine. > > It's not his book; he should take X.


Do you have to capitalize a question that is after a comma? Example: > I'm not hungry, why do I have to eat? EDIT The sentence are formed by dependent clauses with the next structure: Situation, question about the situation. More examples: > They have a luxury car, are they rich? > > If I don't study, will I pass the exam? > > I'm sure you received my letter, why didn't you answer me? My question is: the words "are", "will" and "why" have to be capitalized?


"Electric bill", "electrical bill" or "electricity bill"

Which is correct: _electric bill_ , _electrical bill_ or _electricity bill_?


What is the origin of "oh noodles!"

Noodles are tasty. I like them, but why are they also used as an exclamation of dismay in the following? > Oh Noodles!


Origin of "poindexter/pointdexter"

Was this term (I believe it is a synonym of _geek_ , _nerd_ , and so on) based on the television series _Dexter_ or was it around before that and the series based its name on it?


"Is it true?" or "Does it true?"

I always get confused about:   * Is it true?    * Does it true? Where and when should I use one or the other? In other words, when should I pose a question using _is_ and when should I pose it using _does_?


Difference between "an" and "one"

Forgive me if I miss something very obvious; English is not my native language. I am currently taking an online (sort of) Math class that aims to teach creating/writing unambiguous Mathematical statements. (Don't worry, I'm in the right SE site and my question isn't about Math). The professor gave an example of ambiguity in human language (English) that according to him may mean the same but actually have two different meanings. He said, "One American dies of melanoma almost every hour." is not the same as "Almost every hour, an American dies of melanoma." Well for me, the two sentences means the same. Is the article "an" is reason for the supposed change in meaning of the sentence? Or is it the placing of the adverbial phrase "almost every hour"?


Is there a word for "one who has never sinned"? I can think of "innocent" of course, which means "free from sin or blame" except that it doesn't include the emphasis on not having sinned ever in the past.


Billion and other large numbers

Traditionally a **billion** in American English means 109 (1,000,000,000, a thousand million) while in British English it means 1012 (a million million) with **milliard** meaning 109. Is this still the case or has the world aligned itself to the American way? I'm not a native English speaker and I don't remember hearing or seeing the word _milliard_ recently. In any case what are the common names of the powers of 10?


Are uncountable nouns considered irregular plurals like man men?

Is "rice", for example only, considered an irregular plural?


Alternative Descriptive Statement - Calling something like it really is; both intentionally/unintentionally funny

I'm curious to know if there is a type of speech or name for what I am about to describe... For example, instead of saying "let's go on a night hike," one would say, "let's go stumble around in the dark." \-- I have no idea if there is a name for this type of speech, or if it is just one's own mannerisms.


"Don't I know you" vs. "do I know you"

My question is about similar (for me) question forms _"don't I know you"_ and _"do I know you"_. Is there any difference between them or can they both be used in the same context without any exceptions? Same question on _"Don't you want"_ and _"Do you want"_.


meaning of 'cinema'

The word 'cinema' is defined as a movie theater, films collectively, or the film-making industry. But I saw it in 'New Line Cinema'. Obviously, it means a film production company here. But why isn't this sense ever recorded in major dictionaries?


A pun or not a pun?

I was talking to someone about puns and she said that it's a play on words, e.g. "those two pears are a pear of green balls" (sorry about the awful example, I couldn't think of any others on the spot). I argued that this is a pun: John Lydon looked out of his bedroom window and said, "Ah, how I love country life". (John Lydon stars in a butter advert which has the phrase "country life" in it). Which is a pun?


What happens to articles in phrases "a bit <adjective> <noun>"?

Consider the phrase "I'm doing this for a bit different reason." The grouping here is "((a bit) different) reason" and not "a ((bit different) reason)", so the noun "reason" lacks an article. Does "a bit different" itself act as a determiner here? Or is the article implicit and simply omitted to avoid repetition?


"Semantic"s relation to "Pedantic"

When pointing out to my friends one day that I should have used a different word in a previous conversation, I mentioned that I was being **pedantic**. They, ironically, corrected me saying I was being **semantic**. When I pointed out that their distinction was being pedantic, they again disagreed, saying that was semantic. Though I looked up both definitions and that they seem to have a lot of overlap, `pedantic` seems to be the adjective to use for people though is far more general. Which one is more correct in these situations, or are they both correct? If they are both correct, which one is more "proper?"


One word for "embrace challenges"

Is there a single word to describe "embrace challenges"? The full context would be, > A man who loves to [embrace challenges].


Single-word replacement for "by definition"?

> Software that is free is that which, by definition, has its full source code > published. I thought about _definitionally_ , but after looking it up, it doesn't seem to be right.


Is there a better word for the place that is "indoors" in the context of a large site or property?

I am looking for a word that would contrast with "grounds" when referring to various parts of a site or property. Essentially, the "inside" part of a building or structure. I don't really like "indoors" because it presupposes doors and feels more like a state of being than a place. I was initially thinking of the word "proper," but according to my dictionary that doesn't make sense. **edit:** I think the comments have indicated I need to be a bit more specific. The word I am looking for is effectively the opposite of the word "grounds". Say, you're taking a tour of Washington D.C. Part of your tour might take you on the White House _grounds_. Another part of the tour might take you inside, and you would be touring the White House **_**. In many cases, you can just say "White House" alone and this will make sense, but I am wondering if there is a word to specifically refer to the _place_ that is NOT the "grounds".


If I want to talk about a person, but not one in specific, should I use: "Subject", "One" or "Persons"?

I'd like to use a noun to mention a person, but not a specific one, like generalising. Should I say it like this? > It allows the subject to speak for themselves. Or like this? > It allows persons to speak for themselves. Or this? > It allow one to speak for themselves. Or is there any other option I have no idea about it?


A depends on B, is A dependant, or is B dependant?

If A is dependant, what does one call B?


What is the antonym of "dependent"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  A depends on B, is A dependant, or is B dependant?   >  “Employee” is to “employer” as “dependent” is to what? A and B are two persons. When A is a _dependent_ of B, what of A is B?


words for numbers

Since words are easier to remember than numbers, you construct a word from each group of numbers and then memorize the word(s) I would like to learn numbers by words, for example:               1=apple     2=red     3=tree     4=for     5=hive     6=mix     7=heaven     8=eternity     9=...      Is there a standard for the first 1000 numbers from 0 to 999 so you can easily remember large numbers by memorizing some words or stories? I found this article at wikihow.com, but it is not universal enough. One comment explained it very well: > The idea is that instead of memorizing a number like 5467 (which is random > to your brain and will most likely be forgotten in time), you come up with a > system of associating that number to a word, and then using a mnemonic > device to remember the word, in effect remembering the number. 9167 = BDJK. > Since vowels don't count, you can plug them in in anyway to make the letters > a word or group of words, like "BaD JoKe". If 9167 is your friend's > apartment number, just picture him telling you a "BaD JoKe" - then you > remember BDJK, which converts to 9167, etc. > > If you string them together, you can make stories out of long numbers. I > memorized Pi up to 1,000 digits this way.


What is a digital trainspotter

What does that mean when someone is described as a "digital trainspotter"? Does that mean he is a digital enthusiast? Thanks for response.


Is "Plannable" an English (UK) word?

Is plannable, (e.g.: this task can be planned, it is plannable) an actual word in UK English? It's one I see used quite often (mostly in business scenarios, both spoken and in emails) but haven't been able to find in on-line dictionaries and is always underlined by spell-checkers. Research suggests that it's in fairly common usage although not in any dictionaries. I found some examples and interesting comments here: proz.com/forum/linguistics/…


"from... to..." versus "to... from..."

> I am travelling to Prague from London for a couple of days.   >  \- Should I exchange my money here in the UK first? Having to re-read this question on the travel SE site, I was reminded of financial reports on Bloomberg and similar, where a release of new data is often constructed as, for example, _"Full-year profits increased to $4 million from $3.5 million."_ This "to... from..." word-order pattern seems mostly to appear in US-sourced copy. When using such information in my own reports I would invariably reverse the order - to me, it seems far more logical/normal/readable/scannable to write the starting point first, then move to the end point. Am I being over-critical? Is there any linguistic rationale for "to... from..." that I am missing?


To write or to write to?

Is it correct to say "I wrote him" or "I wrote to him"? My Mother was a stickler for English grammar and would say "I wrote your Uncle..." rather than "I wrote to your Uncle..."


What does "Compound Tense" mean?

I have problems with learning about "Compound Tenses". Please help me.


The usage of "with whom"

I would like to write a sentence to thank a number of colleagues. I would like to express the idea that it was a pleasure to spend time with them. Which of the two sentences below is better? > I also take this opportunity to thank a number of colleagues with whom I had > the pleasure of spending time these past two years. > > I also take this opportunity to thank a number of colleagues I had the > pleasure of spending time with these past two years. Can you think of an improvement?


A word describing a person who doesn't overcomplicate things?

I'm trying to put together a decent résumé and am looking for a meliorative word to describe someone who concentrates on keeping things simple for both himself and other people (boss, clients etc). This one had me stumped.


How does the expression "Not half bad" hold its meaning?

I'm interested in the phrase 'not half bad', which, like 'cheap at half the price' actually means the opposite of what the user is generally trying to say. The term 'not half!' is commonly used to mean 'definitely', as in 'and the rest!' So, when a person says 'not half bad' it doesn't make sense to me. It's like 'cheap at half the price', which literally means the opposite of what the user is trying to say. What does the expression "Not half bad" mean? What do people use it to say?


"Sneak peek on" vs. "sneak peek at"

I would like to post a screenshot of my upcoming app. What is correct to say, "sneak peek on" or "sneak peek at"? >   * Here is a sneak peek _on_ my app for iPhone. >   * Here is a sneak peek _at_ my app for iPhone. >


What is this construction called?

Example 1: > These sets are potentially infinite, can be subjective, and change all the > time. Example 2: > Stack Exchange is a useful website, a helpful resource, and full of awesome > people. In the first example, the three predicates (" are potentially infinite", "can be subjective" and "change all the time") link back to the subject "These sets". In the second example the three predicates "a useful website", "a helpful resource" and "full of awesome people" all link back to the main verb "is"; the subject and verb don't need to be repeated because they're understood to carry across for the other predicates. Is there a general term for this process, where parts of the sentence (such as but not limited to the subject and verb,) are understood to apply to more than one other part of the sentence?


What is the most appropriate for formal usage "a day/per day/daily"?

I was thinking which of these three possibilities is the most appropriate for a formal letter? E.g. when an employer want to say to his employee: 1) "You need to respond to at least 100 messages **a day**." 2) "You need to respond to at least 100 messages **per day**." 3) "You need to respond to at least 100 messages **daily**." Which is the most appropriate and mostly used in formal letters?


Etymology of the name "Stimpson"

An Irish-Canadian poet told me that my last name, _Stimpson,_ comes from _glimpse._ What is the actual etymology of the proper name and the common noun? Are they related? When did they first appear in the English language?


Valid? "The river is flowing."

What is the meaning of the "the river is flowing?" Is this valid usage? > Websters, #2: River: A large quantity of a flowing substance The river is already a flow by definition. Can the river be "not flowing?"


Is this grammatically ok? I found this in this poem

Is it ok to say "twice ten" to mean 20? I Keat's poem, it says "twice ten thousand caverns"


Word or phrase that means to ascertain whether someone is alive or dead

_Diagnose_ comes close to this meaning, but the result of a diagnosis is not usually a binary classification. I'd like a word or phrase that means to determine whether someone is alive or dead, or analogously, a word or phrase that means to determine whether a device is functioning or broken.


Passive form of "John is painting his room"

When we want to change a statement from active to passive, in the present continuous, we have to change the verb that is continuous from the active verb to the continuous for of _be_ and the past participle of the active verb. E.g. if we start with _is painting_ then we have to change it to _is being painted by_. However I'm not sure how to change the subject and the object. If we start with: > John is painting his room. Is the passive construction: > His room is being painted by John. Something seems wrong when comparing the two sentences, but I'm not sure what. Does _his_ in the passive construction refer to the same person as in the active?


Whoever had the lice, they're dead now

This sentence is from South Park. There was a lice problem in the school and the children demand that their teacher Mrs. Garrison tell them who exactly had the lice. She says that it's not important because > Whoever had the lice, they're dead now. Now, obviously she means that the lice are dead, not the person who had them. But doesn't her sentence mean (strictly speaking) that the person is dead? In similar constructions in Standard English, can _they_ refer to the object of the main clause? I see no syntactical difference between the first sentence and the seemingly wrong > Whatever damaged the keys, they're in my pocket now. (= the keys are in my > pocket) I guess my question is   * How should I parse the first sentence?    * Is the second sentence wrong?   * If so, What would be the difference between the first and the second sentence that makes the first sentence OK, but not the second? Hope the question is on topic. I am having some difficulty properly tagging the question. Please help :)


differences beetween Surpass & Exceed

I'm confused beetween two words when i tried to conplete this sentence :   Sales of the TX 20 digital camera recently .... 10.000 in total   A.Surpassed   B.Exceeded   The key gives A , but i don't know why please help me , thanks


Is "develop" transitive in "technology developed by X"?

In the following phrase, is _developed_ a transitive verb? > Technology developed by the XXX company.


More confusion with relative pronoun ambiguity

What does the relative pronoun refer to in this sentence? > It was probably on the darker/smoother side of things, compared to, say, the > Sony ZX-1, which I prefer. To me, his preference isn’t clear. It can be inferred in context, but on its own, I think it is ambiguous.


Like misdirection, is there any word for misdepiction?

Misdirection is used for distracting attention of an audience. In a similar sense, audio visual artists (TV, movies, etc.) spice up historical epics. They introduce of unproven/undocumented events and figures just for the sake increasing viewership. What would be an appropriate word for it, if not misdepiction?


Word for "a person so bad that people use him for negative publicity of something"

I am looking for terse phrase/word that describes a person who has such a bad reputation that to do negative publicity of any product, the competitor pays this person to speak praise of it.


Name of text describing an action in a play

I'm trying to find the name of an element of playwriting which describes actions performed by actors in a play. For example, > Let me see. > > _Picks up skull_ > > Alas, poor Yorick! The element I'm referring to here is " _Picks up skull_ ". Does this have a name? If so, what is it?


Should the preposition 'by' be used before all the gerunds if there are more than one?

Is this grammatically and syntactically correct? > … by a) studying and b) helping – or should it be: > … a) by studying and b) by helping


Word for seeing someone’s moment of realization?

Mr. A told me two months ago that he did not do something. Mr. A told Mr. B today that he did do it, and I was in the room. I saw in Mr. A’s eyes the moment he realized that he had, in effect, just admitted that he had lied to me. It was a moment of realization lasting only a split second. What do you call the act of seeing a moment of realization in someone's eyes?


Looking for the way to read a sentence containing a conjunction and a plural

How does grammar tell me to parse this sentence: _Visualize the relation between two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects._ Are we being asked to visualize the relation between two-dimensional objects and also visualize the relation between three-dimensional objects (each dimension on its own)? Or, are we being asked to visualize the relation between an object in the two- dimensional group and one in the three-dimensional group? I think what's confusing me is the interaction between the plural _objects_ and _and_. So, my question essentially is how to understand this sentence and similar ones having the same construct. Is there a grammatical rule?


Should I say "I make a living by teaching" or "I make a living teaching"? Which one is correct? Is the preposition 'by' necessary?

I am confused about the correct usage of the phrasal verb, 'make a living'. I don't know whether I should add the preposition 'by' at the end of it.   I looked up several dictionaries, most of which suggest to add a preposition to the phrase. But an English teacher told me that I should not add a 'by', because the meaning will change.


How to pronounce "Pugh"?

Does Bill Pugh's last name rhyme with 'tug', 'few', or something else?


Does one include a comma after the last proposition in a list of multiple preposition-verb pairs

Should I do this: > The developers are less experienced in, or passionate about, UX. Or should I remove the last comma: > The developers are less experienced in, or passionate about UX. This answer seems to imply that the latter form is best but I feel that the former reads better. Is this feeling mistaken?


Where does this accent belong to?

I'm going insane trying to identify this accent that appears in _The Name of the Wind_ by Patrick Rothfuss. It's supposed to be bumpkin accent, but I don't have much more information about location. Could someone give me a hand? > He came up to where we stood, his weathered face grim as he squinted at us. > “Wat are the tae o’ yeh daen oot here?” he said suspiciously. “Oi taut Oi > heard sengen.” > > “At twere meh coosin,” I said, making a nod toward Denna. “Shae dae have a > loovlie voice far scirlin, dain’t shae?” I held out my hand. “Oi’m greet > glad tae meet ye, sar. Y’clep me Kowthe.” > > He looked taken aback when he heard me speak, and a good portion of the grim > suspicion faded from his expression. “Pleased Oi’m certain, Marster Kowthe,” > he said, shaking my hand. “Et’s a rare troit tae meet a fella who speks > propper. Grummers round these ports sound loik tae’ve got a mouth fulla > wool.”


What is the term for those cylindrical metal or plastic protrusions?

What is the term for those cylindrical metal or plastic protrusions that are inserted into mounting holes to mount a thing onto another thing? At first I thought of **tab** , but to me that makes it sound like it's flat, not cylindrical. Is there a proper term, or is it tab after all? So far I've tried > protrusion, projection, lug, tab, knob, and nub but none of these seem to be right. This picture is not exactly what I had in mind, but it is close. Instead of a "rotated T" shape, picture a regular cylinder used to mount or align things to be mounted. I knew about dowels, but I thought that word could only be used when the pieces were separate like in Andrew's first two pictures. Are they still called dowels when they are one with the object being mounted? ![mounting mechanism](http://i.stack.imgur.com/f8eii.jpg)


Phrase for someone taking over business when you skip for humanity

Is there a witty or general saying of indicating the act of taking over a business when a person, business or country skips an opportunity for general benevolence? Examples:   * If I don't sell weapons to country X someone else will.   * If the Dutch give up the international taxation benefit regulation, the Swiss will fill the gap.


"Not so much" at the end of a sentence

I've occasionally seen "not so much" used at the end of a sentence. For example, Jeff Atwood saying > Some community feedback is useful. Others, not so much. Doing a symbolhound search for "not so much.", I came across entries such as >   1. First one good. Second one not so much. >   2. That worked fine on the development systems, but on a production > system, not so much. >   3. iScroll would be what you need. And unlike jQuery mobile, iScroll works > on various devices and on the desktop. jQuery mobile, not so much. >   4. Again, Safari and Firefox show this, Chrome not so much. >   5. The lambda I can see the point of. Sending 'fn' to almost-but-not-quite > 'f', not so much. > I assume that placing it at the end of a sentence is non-standard English. Is it derived from some quotation or meme? Urban Dictionary has some entries for it, but they don't describe how the phrase originated, or even use coherent sentences. (I'm aware of what not so much means when it's used in a more standard manner)


Which is right, "worst nightmare" or "best nightmare"?

When we refer to the most negative dream, we say it as _worst nightmare_. Since that nightmare is negative, does that mean that the meaning of the _worst nightmare_ is the _least negative_ of all nightmares? If so, does the phrase _best nightmare_ mean the _best negative dream_ or simply the worst nightmare? Is it right to use a negative adjective (worst) in its superlative form to describe the level of the negative term? Is my reasoning right?


What’s the role of ‘because’ in this conversation?

I’ve lost track of the logical flow of the following conversation between Lucius Malfoy and Harry. > And still, behind his back, Dobby was pointing, first to the diary, then to > Lucius Malfoy, then punching himself in the head. > > And Harry suddenly understood. He nodded at Dobby, and Dobby backed into a > corner, now twistng his ears in punishment. > > ”Don’t you want to know how Ginny got hold of that diary, Mr. Malfoy?” said > Harry. > > Lucius Malfoy rounded on him. > > ”How should I know how the stupid little girl got hold of it?” he said. > > ” **Because you gave it to her** ,” said Harry. “In Flourish and Blotts. You > picked up her old Transfguration book and slipped the diary inside it, > didn’t you?” (Harry Potter 2 [US Version]: p.336)[Bold font is mine] **N.B.:** Dobby is a kind of servant of Lucius Malfoy, Harry’s enemy. He conveys the fact by gesticulating that Lucius is the culprit who gave Ginny a kind of jinxed diary. He punishes himself for the betrayal of his master. To be honest, I can’t understand why I can’t understand. I was thinking it was because I didn’t understand “Don’t you want to know -”, and asked. But I still can’t get why Harry is saying “Because -”. It seems that they have a talk in a secret code. How does the conversation progress? What reason is Harry conveying by saying _because_? I’d be glad if you could guide me through the conversation.


Changes in English names of people

Why is _Robert_ called _Bob_ and _John_ called _Jack_ sometimes? What is the history of or reason for this practice in changing the English names of people?


What is the rule for shortening people's names? (E.g. Michael → Mike)

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Changes in English names of people How do we shorten names in general? For example, Almond → Al, Michael → Mike. I remember seeing a Wikipedia page on which frequently used name abbreviations were listed. I also remember that that page mentioned the technical name for this kind of personal name abbreviation. However it was quite a time ago, and I'm not able to find it now. Can you give me information about this?


Why is a semicolon used here instead of a full stop?

I came across this sentence in the book I'm reading (Enchanter's End Game by David Eddings) and I was wondering why the semicolon is used instead of a full stop. ![Image of printed book](http://i.imgur.com/UwtQc7M.jpg) > Unlike the western Grolims Garion had seen in Cthol Murgos, they rarely wore > the polished steel mask, but rather assumed a set, grim expression, thin- > lipped and narrow-eyed; as they went about the streets in their hooded black > robes, everyone, Mallorean and Nadrak alike, gave way to them.


To climb (in) the rankings?

When competing in a contest, is your goal: > To climb the rankings or > To climb _in_ the rankings ?


What's the Correct Pronunciation of g and t here?

Do English speakers pronounce the character (g) in (verb+ing) like "working"? and What is the correct pronunciation of the letter (t) at the end of words like (doubt)?


What does “10-4 ” mean?

I could have asked this question personally to my respected colleague who gave me a valuable answer to the question, “Is the ‘tame the infinite becoming an idiom or a popular phrase,” which I posted yesterday, but I thought this deserves an independent question. He, the answerer gave me the comment saying, “(It’s) _10-4. Copy._ That's a good example of how the phrase could be applied, and would be well- understood," to the question, “Can I say ‘the Palestinian territorial issues is an effort in trying to tame the infinite’, “which I added to the yesterday’s question. I saw the word “ _10-4 copy_ ” for the first time. So I searched for its meaning on Google, and found a certain clue from the following text in www.answerbag: “A lot of the 10 codes are different from city to city and state to state. For example a 10-50 in Indiana is a traffic accident, but in Texas it's a murder. I personally mix and match; _sometimes I say "10-4", other times I say "clear_ ". It seems “10-4” refers to a call sign for something. But what does it represent for? Why "10-4" is combined with "clear"? Can I say “10-4 answer /message/ report/ plan” in describing clear answer /message/ report/ plan”?


Usage of "method"

Which of these sentences is better? >   * The **method to** measure the intelligence of a man is to... >   * The **method for** estimating the intelligence of a man is to... > Is it _method to_ or _method for_?


..can stop the equipment work/working/from working?

I've just returned from an English exam and there was a sentence that made me wonder (I'm not exactly sure about the wording). The sentence ran like this : > Overheating can stop the equipment FUNCTION/TO FUNCTION/FROM > FUNCTIONING/FUNCTIONING Which is the correct one and why? Thank you.


Is it correct to say "Do not duplicate the information, add only new one"?

Information is an uncountable noun. Therefore, is it correct to refer to it with a number one as in: do not duplicate the information, add only new one?


Use of "to" or "for in a sentence

Use of **_to_** or **_for_** : Should I name a folder "Guides **_to_** The Correct Use of English", or should I name the folder "Guides **_for_** The Correct Use of English" ?


Is “drop the pomp for the profound” a cliché or the Time writer’s own wording?

In connection with my question on the Royal Wedding I posted today, I’m interested in the phrase, “ _drop the pomp for the profound_ ” in the following line appearing in the Time article (April 29) titled “Traveling Man: Brian Williams Explains Why He Ditched the Royal Wedding” > “NBC anchor Brian Williams chose to abandon his plan to cover Will and > Kate's wedding — just hours after touching down in London — and return to > the U.S. to cover the devastation caused by tornadoes, floods and storms. > ---Which we can't help but admire. Let's face it, the Royal Wedding is going > to be covered no matter what, but it's nice to know that one of our favorite > journalists is still willing to “ _drop the pomp for the profound_.” I was hooked to the phrase, “drop the pomp for the profound.” because it sounds classic and cool to my ears (YMMV). Is this an established phrase, or just the author’s invention?


What is the upper bound on "several"?

In this answer on Stack Overflow, the term "several" is used as an indeterminate number, the actual value of which is literally in the quintillions: > Zero is one of several values that can be represented exactly. To my ear, this is an exceedingly strange use of "several", which led me to believe that the writer was confused. I realize that trying to truly pin down "several" is probably a hopeless task, but I'm curious if anyone else would use it for such an immensely vast quantity, and if there's regional variation in the usage. So: How many is "several"? Would anyone else use "several" for "quintillions"? This question addresses similar issues, but doesn't seem to have the answer I'm interested in (much of the discussion mentions lower bounds for "several", but not upper bounds).


Is there a term for a date or date/time combination that doesn't exist?

Three (possibly distinct) examples:   1. A date which never exists/existed, like February 31   2. A date which was 'skipped' because of calendar changes. When Russia transitioned from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar it 'skipped' October 26, 1917, among other days.   3. A date/time which was 'skipped' due to a daylight savings change, like 02:01 on 03/27/2011 in the USA These all appear to be properly formatted, but don't exist, at least in some parts of the planet that recognize the standard US date/time lexicon. This question discusses the phrase to show to application users when they choose an `invalid date`, but `invalid date` would include `01/blah/-2` and other entries that don't conform to an accepted date format. I've been using the term `irrational date`, but I'm not a mathematician and don't know if it is appropriate to compare these situations to irrational numbers.


Does "or" mean both conditions?

We are ordinary Russian folks playing an English board game and came across this sentence: > You may splay your green or blue cards left. We expected that it meant you must choose _only one_ card stack, but later found another card with the appended sentence: > Draw a card for every color you have splayed left. which contradicts the first sentence if "forcing" was intended because it has the words "for every" (not one). Does "or" mean choosing only one clause in English or does it allow to choose both?


What is the difference between “Prince William and Kate Middleton Marry” and “Prince William and Kate Middleton were married”?

In today’s New York Times (April. 30th) I saw the following line under the caption of “Royal Wedding”: “Prince William and Kate Middleton Marry: Prince William and Kate Middleton were married on Friday at a moment that will reshape Britain’s monarchy.” In the caption, “marry” is being used as intransitive verb, while the same word is used as the transitive verb right after that. Though I think it is saying the same thing, I wonder why it should be expressed in different way. Is it because the latter means their marriage was publicly authorized by the Anglican Archbishop? Can somebody clarify the reason for me?


Goodbye - is it very formal?

I'm writing about cultural differences - not for scientific purposes - and am trying to find out about more and less formal ways of saying goodbye in English.   * On a scale of formality (from least to most formal), where would you put "goodbye", "bye-bye", "bye", "take care" and "cheers"?   * What would you use in a formal context (e.g. business meeting with 'important' people in the company/decision-makers, etc.)? I'm mostly interested in answers relating to American and British English, but any other varieties are welcome as well.


The word for "professional system" or "task system"

I work with software engineering and in norwegian (I'm from Norway) we have a word, "fagsystem", which refers to a software system/application that is specialized to handle a certain kind of business or professional context. Examples are my best bet to clarify, I guess:   * A banking back-end system that keeps track of a customers transactions and bank engagement   * An insurance back-end system that keeps track of a customers insurance premiums   * An airline booking system   * ...< I've tried using translate.google.com but the translations seem a bit funny: "professional system", "task system", "specialized system". I would be very thankful for any suggestions on how to express this in English.


When did British and American crochet terms diverge?

In crochet basic stitches are called different things. For example a single crochet in America is called a double crochet in the UK, a double crochet in America is called a treble crochet in the UK, etc. I think (and this is a guess) that they are both consistent, with the American versions named after the height of the stitch and the UK version named after the number of loops on the crochet hook. When did they diverge? Crochet feels like an old craft that must have been commonplace around the time that Europeans settled America. Describing crochet stitches must have been similarly commonplace so what would cause these two usages to develop - is there a history of crochet terms that would chart this out?


Why are pullovers and sweaters also called jumpers?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What’s the difference between a jumper, a pullover, and a sweater?   >  Different Meanings of ‘Jumper’ (Transatlantic embarassment) While the connection between the words sweater and pullover and the clothes item they refer to is very clear, with the word jumper however, the relationship is rather vague: are people likely to jump when wearing jumpers?


What's the difference between a jumper, a pullover, and a sweater?

Following on from a recent question, in Australia we have the word **_jumper_** for a knitted long-sleeved garment, typically woollen and long- sleeved. When cosuming foreign media I always assumed the terms **_pullover_** and **_sweater_** were the names of the same garment in either Britain or America but was never clear. How much semantic overlap is there? Are any two or more terms used in the same region and if so how are they used differently? Or are is it purely down to regionalism? I'm also interested in other words that I may have overlooked which are synonyms of any of these three in some areas or some varieties of English. In fact some posters have mentioned **_jersey_** , which I have heard many times but I'm not sure if it refers to the same garment or something a bit different.


Use of “What kind”, and “What kind” vs “Which kind”

If we want to know the exact kind of a group of brids, should we say: > A: "What is the kind of these birds?" or > B: "What kind of birds are these birds"? If the questions above are phrased correctly, then there is a new question raised. Suppose there are three kinds of birds: A, B, and C, and the kind C is facing extinction. If we want to know the name of the kind that is facing extinction, how should we ask: > A: What kind of birds _is_ facing extinction? or > B: What kind of birds _are_ facing extinction? or > C: _Which_ kind of birds is facing extinction? Which one is correct?


Meaning of "Object" in James Madison's 1783 Letter

What is the meaning of **object** in the last paragraph ? Please divulge the steps and thought processes behind your deduction. I'm vacillating between these two, the first of which I'm well acquainted with:   1. a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed:   2. a goal or purpose > Princeton, October 16, 1783. > > Dear Sir : > > Your favor of the sixth of July, by some singular ill luck, never found its > way to my hands till yesterday evening. > > The only part that now needs attention, is a request that I would answer the > following question : " What appeared to be my ideas and disposition > respecting the removal of Congress : did I appear to wish to hasten it, or > did I not rather show a strong disposition to procrastinate it?" If this > request had been received at the time it ought, it might have been answered > as fully as you then wished. Even after the delay which has taken place, my > recollection enables me, with certainty, to witness, that the uniform strain > of your sentiments, as they appeared, both from particular conversations > with myself, and incidental ones with others in my presence, was opposed to > the removal of Congress, except in the last necessity; that when you finally > yielded to the measure, it appeared to be more in compliance with the > peremptory expostulations of others than with any dis- position of your own > mind ; and that after the arrival of Con- gress at Princeton, your > conversation showed that you reviewed the removal, rather with regret than > with pleasure. > > Perhaps this obedience to your wishes may be too late to answer the original > **object** of them. But I could not omit such an opportunity of testifying > the esteem and regard with which I am > > Your obedient servant, > > J. Madison, Jb.   >  To the Hon. Alexander Hamilton, Esq.


What's a common way to refer to the algae that is attached to the bottom of a stream/river?

I'm referring to this: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/0cmi3.jpg) What's a common name to refer to it? Or is algae common enough? (I know _seaweed_ isn't very proper since it's not in the sea).


"than such as" + Predicate

> To Alexander Hamilton > > Mount Vernon Novr 10th 1787. > > ... The new Constitution has, as the public prints will have informed you, > been handed to the people of this state by an unanimous vote of the > Assembly; but it is not to be inferred from hence that its opponants are > silenced; on the contrary, there are many, and some powerful ones—Some of > whom, it is said by overshooting the mark, have lessened their weight: be > this as it may, their assiduity stands unrivalled, whilst the friends to the > Constitution content themselves with barely avowing their approbation of it. > Thus stands the matter with us, at present; yet, my opinion is, that the > **Major** voice is favourable. > > Application has been made to me by Mr Secretary Thompson (by order of > Congress) for a copy of the report, of a Committee, which was appointed to > confer with the Baron de Steuben, on his first arrival in this > Country—forwarded to me by Mr President Laurens. This I have accordingly > sent. It throws no other light on the Subject **than such as** are to be > derived from the disinterested conduct of the Baron. No terms are made by > him “nor will he accept of any thing but with general approbation”—I have > however, in my letter enclosing this report to the Secretary, taken > occasion, to express an unequivocal wish, that Congress would reward the > Baron for his Services, sacrafices and merits, to his entire satisfaction...   1. What does **than such as** mean above? Could someone please anatomise and parse this conjunction (I think?) ?   2. Why **"Major"** ? Why did Washington capitalise the adjective "major"?


How and when did American spelling supersede British spelling in the US?

Considering that Webster published his first dictionary in 1806, is there a recognised tipping point (year, decade, etc.) that marked the move from traditional British spelling to Webster's American? Was this shift a gradual but chaotic process or was it a deliberate and possibly collective decision taken by the educational institutions, the media, or the government of the time? In other words, how did the shift come about?


Should nouns borrowed from Japanese be pluralized?

As someone who has watched a lot of subtitled Japanese animation, it seems odd to hear a word such as _ninja_ (used in the plural) in the dialogue and see it transliterated as _ninjas_. It somehow seems better to me to treat _ninja_ just like _antelope_ , _bison_ , _buffalo_ , _caribou_ , _deer_ , _elk_ , _fish_ , _grouse_ , _quail_ , _reindeer_ , _sheep_ , _swine_ , etc., which are both singular and plural.


Is there any guideline on the plural form of loanwords from Japanese?

I just saw a trailer of _47 Ronin_. My first thought was "that doesn't sound right". We have _12 Monkeys_ and _13 Warriors_. Why _47 **Ronin_**? Then I recalled that there is a movie titled _Seven Samurai_. I checked the words **ronin** and **samurai** with Google, and found that the plural form of _ronin_ can be either _ronin_ or _ronins_. But the plural form of _samurai_ is _samurai_. Is there any guideline on the plural form(s) of loanwords in English, especially those from Japanese?


Merge into syntax

Assuming two companies one called A which is the bigger (master), the other call B which is the smaller (child). B is going to join A to be part of A. Which one is the correct phrase here ( B merge into A), or (A merge into B)


"Karma is a bitch"

I recently sent a message to my credit union complaining about the misbehavior of some staff members (treating customers with contempt). I ended my message by writing: > Karma is a b*tch. The credit union flagged my message for "inappropriate or foul language." Given the context and circumstances, are they right? If you were a senior staff member at a credit union, and a customer correspondence landed on your desk critical of junior staff, and using the phrase in question, would you conclude it as "inappropriate or foul language?" Or would you think, this customer has a valid point, as expressed?


Is there a word to describe a piece of land surrounded by river(s)?

I was wondering if there is a word that describes a piece of land that is being surrounded by river(s)? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/wBXAN.jpg) Is "island" appropriate for this? I always thought the word Island means a piece of land surrounded by a large amount of water that you need some kind of naval transportation to get to. In this case, you can possibly just swim over or build a simple bridge and you can get to the center piece of land.


What's the correct term for potato chips?

In school I learned to say crisps but I don't want to mix it with french fries. So what's the correct term to use, and what synonyms are there?


What does "the Gettysburg Address would have stinkethed" mean?

I came across the word _stinketh_ in the following sentence of the article titled, An American King: Noah Webster’s Holy Bible in New Yorker September 29 issue. > Abraham Lincoln, born in 1809, sucked the King James, and good thing. “Four > score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new > nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men > are created equal.” If Lincoln had been weaned on Webster, the Gettysburg > Address would have _stinkethéd._ I checked dictionaries at hand and Google search for the definition of the word in vain. What does _stinketh_ mean? Does it have something to do with _stink_? Is this a popular word? Or did the writer, Jill Lepore, deliberately use a flourish word to keep the tone of her writing in tune with the theme of Noah Webster’s scorning the King James Bible?


Using "TM" for trademarked term - every time or just once?

I am writing an email announcement to my company's customer base, and I will be using a trademarked product name several times throughout the email. It seems awkward to use the TM every time I write the product name - is it acceptable to just do this the first time? Example: > "Hello everyone! I am happy to announce some new features for JetboxTM. Now > you can do X, Y and Z. Jetbox will also do your laundry, compliment your > appearance, and get you free concert tickets. Try Jetbox today!" vs. > "Hello everyone! I am happy to announce some new features for JetboxTM. Now > you can do X, Y and Z. JetboxTM will also do your laundry, compliment your > appearance, and get you free concert tickets. Try JetboxTM today!"


Did "Pokédex" recently become a slang term for iPhone?

Suddenly everyone is calling their iPhone a "pokédex". And not just comments in reddit. Actual industry people. How did I miss this?


Why can we not use the pattern "If S will V, S will V"?

In English grammar, the following pattern is regarded as a wrong pattern. > My parents will send me to a mental hospital if I will kill someone.


What is "depth grammar"?

I remember learning about it (ha) in linguistics class at uni, but then I went to the pub. I remember the idea was interesting. It had something to do with the undiscovered rules of language that we must know intuitively and/or subconsciously in order to learn language in the first place.


Does underneath imply a greater level of depth than beneath or below?

I was trying to find the origin for the word "beneath" to see when it should be used instead of "below" and I found that it originated from be - neothan and was directed to see the definition of "nether": > –adjective > >   1. lying or believed to lie beneath the earth's surface; infernal: the > nether regions. >   2. lower or under: his nether lip. > I concluded that to be beneath, is to be below. With this in mind, does that mean that the word underneath implies a greater level of depth than either beneath or below as it would literally mean "under low" instead of simply "being low"?


Comma in conditional sentence and in antithesis

I've got a couple questions:   * Should I always put comma between condition and consequence parts, like in the following sentence: > If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.   * Should I always put comma in the sentences similar to the following (I may be wrong, but I think it's called antithesis): > It rains, but children continue to play football.


Rule on absence of the article "the" with plural nouns

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Definite article with plural nouns I recently reviewed (as I believe, rather thoroughly) the rules of using articles in English and I do not recall any rule on absence of definitive article THE with plural nouns. Can you give me a reference on such a rule?


Alternative to the phrase "took place"?

My sentence looks something like this: > Immediately after the task was complete an interview **took place**. I'm trying to think of a good alternative to _took place_. So far all I can think of is _happened_ and _occurred_ , but they don't fit very well.


confusion in two sentences of present simple

As we know that there is a sentence "Allah says" this sentence is correct, but when we say "God bless you" why not " God blesses you"


Is there a term for the phenomenon where the same word forms more than one part of speech?

Is there a term for e.g. the lexical symbol "duck"? It is both a verb and a noun, in contemporary use having no apparent connection, and so would appear to be represent two words. Then, is the a better term than 'lexical symbol' to describe any grouping of letters having some meaning? I just made up lexical symbol because it seemed convenient.


With what prepositions can I use the word "pain"?

How should I write in correct way these sentences? He... groans of pain **or** Groans in pain **or** Groans from pain? I wanted to also look for words that can be replaced or formulated in another way. For example "He groans of discomfort", "He hisses of pain". I would like to find more ideas. Is the word "groans" can be replaced by "moans" and can means the same?


What does “shooting trout in a demitasse cup” mean?

I came across the phrase, “shooting trout in a demitasse cup” in the New York Times’ columnist, Maureen Dawd’s article titled _Coffee Cups in Hell_. Incidentally, I as a non-native English speaker often feel her writing style studded with novel and cool phrases difficult to comprehend. Though I guess this phrase means ‘100% certain' (Please correct me if I wrong), is this an established expression? I wonder if she deliberately used this phrase in association with Mormons’ shunning caffeine. The phrase is used in the following context: > They (Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Robert Lopez) pushed the limits at Comedy > Central when they put the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. But as Terry > Teachout wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “Making fun of Mormons in front > of a Broadway crowd is like “shooting trout in a demitasse cup.” ... If the > title of this show were ‘The Quran,’ it wouldn’t have opened.


Which one is correct in this sentence, "a herd of moose" or only "moose"?

I wonder if both "a herd of moose" and "moose" are correct in the following sentence: > On our road trip this summer, there were three occasions on which [a herd > of] moose crossed the road.


What do "agent" and "agency" mean respectively in "moral agent" and “moral agency”？

“Agent”, OED says, could mean “an active and efficient cause, capable of producing a certain effect”; “agency” could mean “a thing or person that acts to produce a particular result”. It seems they are synonyms. Then I come across two related phrases: moral agent, moral agency. “Agent” in “moral agent”, though means simply a subject, an “actor”, can be understood in a sense as a cause of an act. Since “moral agency” is used to mean the inner dynamics of the moral agent, “agency” is to be understood as “cause” too: what makes the agent act morally? To treat them both as meaning “cause” cannot justify them representing two things different in order. Therefore I doubt that maybe “agent” refers to the causes which are of natural kind, such as human or corporation, while “agency” can mean the inner cause that explains how the causes work as a cause. Sorry, this may be a very immature thought, please feel free to correct me!


Complex compound adjective (adverbial phrase + participle)

A relative of mine and I have hit a brick wall in trying to agree on the grammaticality and stylistic suitability of one his sentences: > However, it proved incapable of jeopardizing **the under-socialism-fortified > proletariat and nation**. I cautioned him that very complex compound adjectives are an ungainly 20th- century construct and tried to recast the dubitable phrase as: > ... the proletariat and the nation, which were fortified under socialism. He wouldn't hear of it, because his savvy readers would allegedly find a whiz- clause there too explicative. They're all too well aware of the attribute, yet he insists on including it because of the rest of his readers (:sigh: :rolleyes:). So, I tried with this: > ... the proletariat and the nation, both fortified under socialism. Although whiz-deletion1 doesn't call for a comma, I figured ", both" was necessary to secure the application of the attribute to both nouns, _proletariat_ and _nation_. All I got was a scoff in return. It still sounded too lecturing. Then we considered this: > ... the proletariat and nation fortified under socialism. He firmly holds that because the second definite article is omitted from the coordinated nouns, they're more congealed, so the attribute applies to both the _proletariat_ and the _nation_. Well, I'm not so sure. Your thoughts on that? Worst of all, after all the hubbub, he said he'd just go with his hyphenated version. But, disregarding the question of style, I'm only 99% sure2 that `adverbial phrase + participle` is a grammatically valid construction at all (though the (never hyphenated) `adverb + participle` and the (always hyphenated) `noun + participle` I'm 100% sure are valid). I̲s̲ i̲t̲? (And, if it is, are all the hyphens needed? I know they _are_ in established expressions such as _dyed-in-the-wool_ and in constructions such as _The state set a 55-mile-an-hour limit_.) |   |   | 1 John Lawler on whiz-deletion: > Interestingly, there is a codicil to Whiz-Deletion that applies when there > is **only one adjective** left after deletion. The adjective has to be moved > in front of the noun; it can't appear after it the way phrases can; > **conversely, phrases** can't appear in front of the noun, but must follow > it. > > Bill is a man who is happy to see you.   >  Bill is a man happy to see you.   >  *Bill is a happy to see you man. 2 I've consulted _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_ , _The Oxford Guide To English Usage_ , _Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ , and _Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style_ , and found either nothing or an insufficient coverage.


What is the noun for "marks you make on your book"?

I want a noun for "notes you take and marks you make on your book while reading"? Should it be "markups" ? or something better? Thanks in advance.


Similar idioms to "When the cat's away, the mice will play"

I wonder if there is any similar idioms to "When the cat's away, the mice will play." I searched on a few websites (the free dictionary, dictionary.com, and cambridge.) but there was no suggestions idioms.


What is the difference between "router" and "route"?

I need to understand the difference and the application of both words (route/routes and router/routers). I plan to apply one of words to define the route of a URL for a website. For instance: > URL **/route/example** will be routed to a specific callback. The problem is that I need to understand the definition of these words to decide which one I will use for this purpose.


Origin of "Well, well, well. What do we have here?"

Google will not tell me where this phrase originates. Does Stack Exchange have the answer?


Do I need a comma after landscaper?

During my college years, I worked as a landscaper becoming increasingly drawn to the wild plants and their uses in folk medicine.


What is the origin and definition of the expression "caught between a rock and a hard place"? I also heard it in a situation where it could have had a jocose double sense, but I may have misunderstood.


What's the difference between "erroneous" and "wrong"?

Are these words totally interchangeable? > I made the [erroneous/wrong] decision.


"It took a year until she got/had got/had gotten over it"

I am trying to figure out the correct use of perfect (past perfect) tenses: >   * It took a year until she got over it. >   * It took a year until she had got/gotten over it. > Are both correct? If so, I think the latter means that it took a year until it was all gone and she was fine again (I mean that event is closed already), while the former is more "immediate"?


Caption text punctuation: Full stops always necessary at the end?

Example caption text for a photo: > **Little Diane necklace** 1a) No full stop is correct, yes? Now a longer example of caption text: > **Little Diane necklace. The photograph of the young Diane was taken after a > polio vaccination and appeared in the local newspaper. She smiles bravely > into the camera to reassure other children.** 1b) Is a full stop necessary at the very end if there is more than one sentence? 2) How are the name and description separated? By a period or semicolon?


Whatever happened to "eyeglasses", "facial tissues", and "video game consoles"?

Now-a-days, we tend to ask:"Have you seen my _glasses_ anywhere?" "Do you have any spare _tissues_ to lend me?" and "How many _consoles_ do you own?" It's just quicker to say and any native speaker will understand, despite the (possible) ambiguity of these terms; e.g., _Where are my glasses?_ could be interpreted as _Where are my drinking vessels?_ But in real life, this never happens. Essentially, I have three questions:   * When did the shortened names; **glasses** , **tissues** and **consoles** first appear and took over from their longer named "parents"?    * Is there a name for this type of noun which originally began as a compound word (sometimes joined by a hyphen) and was eventually reduced to a single-word?    * Are there any other compound nouns which have dropped one or more lexemes but still retain their original meanings?  NB: I am not referring to **_portmanteau words_** which are neologisms made by blending two words together such as _smoke_ and _fog_ to obtain _smog_. Neither would I consider them to be **contractions** because there is no omission of internal letters for example; _gov't_ , _govt_ , _gov_ and _dep't_ or _dept_. I can only think of "shortened" which fits the bill but can also stand for contractions; unless I am mistaken. Despite skimming through the relevant Wikipedia pages, I found no explanation or references as to _why_ , (although I think that is easily explained) or _when_ , these names were shortened and became more popular. Source Wikipedia: **_eyeglasses_**; **_facial tissues_**; **_video game consoles_**. EDIT: In my original title I had included "tissue paper" but as several users have commented, tissue paper is used for wrapping delicate objects whereas tissues normally sold in boxes are commonly referred to as _facial tissues_ , especially in the US.


Word for a group of similar photos?

Is there a single word or phrase that means a group of very similar photos, such as when a photographer takes a burst of 7-8 shots with the hope of catching the right instant, or to get the best focus?


How does one capitalize words like "un-American"?

Google's dictionary lists it as "un-American" or "unAmerican" (which looks clumsy to me). Since American is a "demonym," I would usually capitalize it, so I feel compelled to capitalize "un-American" somehow. How should I capitalize "un-American" and words like it?


"The man was either mad or both"

In the delightful Fry and Laurie sketch _The Letter_ , several puns are expertly delivered by Stephen Fry, however there is one I don't understand. At 4:45 in the video, he says "The man was either mad, or both", and it seems this should be funny, but I don't get it. Where is the pun in this sentence?


What is a synonym for bad writing?

I am looking for a word to reflect what a novice author would use to describe his own writing (somewhat derogatorily). My first thought was **drivel**.


Is there a single word for people/ consultants who partner with our health?

We made a card for hospitals which introduces the doctors to its patients. We named the card _Meet Your Healers_ , but we need a new word to replace _Healers_ now.


* On average every 1.1st or 1.1th something?    * On average every 1.2nd or 1.2th something?    * On average every 1.3rd or 1.3th something? What is the correct formulation for a decimal ordinal number? * * * Hah! I knew I would find it sooner or later! Google for: "0.75th quantile"   * "Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences"   * "Recursive Quantile Estimation with Application to Value at Risk"   * "Economic Value of Weather and Climate Forecasts"   * ...


Ways of Indicating Sarcasm in Writing?

Sarcasm is in most cases conveyed by tone of voice or body language, so is much easier to use face-to-face. What are ways of using it in written form? One way I know of is to use a word that directly suggests sarcasm in context, such as 'totally'. For example: > That's **totally** how you are meant to drive a car Are there other words or methods that achieve this effect? Are any clearer than others?


Can altering the syntax of a sentence, without in any way changing the diction used in describing the subject itself, change the subject's number?

There have been debates raging both here and on ELL about this, but the question has, to this point, been focused **solely on expletive constructions** with compound subjects. This is **not** intended to ask that very same question. I'd like to clarify that I'm asking about a much broader range of constructions, and, more specifically, the nature of subjects themselves; and that I'm **strongly questioning** that the tenet of basic _Subject-Verb agreement_ is variable and therefore not applicable to all sentence constructions. In other words, I'm asking: **how, if ever, can a plural subject be considered or be treated as a singular subject** ; **how can a subject's number vary without rephrasing subject itself** ; and **while there is room for variation in number with mass and/or collective nouns, how can this variation occur with ordinary, countable nouns?** To keep all things parallel, I'm both excluding compound subjects **that, separately, agree in number** and restricting this to **only** compound subjects **joined by and** (or _as well as, along with_ , etc.). I'm making this distinction to rule out examples that could be based on elision--e.g., _there's a bat and there's a ball on the table_ could potentially be elided to _there's a bat and ball on the table._ In each of the following examples, the subject is **exactly the same** and is plural, which to me suggests that, in each and every set, **_only 2 and 3_** can be **_technically_** correct (i.e., in **formal** English). I think that **most** would regard the fourth option to be completely incorrect in all examples. And I know that many would say that, **in the first (i.e. expletive) set** , number one **_could also be** correct_. That particular line of reasoning is what I'm inquiring about. Here are the expletive possibilities I'm starting with:   1. There **is a bat** , three balls, and a glove on the table.   2. There **are a bat** , three balls, and a glove on the table.   3. There **are three balls** , a bat, and a glove on the table.   4. There **is three balls** , a bat, and a glove on the table. Active voice:   1. A bat, three balls, and **a glove is** on the table.   2. A bat, three balls, and **a glove are** on the table.   3. A bat, a glove, and **three balls are** on the table.   4. A bat, a glove, and **three balls is** on the table. Inverted sentences:   1. On the table **is a bat** , three balls, and a glove.   2. On the table **are a bat** , three balls, and a glove.   3. On the table **are three balls** , a bat, and a glove.   4. On the table **is three balls** , a bat, and a glove. Passive voice: (note: As Peter Shor correctly indicates, _is lain_ is **not** a passive construction.) **I specifically used** to lie **incorrectly intentionally** because it's **closer** to my other sentences **semantically**. I meant to say _The items are/have been lying on the table,_ rather than _The items are/were laid on the table._ While **the latter** , in **all** _bold type_ is technically the proper **passive construction** , **the former** is a **closer match to the thoughts being expressed** in the other examples:   1. On the table **is lain a bat** , three balls, and a glove. **On the table _is laid a bat_ , three balls, and a glove.**   2. On the table **are lain a bat** , three balls, and a glove. **On the table have a bat** , three balls, and a glove **been laid**.   3. On the table **are lain three balls** , a bat, and a glove. **On the table _were laid a bat_ , three balls, and a glove.**   4. On the table **is lain/is lying three balls** , a bat, and a glove. **On the table _was laid a bat_ , three balls, and a glove.** Interrogatives using Subject-Auxiliary inversion:   1. **Is a bat** , three balls, and a glove [they] there on the table?   2. **Are a bat** , three balls, and a glove [they] there on the table?    3. **Are three balls** , a bat, and a glove [they] there on the table?    4. **Is three balls** , a bat, and a glove [they] there on the table? I have fixed these questions to indicate the way in which _there_ functions in expletives and to demonstrate the actual subject based on the Subject- Auxiliary inversion used to form questions. In all of these examples, the subject is not at all changed, and in only one set (passive) was it necessary for me to change the verb. In fact, in all but the passive set, I've done nothing but remove _there_ from the sentence. I've always been instructed that while revising the sentence so that the item in the list nearest the verb is in agreement with the verb is preferred, it's perfectly fine to say _A bat, three balls_ (-or- _a ball_ ), _and **a glove are** on the table._ Is there something, that I am perhaps missing, that makes the first in each set acceptable? Any source(s) that indicate that syntax dictates number would be particularly appreciated.


"Created" is to "creator", and "updated" to "editor", as "deleted" is to what agent noun?

I'm modeling a database and I have these three fields (among others):   * _created_by_ ,   * _updated_by_ , and   * _deleted_by_. I'm using _author_ as an alias for "created_by", and _editor_ as an alias for "updated_by". What choices do I have as an alias for "deleted_by"?


What does "Once a loser, always a loser" mean?

_"Once a loser, always a loser"_ What is the meaning of this quote? What is the right time to use this? Is this an offensive language?


Is 'give a speech' idiomatic English?

Is 'give a speech' idiomatic in English? An instance I can think of would be “When that happened, my teacher _gave a speech_ , and then said, "Now everybody wish Elbe a merry Christmas!"' As a bonus question, can anyone suggest an alternative expression which renders the same emphasis?


One word that can be used to represent student and professional

I am having two options for users to select from, either they are a **Student** or they are a **Professional**. What one word can be used to represent both the names collectively? I tried a lot but couldn't think of any. The context is that i have a registration form for a test that has to be taken by a variety of people so i need to have a single word to represent student and professional.


Using a pronoun and a proper noun with a descriptor

With the sentence: "If he was Little Freddie, the apple of Vinnie's eye, would have told him." Does it mean if he _was_ Little Freddie, or was he referring to Little Freddie? I think the meaning is for the latter, but reading the sentence itself makes me feel something's off. If it's the former, how would one go about to make it mean the latter? Should it be "If he was, Little Freddie, the apple of Vinnie's eye, would have told him." By the way, _he_ refers to another person, not Little Freddie or Vinnie. Little Freddie is Vinnie's younger brother. Here's a more complete example: > Vinnie feels like his father isn't telling the truth. If he was Little > Freddie, the apple of Vinnie's eye, would have told him.


Past vs. perfect in present-tense narrative

When telling a story using the present tense, should events at a specific time in the past be recounted in the past perfect or in the past tense? For example: I know to write > Jack entered the room and sat down. The fight had drained him, and he needed > to rest. , but is > Jack enters the room and sits down. The fight drained him, and he needs to > rest. or > Jack enters the room and sits down. The fight had drained him, and he needs > to rest. correct, and why? (To me, the latter seems obviously correct, but someone recently insisted to be that the former is correct, and I could not defend or explain my position, so I'm asking here.) Please note that I'm asking according to traditional (prescriptive) grammar.


Is "with respect to" wrong?

My English professor suggested yesterday that the expression "with respect to", despite being frequently used is simply wrong. He said that one should rather use "in respect of", which in turn is not very common. Can a native speaker confirm this? I have seen this expression so often, even in scientific texts, that I quite simply cannot believe that this is incorrect English.