Why "top" hat? Is there a "bottom" or a "side" hat?

I've always wondered why it's called "top hat", and not just a "hat", or some other word, which would better describe this specific type of hats. I mean, all hats are "top", right? ![Futurama's Guenther wearing a hat on his bottom](http://i.stack.imgur.com/grJhWm.png) (Although this isn't the same kind of hat that is called "top hat", this may very well have been called "bottom hat") Could it mean that this hat was worn by the "top" people of society in the past? Or it was made of the highest quality materials? Or was it excessively overpriced? Why the "top" in "top hat"?


Is there a name for the assumption that people in past ages were less able to reason?

In arguments involving past decisions or tradition, people frequently blow off a claim to tradition by using the (false) assumption that people in days gone by, or even ancient history were less able to use their powers of reason. Is there a term for this assumption?


Is there a saying in English corresponding to "Another loach under the willow tree"?

In Japanese there's a saying "another loach" in the short form, "look for another loach under the same willow tree" in the long form. This saying is for ridiculing a person who blindly repeats what s/he once successfully did, or who imitates what somebody else successfully did, in the hope that s/he can succeed again not knowing s/he would surely fail the second time. It comes from a famous folklore about a man who once captured a loach (like a catfish) in a stream under a willow tree, who tried unsuccessfully to catch another loach exactly at the same spot. I am wondering if there is a saying in English similar to this?


Differences between “methods”, “methodologies” and “paradigms”

I'm writing some internal documentation, which I cannot share, in which I outline several ways to accomplish a task. For example, updating software may be accomplished by:   * Send a list of what the client has to the server and let the server decide what updates are needed   * Get a list of everything that's available from the server and let the client decide what updates are needed Is this section accurately called "methodology" because it's analyzing methods? Are these most appropriately "methods," "procedures," "paradigms", etc.? Note that they're not specific descriptions of what is to be done, only general overviews. I'm not really discussing the specific procedure that would be used, but the way in which the problem is approached. I suppose what I'm looking for are guidelines and examples of when these terms are are appropriate.


According to Wikipedia, _accismus_ 'is a form of irony wherein a person pretends not to want an object they truly desire,' but, I wonder, what is 'a person who pretends not to want an object they truly desire' called -- i.e., someone feigning an absence of interest in that which they keenly desire? While I cannot understand English proverbs, it seems that "fie upon hens, quoth the fox because he could not reach them" could be appropriate in cases like this one, but I would like to know a single word or a concise expression to describe that person, rather than the situation. Thus, my question is: Is there a word or a concise expression to describe 'a person who pretends not to want an object they truly desire'?


What is the meaning of the expression "handsome devil"?

I found answers on many web sites and they differed too much so I decided to ask the community. edit >   * I call him the devil because he makes me wanna sin... _Urban Dictionary_ > >   * A good-looking cheeky fellow. _Yahoo! answers_ > >   * Symptoms of being a handsome devil include being good-looking, rich and > a jerk. Often a playboy.   >  _TV Tropes_ > >   * The very Devil, himself, is supposed to look amazingly-charming, and can > attract almost any woman. Therefore, a guy who's " devilishly handsome / > good-looking " is a man who looks so attractive, especially to the opposite > sex, that the women swoon over him, in huge numbers. Yahoo! answers > >   * It's a very common expression, used as a compliment of sorts. It is used > to compliment someone, a man, but at the same time, usually to give a little > jab, like saying "You're a handsome man, and you're very much aware of it. > _Word Reference_ > >


Etymology of 'cartesian'

Because of the fact that Rene Descartes developed the Cartesian coordinate system, I would think that the word Cartesian would be named after him (Des- _cartes_ ). However, I can't shake the feeling that it should be named after the Latin `carta`, meaning map: after all, the Cartesian system is a mapping system. Or maybe Descartes isn't the inventor's real name, and he changed his name to that after discovering the system? Could someone help me out here?


What does "fully qualified" mean by itself and how it can be used?

I know this phrase from usage with DNS as Fully Qualified Domain Name but that's the only use case I'm aware of. So, 1. I'm wondering what "Fully Qualified" means by itself and how it is applicable to other subjects. and 2. is "fully qualified" and "unambiguous" interchangeable?


Warmth of a seat that has been vacated by a person who was sitting on it

I fail to recall this word (could be informal in nature) that refers to the _'warmth of a seat that has just been vacated by someone seated on it for some time'_. Anyone?


"Absolutely" and "definitely" in AE and BE

Is "absolutely" as used colloquially in "You're absolutely wrong/right!" or "Absolutely!" more typical to AE than BE? Parallelwise, is "definitely" the preferred term in BE to express such agreements?


both information

_I have decided to log both these details._ I have used the above statement on Stackoverflow, but I was wondering if it is correct to say the following: _I have decided to log both information._


Is it common to use the borrowed noun-adjective form for borrowed French phrases?

Lately, something has struck me. I've been hearing several expressions in English, some clearly borrowed from French and preserving their noun-adjective form. Some examples are:               Attorney General     Secretary General     Court Martial     Notary Public      I suspect there are more that I have missed. However, in each of the 4 cases listed above, I feel 'OK' saying them the 'English' way; that is, adjective- noun, which is the way we _almost always_ do things except for these borrowed phrases. One might receive a statement from the _General Attorney_ , or be sent to a _Martial Court_. My father is actually a lawyer and does indeed describe himself as a _Public Notary_. Doing things this way makes the plural sound a lot more sensible in English, too; which sounds better: General Secretaries, or Secretaries General? How common is it for people to flip these borrowed phrases around and say them the more standard English adjective-noun way? Might it be clearer in the long run if we did so?


Single word for people who are like "a frog in the well"

Is there a single word describing someone who is like _a frog in a well_? The frog believes the well is the entire world. How can I describe people who think that their own small environment is the entire world?


Can you outfish, out-fish, or out fish someone?

I don't even know what to Google in order to find the answer to this question. I'm trying to determine the proper grammar for outdoing someone in a particular area. For instance, in the previous sentence, I comfortably used the word "outdo" as a single word with no hyphen, and the dictionary supports this. However, what about fishing better than someone? Wiktionary believes that "outfish" is a word, but Microsoft Word and other dictionaries disagree. Since in English, unlike in German and other languages, we don't typically mash words together to get a single valid word (at least not without a hyphen), my question is as follows. Which of the following is the correct way to express fishing better than someone: outfish, out-fish, or out fish?


How would you name a chief administrator role?

Say, I have an administrative role in my software application which is intended to assign other roles among other administrators. So I'm looking for a simple and clear name for that senior administrator role. So far I only got one idea - _principal_. Can you suggest anything else?


"Fluids" versus "liquids"?

What is the difference between _fluid_ and _liquid_? I'm thinking of this in the context of _drink plenty of fluids_.


"Pay-for" vs. "for-pay"

Is _pay-for_ or _for-pay_ the correct word? For example, which of these two sentences is correct? >   * This is a pay-for product. >   * This is a for-pay product. >


Opposite of a deposit refund

I'm developing a database and coming up with the statuses for a given account with regard to their Glassware Deposit. ($$ paid upfront, but refundable at the end) I have   * Never Paid   * Paid   * Refunded   * **Kept** Is there a better way than **Kept** to describe the opposite of a deposit refund? (i.e. They broke their glassware and don't get a refund)


Is the term "you only live once" accepted?

Technically, you live everyday but you only die once. So in this case shouldn't it be you only die once? Is you only live once correct?


"A number of students" vs. "the number of students"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  A number of questions "has been" or "have been" asked? From the grammatical view both are correct, but please explain the difference in meaning:   1. The number of students in the class **is** fifteen.   2. A number of students **were** late for class.


A number of questions "has been" or "have been" asked?

Formally, is it correct to write: > A number of questions has been asked here. or: > A number of questions have been asked here. As a non-native speaker of English, I would prefer the former: the subject seems to be "number", therefore the verb ought to be singular, I'd say. However, the latter seems more common, and therefore I believe that my gut feeling is just plain wrong — but I would really like to have a definite answer. Moreover, is it the same for "a myriad of", "a plethora of", and so on?


Should I use "the number/s of" "is/are" here?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  “A number of students” vs “The number of students” In this sentence: > The number/s of tourists from A and B is/are 100 and 50 respectively.   1. The number of OR the numbers of?   2. is OR are?


"Number of attempts per question is unlimited" or "are limited"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "A number of students" vs. "the number of students" I want to know whether the following construct is correct: > Number of Attempts per Question is unlimited. I want to know if it should be _are_ in place of _is_ in the above sentence. I have read somewhere that the article before _number_ (whether _the_ or _a)_ governs the form of the verb. However, here there is no article before _Number_.


"Becomes" or "Become" in this sentence?

> Many small companies have difficulty growing because the number of orders > becomes too large to handle. Should I use _become_ or _becomes_ in this sentence? I don't know, but the sentence feels a little odd to me.


Correct way of writing this sentence

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  A number of questions "has been" or "have been" asked? Which one of these sentences is correct? > The number of students are increasing. or > The number of students is increasing. Initially I thought the first option wass correct, but later in the solution section of a book, the answer shown is that the sentence is with "is" not "are" is correct. Am I correct, or is the book correct?


"There is a large number" Or "There are a large number"?

Situation: I am composing this phrase for a real forum discussion in person: _There are a large number of proverbs/idioms_ in English (and doubtless additional ones in American). Some are entirely regional and if you don't live in that region you are unlikely to hear them. It is not easy either sometimes when you associate the situation that includes a cultural background [when you translate/interpret the Indo cultural things for Westerner you will find it]. Thank you. Question: Any recommended advise whether I should use: "There is a large number" OR "There are a large number"?


"The number of residents has grown" vs. "the number of residents have grown"

> **Duplicate:**   >  “A number of students” vs. “the number of students”   >  “Number of attempts per question is unlimited” or “are limited”?   >  “A number of questions has been asked” or “have been asked”? >   1. The number of residents **has** grown. >   2. The number of residents **have** grown. > Which of the above sentences is grammatical? Since _has_ should stick with singular nouns and _have_ with plural ones, I guess (2) should be correct, but I'm not sure.


Grammatical number of "a specified number of people"

In this sentence, which is correct, _is_ or _are_? > We will not stop operating until a specified number of weak events [is/are] > detected. My feeling is that the verb should agree with _number_ , not _events_ , thus I'd use _is_. But there is disagreement here at work. Also, what is the name of the phrase "of weak events" in this sentence? If I knew that to begin with I'd probably have been able to look up the answer.


Is the sentence "There is a large number of labourers who want to migrate to Japan for work." correct?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  A number of questions "has been" or "have been" asked? > There **is** a large number of labourers who want to migrate to Japan for > work. I type this sentence in a word processor, and it reports an error that "is" should be "are" (subject-verb agreement). I doubt this is a valid error. Could anyone confirm this?


a number of vendors is/are?

I think "a number of vendors **are** " is the right way, but "MS Word Grammar Check" suggested "a number of vendors **is** ". I need a clarification on this.


Category type for Observation/Forecast/Diagnostic/Analysis

I'm trying to build an application that searches archived weather data. I need a category term for which the values can be any of the following:   * Observation   * Forecast   * Analysis   * Diagnostic The best we've come up with is analysisType.


About two mutually related, future actions

Is it correct to say: "I will do that thing when I will talk to him."?


Is “Call for somebody’s head on a plate” a popular idiom? What is its origin?

I saw the phrase “ _Call for sb’s head on a plate_ ” in the following sentence of _The New Yorker_ magazine’s article (January 20) titled “Newt and His Wives,” reporting that Gingrich was in a furor when asked by the moderator, John King, about his second and third wives during the presidential debate in South Carolina in January 19th night. > “I am frankly astounded that Gingrich hasn’t been asked more about his > various affairs and divorces—they are legitimate subjects for inquiry when > you consider a) how merciless and, obviously, hypocritical he was when, as > Speaker of the House, he was _calling for Clinton’s head on a plate_ during > Monicagate; and b) how sanctimonious he continues to be on the campaign > trail, ranting about the encroachment of secular values into American life.” I can easily guess that ‘call for sb’s head on a plate’ means “call for sb’s resignation’ here. But I can’t find the heading of either “call for a head on a plate,” or “a head on a plate” in any of the Oxford, Cambridge, or Merriam- Webster online dictionaries. On the other hand, GoogleNGram registers “head on a plate,” and it indicates that the phrase existed from around mid 1800, but the usage started to be prominent since circ 1930. Is “ _call for sb’s head on a plate_ ,” which sounds pretty raw to me, a popular phrase? I wonder if it’s associated with the biblical episode of Salome, Herod’s daughter who demanded the head of John the Baptist after dancing in front of her father in a feast. What is the origin of this phrase?


What are the percentages of the parts of speech in English? For instance, what percent of English is comprised of nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.? I have done an extensive web search using a variety of formulations of the question but cannot find this information.


Pronunciation of "Einstein"

Why is `Einstein` pronounced with a `s` instead of `sh`, while the `ei` is pronounced `ine`? This looks inconsistent.


Is the word "encomprise" used in modern English?

If one googles the word **encomprises** , there are 5K+ pages, that have this word. I personally have heard people in the USA use it with a meaning of **include**. Official dictionaries, on the other hand, only have the word **comprise**. Is "encomprise" just a verb form of "comprise", making the use of "encomprises" a mistake?


Word for overwhelming grief

What is a word for the feeling you get when you watch a sad movie, the feeling that you are about to cry? I am looking for a single word that describes the feeling/state.


Term for "elderly-sitter"?

There's like people who do baby-sitting, that is look after infants and toddlers for the parents. What do we call people who do this for the elderly? For example, my friend hires a "elder-sitter" for her mother. It's not a professional, just someone who knows how to care for the elderly. Is there a name for this person?


Name to distinguish between parameters used for 'is not equal' operations and those used for 'is equal' operations

I am writing a dating website (for example) which allows a person to search for partners matching certain features. i.e "non-blondes in New York". I am having trouble trying to find the perfect words to use that distinguish between:   * search criteria that is used for queries like ( location _is equal to_ New York )    * search criteria that is used for queries like ( hair colour _is not equal to_ blonde ) I am not necessarily looking for purely academic words - because they may not be understood by the general population. Despite that, academic words may end up being the best choice. Any suggestions? I have suggested some answers and would be interested to see which are the most sensible choice of words. Feel free to add extra suggestions. There are probably some really obvious ones that I cannot see from the perspective of the mental trench that I'm sitting in.   * **equasive** Criteria   * **inequasive** Criteria  * * *   * **positive** Criteria   * **negative** Criteria  * * *   * **additive** Criteria   * **subtractive** Criteria  * * *


What is the origin of the phrase "two nations divided by a common language"?

What is the origin of the phrase " _two nations divided by a common language_ "? I have seen it attributed to Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw and even Winston Churchill. The most likely looking source I found said: > ‘Was it Wilde or Shaw?’ The answer appears to be: both. In The Canterville > Ghost (1887), Wilde wrote: ‘We have really everything in common with America > nowadays except, of course, language’. However, the 1951 Treasury of > Humorous Quotations (Esar & Bentley) quotes Shaw as saying: ‘England and > America are two countries separated by the same language’, but without > giving a source. The quote had earlier been attributed to Shaw in _Reader’s > Digest_ (November 1942). So, I wonder if the phrase which has come into common usage is just a commonly used paraphrase, or whether it has a specific source of its own. Also, although I have only heard it used in the context of Britain and America, I wonder if that's its only usage.


Sun shining up a dog’s arse?

There used to be (probably still is) a saying that had the sun shining up a dog’s arse ocasionally. Can you remind be how it went?


"Often" and "oftentimes"

Is there any difference between the two terms 'often' and 'oftentimes'? They seem to be used interchangeably but is one more appropriate in certain situations than others? Is 'oftentimes' an older term that is commonly replaced by 'often' nowadays? Consider this sentence: >   * Physiological tolerances can be measured indirectly by quantifying > species’ occurrences along environmental axes (citation), which is _often_ > the only way such information can be recorded for large numbers of species. > >   * Physiological tolerances can be measured indirectly by quantifying > species’ occurrences along environmental axes (citation), which is > _oftentimes_ the only way such information can be recorded for large numbers > of species. > >


Greeting on a website: Welcome to Index Page of ... or Welcome on Index Page

What preposition should I use when saying hello to the user on the main page? Should I write: `Welcome to Index Page of...` or `Welcome on Index Page of...`?


What is the clearest way to describe two "kitty-corner" buildings?

How can I explain the relationship of building A to building B where building A is, e.g., on the NW corner of an intersection, and building B is on the SE corner? Which of the following (if any) is the clearest? If none, is there a clearer way? > The building A would be diagonally opposite the building B. > > The building A would be opposite the building B, with 45 degrees to the > right. > > The building A would be kitty-corner to the building B.


What would be a polite way to say "eyeballs"?

For radio, we have _listeners_. For TV, we have _viewers_. For newspapers, we have _readers_. For the internet, we become uncouth and regularly refer to our target as _eyeballs_. My question is: What is a polite way to refer to those who visit your website? Once they visit, these people not only read, but also listen and view and click and write, etc. I would like something more specific than the obvious 'visitors,' which is very generic, and doesn't really reflect the activity of the visitors. I'd like something more along the lines of _gamblers_ in a casino, or _diners_ in a restaurant.


Adjectives or words inspired by Helen of Troy's beauty

Are there any adjectives inspired by Helen's beauty? I can see examples from more recent history like: Boycott from Charles C. Boycott or Bowdlerize from Thomas Bowdler. Some Greek mythology inspired words/phrases are : Herculean Achilles Heel Narcissistic However I could not find anything that refers to Helen of Troy's beauty.If you could also talk of some other lesser known mythological figure based adjectives/phrases, kindly share.


Usage of have: "Could you please explain why have these invoices been cancelled" is correct?

Is it correct sentence: "Could you please explain why **have** these invoices been cancelled?" Or "Could you please explain why these invoices **have** been cancelled?" I heard that that have should always stay before noun.


How does the parenthetical "that is" function?

It's the last sentence of an article in _The Economist_. > Some of the powerful elders might have faded from the scene. Mr Xi and Li > Keqiang might then have a freer hand to promote their own people, and > perhaps more daring ones. If, **that is** , they manage to keep control > until then. I know the whole sentence means "it is possible only if they manage to keep control" or "it's impossible unless they manage to keep control". But I don't understand how it functions. Question 1: What does "that" refer? Or is it just an empty word refering to nothing? And I also have a question about the reference of "it" in " **It** is not until 3am that they returned home." I think "it" refers to the fact that "they returned home", and the sentence can be restructured as "the fact that they returned home is not true until 3am." Though it sounds wierd, but it helped me to understand how "it" functions. But some people tell me "it" doesn't refer to anything in that sentence, and I shouldn't comprehend it that way. Question 2: Am I really wrong in the understanding of "it" in that sentence? If so, how do you think I should understand it? Supplement: So everybody thinks **_that is_** is short for **_that is to say_**? But I really think it would be anything but **_that is to say_**. Before I asked this question I tried to comprehend it that way, and here came an absolute logical error: since **_that is to say_** usually connect two sentences expressing a similar meaning, the two sentences should be in the same type of pattern. _That is to say_ , if the previous sentence is a statement, then the following one should be a statement as well, despite all the clause and parenthesis. But the sentence I quoted is just a conditional clause, and its previous sentence (sorry for not having quoted it earlier) is a statement.


"Add up to total" vs "add to total"

## ! There is a possible problem with this: > The six numbers may **_add to_** more than the total population and the six > percentages may **_add to_** more than 100 percent because individuals may > report more than one race. Shouldn't it be **_add UP to_**?


"Taste" is to "flavor" as "touch" and "sight" are to what?

For the senses, we have:   * _flavor_ for _taste_   * _aroma/odor/scent_ for _smell_   * _sound_ for _hearing_   * ____? for _touch/feel_   * ____? for _sight/see_ So one tastes a flavor, smells an aroma, hears a sound, feels a(n) _____, and sees a(n) _____. For the former, part of me wants to say _texture_ , but I feel that is too specific; for the latter, I want to use _visual_ or _sight_ , but but does that make sense, seeing a visual or a sight?


What is wrong in "Please don't pluck the flowers" and other phrases used in the Indian subcontinent?

In the Indian subcontinent, especially India, there are many English words or phrases which are not a part of dictionary or not used in other parts of the world. The first one is "Please don't pluck the flowers". I might not be proper, but I don't see anything wrong with this. It is pretty easy to understand what the person is trying to convey. The second phrase is "Please do the needful". This is said to have its root in improper translation from an Indic language. Even though it might sound weird to non-Indians, it is a very simple way of saying "Please do what we expect you to do in this situation without being provided a detailed explanation". In Indian English it is very well understood when someone asks "I have a doubt in this concept". In UK, doubt is taken in the context of "suspect", but in India, it is taken as "having a problem or not being clear". There is another term which is actually not in any dictionary — "prepone" which is used as an antonym of "postpone". Even though it does not make sense, its meaning is pretty much straightforward. After giving this long explanation, here are my three questions:   * What is wrong in "Please don't pluck the flowers"?   * What is wrong with "Please do the needful"?   * Isn't it acceptable to use words like "prepone" even though it not in the dictionary? It is pretty much well understood (especially by people who scorn at others using this word)? * * * **Update** I would like to explain when and where these terms are used:   * "Please don't pluck the flowers" is used very rarely, and it is pretty much rare to hear this   * "Please do the needful" is used mostly in corporate environments by a person to their subordinates. For example, a project manager gets a mail from marketing or quality assurance about something missing or incomplete, then he/she sends a mail to the subordinate with the body "Please do the needful". The subordinate is usually more well-versed with the work which has to be done. It might be his/her expertise so the manager might not tell what exactly needs to be done as is left upon him/her to figure out.   * "Prepone" is used only in one context — opposite of "postpone" the event. The most common usage is "This event or meeting has been preponed".


What expressions/words are still used in Indian English that are no longer in British English?

I was traveling through India recently and noticed that many expressions that people used that I saw were somewhat older expressions, now disused in Standard English. Examples of these were: > Please do the needful   >  Out of station   >  HORN OK Please – and a few others. I also saw a sign that said: > Please do not pluck the flowers. Now I've heard of colonial lag and it seems that these are phrases that have fallen into disuse in the English language used in the west. I wanted to ask if there are other Indian English words/phrases that have retained their original meaning, but have fallen into disuse in (if I may, for said purposes) 'western English'?


how to use the verb 'face'

This is one of the questions from SAT. Preserving rare and valuable books is one of the challenges facing the Librarian of Congress. My question is if the sentence above has no error. Isn't the verb 'face' a transitive in the sentence like "...one of the challenges the Librarian of Congress is facing"? or "...one of the challenges faced by the Librarian of Congress"? Thanks in advance.


What's the verb in this sentence?

What is the verb in this sentence? > The friends had to get the door open soon. I think it is open, but I am not sure.


What metaphor can I use for a collection of notes/facts?

I'm trying to come up with a metaphor that represents a collection of facts/notes around one thing. I've tried "deck" and "notebook" but they don't really work. Any ideas?


Expression "shockingly enough"

Is the expression _shockingly enough_ an understatement? I've heard of _oddly enough_ and took it to mean _to some extent, it's odd_ , but the combination of _shockingly_ and _enough_ sounds like you are trying to convey an understatement, or what one would use in the negative, like > It's not shocking enough to merit any interest.


“Everything is not…”

I keep hearing people say _everything is not…_ which frustrating because it is ambiguous. It could mean either > Nothing is… ( _for the set of all things, no thing is…_ ) or > Not everything is… ( _for the set of all things, some things are not…/not > all things are…_ ) I have been hearing it more and more in the past few years. In fact, when you Google the phrase _everything is not_, you get Selena Gomez’s rendition of the _Wizards of Waverly Place_ theme song which only further popularizes it with the youth. Is this phrase grammatically correct/legitimate (ie, would an English teacher complain?), and if so, which is the correct meaning (if any)?


A negative person

What is the best word that I could use to describe a person that seems to attract negative situations? Every time I am around him/her, something bad always seems to happen. Is there a word to describe this person?


Difference between "engage" and "hire"

For example,   "We decide to _engage_ a lawyer for the case."   "We decide to _hire_ a lawyer for the case." Is _engage_ used particularly in British English? Do speakers of American English use _engage_ in such examples?


When and why do you call it a sister-site?

Usually some sites are referenced as sister-sites by others, Why are they called _sister_ -sites? And what relation should both sites have to call each other sister-sites? Same authors? Same owners? In that case why not call it "our _other_ -sites"? Is it because of the different content?


Why "science fiction" and not "scientific fiction"?

Everybody knows the term "science fiction" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction But I am wondering why "science fiction" and not grammatically more correct form "scientific fiction"? Consider similar case: "nucleus reaction" vs "nuclear reaction" I am sure that "nuclear reaction" is the correct one. So, why "science fiction" is more used than "scientific fiction" if "scientific fiction" is the more correct form when considering grammar?


Should the area in which you received your master's degree be capitalized?

For my resume, I have a summary at the top that starts with "Dedicated individual with Master of Science in biomedical engineering." Should "biomedical engineering" be capitalized? Should "Master of Science" be capitalized? (This is for a project, I'm not actually a biomedical engineer.)


Definite article or not in "the low sampling frequency"

I do not mention what is the sampling frequency but I know that it is low. **Should I use the article "the" or not in the following?** # 1 This can be highly error prone because of narrow bandlimited channel and low sampling frequencies of their signals. or # 2 This can be highly error prone because of the narrow bandlimited channel and the low sampling frequencies of their signals.


What is the difference between "into" and "onto"?

I see both used, at times, almost interchangeably. What are the general guidelines?


Is it bad English to have two to's in a row?

For example how would one correct the sentence "what website should I go to to upload the photo?" or is it correct already?


Formal American English form of 'generalization of the generalized'

I have a question regarding formal American English writing. I constructed a method which is a generalization of the generalized finite element method (GFEM). The fact that it's a generalization is an important message I want to give in the title of my article, but obviously, 'generalization of the generalized finite element method' sounds ridiculous. I can however, not seem to find any synonym for 'generalization'. My question is, how do I express this in formal American English writing?


Why does this "Ladies First" saying exist?

I've been wondering. Where did the saying "Ladies first" originate? Did it originally appeared in English countries, or? And is this always expressed in a positive/polite tune of meaning? I mean, I once watched a movie in which a man said to another man "Ladies first."


Why is the same modal auxiliary, 'may/might' used to ask permission and for uncertainty?

> "May I go to the bathroom?" _and_ "I asked if I might go to the bathroom." The modal auxiliary 'may/might' is used to **ask permission**. > "He may not have understood your question." _and_ "He might not have > understood your question." The same modal auxiliary is used for **uncertainty**. Why?


Years worth of... Can it describe age?

I have recently stumbled upon the following sentences: > Randomly found 115 years worth of change. Almost put it in the meter. As seen here Does it mean he found an old coin or a lot of them? Can `... years worth of...` describe age of an item?


Should I use a comma in this sentence?

I am trying to teach myself punctuation rules. I have this sentence: > The Disney version generally considered both racist and sexist portrayed the > female characters in stereotypical roles and presented ethnically diverse > characters with stereotypical features. I think the sentence needs a comma after _sexist_ and before _portrayed_. I also think it needs a comma after _roles_ because of what I have identified as a coordinating conjunction. I.e.: > The Disney version generally considered both racist and sexist, portrayed > the female characters in stereotypical roles, and presented ethnically > diverse characters with stereotypical features. Did I punctuate the sentence correctly? Is this a coordinating conjunction?


Differentiating homographs

> A homograph (from the Greek: ὁμός, homós, "same" and γράφω, gráphō, "write") > is a word that shares the same written form as another word but has a > different meaning. When spoken, the meanings may be distinguished by > different pronunciations, in which case the words are also heteronyms. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homograph Disambiguation may be difficult at times, especially when a heteronym is used in writing. This occurred to me the first time I saw an orange juice box of “minute maid” and the small figure of a woman on it. I wondered then, whether the producers meant a period of time equal to sixty seconds [mi'nit], or “tiny, exceptionally small” [mai.nyoot']. Having never seen a commercial before, would a native speaker understand the exact meaning right away ? Are there other instances when you felt confused by a written heteronym ? N.B. Someone has already asked what "minute maid" means, but my question goes beyond that.   p.s. Feel free to edit the phonetic symbols, if you know how to do it. I simply couldn't type the correct ones.


What do you call it when someone stops you from daydreaming?

When you're building castles in the air absentmindedly, daydreaming, or looking at nothing with an empty mind, or maybe being absorbed in thought. Then someone comes over and "wakes you up", stopping you from musing on things. From what I can describe, he might pat you on the back, or say, " _Hey, what's wrong?_ " And you'd be like, getting startled or diverting your sight/attention, or maybe smiling. **Question:** What do you call it, the thing he does and the thing your respond to what he does?


What's your first impression of "in front of TV"?

If you saw the phrase _in front of TV_ , what kind of impression will you get? To me, I will suppose someone is watching TV. But if so, how do you express the meaning that someone is just _in front of TV (talking about the position)_?


Should "in" be used with "aiding and abetting"?

Aiding and abetting, also sometimes aiding or abetting, is often found in legal definitions of accessorial liability for crimes, for example "aiding or abetting a felony." Is it proper to use "in" after "aiding (and/or) abetting"? Is either of the following examples more proper, or is either improper? **Example A1:** "The law creates criminal penalties for aiding or abetting in the preparation or commission of a murder." **Example A2:** "The law creates criminal penalties for aiding or abetting the preparation or commission of a murder." Does it make any difference if you drop "preparation or commission of"? Examples: **Example B1:** "The law creates criminal penalties for aiding or abetting in a murder." **Example B2:** "The law creates criminal penalties for aiding or abetting a murder." One thought is that it may be proper to use "in" in these circumstances, when referring to the act; "in" would be improper when referring to the actor. **Example C1:** "The law creates criminal penalties for aiding or abetting a murderer." The dictionary example usages I've found omit "in." See, e.g., here. But while searching for an answer, I see a lot of use of "in." That said, much of that use is in the context of legislation, and I never assume the intelligence of a politician, and _especially_ not a group of politicians!


"I'm done" or "I've done"

When someone asks whether you have completed a task e.g. shopping, dinner. What should be your answer? > I am done. or > I have done. To me, the former sentence's formation, Sub + VBe+ Past Participle, falls to passive voice. Therefore, it has a totally different meaning from _I have done_ Sub + Predicate (verb intransitive). Addendum: According to Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 3rd ed., the verb _do_ is an intransitive verb in the meaning of complete/finish. In the sentence, same formation as _I am done_ : > I am beautiful. The verb _am_ (of VBe) links the adj _beautiful_ to the subject of the sentence _I_. Therefore I, the subject of the sentence, is beautiful (in other words, state of being). Then in the sentence : > I am done. The subject, _I_ , is linked to the adjective _done_. So the subject's state of being is _done_ , in other words _dead_?


Infinitive form in reported commands

I know that _"I tried not to do that"_ and _"I tried to not do that"_ are both valid sentences grammatically speaking. But can the second construction be applied to reported commands? Is it correct to say, for example: _He told me **to not** do that_. This sentence sounds ungrammatical to my ears. But so did the sentence _"I tried **to not** do that"_ until a while ago. I used to hear this construct by non-native English speakers whose native language interfered with their command of English. Now I know that this hasn't been the case. What about reported commands?


What does "to throw down" with somebody mean?

I can't find the following phrase in an dictionary: "to throw down" [with somebody]. What does it mean?


Alternative expression for "bang for your buck"

I have been hearing the expression "bang for you buck" many times a day and I find myself distracted when I or others use it. In an effort to be an attentive listener, what is a good alternative succinct phrase that has roughly the same meaning?


Is it correct to say something is "suitable/fit for" somebody?

For instance: >   * This sport is suitable/fit for me. >   * This game is too violent. It is not suitable/fit for me. >   * I moved to south. The climate there was not suitable/fit for me. >   * This woman is suitable/fit for me. >   * Teaching is suitable/fit for me. >


Using "ran" as a past participle

I've got a document I'm reading, written by a co-worker. I know the co-worker in question grew up in the same Oklahoma town I did, although a slightly different part, and 15 years later. So while we both speak essentially the same dialect, there could be some nuances of dialect we have different. Anyway, this document is otherwise very well-written, except for one thing that is just bugging the heck out of me: **He uses the word "ran" instead of "run" in past participles.** This isn't a one-off. It was bothering me enough that I decided to "fix" it, and so far I'm about halfway through and have fixed more than a dozen occurrences. Clearly this is no accident, but rather how he feels the word is properly used. It also occurs to me that I've occasionally heard other people around here make this same "mistake" in conversation. So I'm wondering if there is some dialect, or perhaps generational thing going on here. If that's the case, perhaps I shouldn't be presuming to "fix" it. Here's a couple of examples: > ...the target architecture required for the element to be ran. > > If not defined, the element will be ran regardless of system architecture. > > ...element is always ran.


Effort IN improving?

Could you please let me know if the following excerpt of a sentence is grammatically correct (specifically the preposition after "effort"): "Should there be anything that you feel we are missing, your insight would be invaluable to our effort **in** improving our products(...)" An explanation on **why** it is/isn't correct would also be highly appreciated. Prepositions are tough. :(


"Thank both of you"

Is there a trace first person pronoun before the utterance "thank you", making it shorthand for "I/we thank you"? A ramification of this question is an expression of gratitude I just heard that didn't sit right with me: > Thank both of you for coming. This sounded strange, almost like my intuition was to interpret it as a command for someone to thank themselves (?). My intuition would have preferred > Thank you both for coming. I convinced myself that the former would sound acceptable if there is an implicit first person pronoun preceding every "thank you" because "I thank you both for coming" is perfectly natural. Is there a trace there or is "thank you" an atomic phrase with some other underlying syntax (or none at all)? Thank all of you!


"At the time" vs "at that time"

Examples: > I met Monica a year ago. **At that time,** I was living in New Work, in a > middle-sized apartment overlooking the Mississippi River. > > I met Monica a year ago. **At the time,** I was living in New Work, in a > middle-sized apartment overlooking the Mississippi River. Do they mean the same? Which is more appropriate for the example above?


What's a nice way to phrase this?

I want to get across the idea that I can't work with this person because I don't agree with the amount of pay he has written in the contract (or just contract terms in general). I just think writing it like this sounds like the work is out of my skill set which is not the case. > I would love to work with you guys but I'm afraid what you want is beyond my > scope.


What is the meaning of the expression "to be operated on"? Could you give me some useful example for its use?


What is the correct spelling and definition of a word (sp.) "enditement"

Whilst watching The Big Bang Theory (S04E11, ~06:45 in, where Howard and Stuart are talking in the Comic Book Store about Zack), I heard the following exchange: > — Is that sarcasm?   >  — No, it's an _enditement_ of the American education system. The two characters involved are talking about a third character (who is present) who is being perceived as "stupid". When I heard the word _enditement_ I imagined it as a synonym of "example", but I cannot find a definition of a similar-sounding word that fits into the context described. Can anyone provide the correct spelling/definition of this word?


What is the name of this structure at kids playground?

We can usually find this structure at kids playgrounds. I want to know what it's called. I've searched online but couldn't figure it out but fortunately found the image below. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/sGQSa.jpg)


"At/on (the) weekend(s)"

Which expression is better? Which is right? Why? > A. Sorry to disturb you **at weekend**. > > B. Sorry to disturb you **on weekend**. > > C. Sorry to disturb you **at weekends**. > > D. Sorry to disturb you **on weekends**. > > E. Sorry to disturb you **at the weekend**. > > F. Sorry to disturb you **on the weekend**. > > G. Sorry to disturb you **at the weekends**. > > H. Sorry to disturb you **on the weekends**.


What does "tink, terry tink" mean in "I’ll mend them all with a tink, terry tink,"?

My questions are:   1. Is "tink" is a verb, meaning the action of a tinker?    2. Is "terry" is an adj. meaning gentle? From the book "A History of the Cries of London", page 99. > Have you any work for a tinker, mistriss?   >  Old brass, old pots, or kettles?   >  **I’ll mend them all with a tink, terry tink,**   >  And never hurt your mettles.   >  ... (emphasis added)


Is the prepositional phrase possibly called a subject complement?

> Russet leaves were swept by past winds **in heaps**. > > (Original sentence: "Russet leaves, swept by past winds in heaps."— _Jane > Eyre_ ) ‘In heaps’ can be called as a ‘positional’ complement for verb phrase (were swept), yet it’s not an argument for the verb phrase. And if we regarded the verb phrase as a copular, ‘in heaps’ could be called as a semantic complement for the subject (russet leaves). So ‘in heaps’ may be called as a subject complement. Is this a possible view?


Geometric or Geometrical?

I have read the excellent answers to Why is it "geometric" but "theoretical" \- my question is specifically about usage. Is there a best practice for deciding between the variants "geometric" and "geometrical" in writing? A google ngram search shows that "geometrical" was more popular until about 1965, when they switched. What grammatical rules, if any, would be relevant here?


Is a sentence beginning with "Different from" not so good?

I saw one topic on the wordreference forum discussing whether a sentence could begin with "Different from" (see the post). The example sentences in that post are > A: Different from Drug A, Drug B can also be administered orally.   >  B: Unlike Drug A, Drug B can also be administered orally. It is said that in a textbook (see the pdf, however, it's written in Japanese), sentence A is considered to be a "not so good" expression. So, is this assertion true? In addition, I think although sentence A is not so good, it is grammatically right, because the verb of the sentence is _be_ \---am I right? Thank you. * * * **EDIT 1** To state the question more precisely, I am concerned with the correctness of this form:   * Adj phrase, Subject + Be + ... For a simple example, > Similar to me, he is tall. I don't know why but, I think the sentence above sounds OK (at least more OK than a sentence starting with "Different from") ... Is there any explanation in the formal grammar? * * * **EDIT 2** Still, I am a little confused about the difference between my example and the **_detached predicative supplement_**. In Angela Downing's book _English Grammar: A University Course, Second Edition_ , on page 482, it says: > _**Detached predicatives_** ... are a type of supplementive unit, that is, a > unit used non-restrictively ... Syntactically, they are not integrated into > the unit which they modify. They are thus free as regards position, though > in practice they are usually found in initial rather than final or medial > positions. They provide an economical means of adding contextual information > which fills out the reader's perception of the person or thing referred to. > They are common in certain written genres and generally absent from > conversation. The corresponding example sentence in this grammar book is > Angry and tearful, Susan walked out. It seems this sentence is short for " **Being** angry and tearful, Susan walked out." So, though it sounds a little like a pedant, the sentence > (Being) Different from Drug A, Drug B can also be administered orally. _**might be_** grammatically right ...


Is it acceptable to drop the Jr. suffix in a citation?

I want to cite a book written by John P. Smith, Jr. Should I write > see Smith [2009] for details. or > see Smith, Jr. [2009] for details. I think my question boils down to: is his surname "Smith, Jr." or "Smith"?


A summer house, a cottage or a cabin?

When I want to refer to a (rural) vacation home, what would be the most appropriate term in BrE? I know in American English _cabin_ and _camp_ are used for those, but what would correspond to those in British English? What I've come up with are _summer house_ or _summer cottage_ , but I want to avoid the connotation of those small buildings in gardens. For visual reference, this would be something I'm after here. http://cedarcottagebc.com/wp- content/uploads/2007/07/cedar_cottage_exterior.jpg edit: I got the term wrong, thank you for making me realize it!


Word that means "sourceless"

I'm looking for a word that means _without a source_ but that is a little shorter and simple than _sourceless_. Coulnd't find any on Thesaurus. Any suggestions?


Which is the correct expression for say that I have two items of three possibilities?   * Two of three?   * Two out of three?   * Other?


What is the difference between retrospective and retroactive?

Having just briefly looked at both in the OED there seems to me plenty of room for interchangeability in the way they are used. Under 'retrospective' for example there is an instance of legislation having been passed which took effect from an earlier time. This would seem to me as though it should be 'retroactive'. And interestingly both words carry meanings which include the other. Can anyone summarise the difference by way of simple examples as to their separate uses? **Edit** retrospective, adj. and n. View as: Outline |Full entryQuotations: Show all |Hide all Pronunciation: Brit. /ˌrɛtrə(ʊ)ˈspɛktɪv/ , U.S. /ˌrɛtrəˈspɛktɪv/ Etymology: < post-classical Latin retrospect-, past participial stem of retrospicere to look back (see retrospect v.) + -ive suffix. With the use as adjective compare French rétrospectif (1779), Spanish retrospectivo (1587). With the use as noun compare earlier retrospect n., retrospection n., and (with the specific use in sense B. 2) French rétrospective (1920 in this sense; 1919 in sense ‘screening of a series of old films’), Spanish retrospectiva (1872 in this sense). Compare earlier retrospectively adv., which may imply earlier currency of the adjective. N.E.D. (1908) also gives the pronunciation (rītrospe·ktiv) /riːtrəʊˈspɛktɪv/ . (Show Less) A. adj. Thesaurus » Categories »   1. Chiefly Law. Taking effect from a date in the past; retroactive. 1660 F. Philipps Tenenda non Tollenda iii. 110 The new mode of making retrospective Acts of Parliament. a1768 J. Erskine Inst. Law Scotl. (1773) I. ii. vii. §15 It hinders the confirmation from having that retrospective quality. 1788 Considerations submitted to House of Lords on Two East-India Bills 54 All Acts of the Legislature, are retrospective, as well as prospective. 1843 Macaulay Crit. & Hist. Ess. I. 465 Sentencing a man to death by retrospective law. 1873 Sat. Rev. 9 Aug. 36/1 It is a retrospective alteration of a contract by one of the parties to the detriment of the other. 1899 T. C. Allbutt et al. Syst. Med. VIII. 321 The amnesia, however, is not, so to speak, retrospective. 1934 Yale Law Jrnl. 44 360 The arguments on the legality of retrospective legislation have been impressive in variety, but unconvincing in substance. 1955 Times 28 June 6/5 The decision was retrospective to April 1, when the new rates came into operation. 2004 H. Kennedy Just Law (2005) iii. 82 The retrospective nature of the intended legislation makes it doubly wrong. Above is meaning number one (or retrospective) from the OED. Clearly it encompasses the 'retroactive'. And some of the more recent examples are clearly ones where you would claim 'retroactive' were appropriate. It seems to me that in Briatain, at least, 'retrospective' has to some extent taken on the meaning of 'retroactive'.


Formal alternative for "dos and don'ts"

I want to write "dos and don'ts", or an equivalent expression, in a university essay. I am assuming that it is not very academic to write "dos and don'ts", so does anyone have a better way of putting it?


What term describes this sentence structure with preposition and possible gerund?

What is the correct grammatical description for this sentence? > I need help taking out an old hard drive. I am most interested in whether the verb "take" is a gerund here, and how to describe the proceeding clause. It may be a prepositional-gerundial construction, but I don't know if that makes sense.


scattered from, against, or by?

A quick Google search gives me the following sentences:   1. An electron is scattered from a nucleus.   2. An electron is scattered against a nucleus.   3. An electron is scattered by a nucleus. Which one is correct? If they are all correct, then what is the difference in the meaning?


An alternative to "serious business"

I am writing an article about a fancy cocktail bar and I am looking for an alternative to the phrase _"drinking here is a **serious business** "_. Normally I am pretty good at this but, I just have the same phrase floating around my head and I can't get rid of it. I am sure you will all have some excellent suggestions!


The opposite of Archive

A colleague and I are writing some software and we're looking for some advice on the usage of the word "Archive". Currently, we're using archive as a marker to state that the entry in our database has been put to one side (i.e archived away), but that we can still access it at any point. Currently we're using archive as a (sort of) synonym for hidden, in that archived items will be hidden from view when a user accesses the database. This is because, more often than not, or database will include hundreds of entries, and allowing the user to arbitrarily hide/archive entries from view should help them. As an example: > When the user archives Entry 15, it is no longer listed in the standard > database view. Another view of archived entries will be provided. The problem we're having is thinking of a correct and succinct word or phrase for the opposite of archiving an entry in our database. We've looked at "Un- archive", "un-hide" and "retrieve from archive" but these don't seem to fit entirely ("un-archive" and "un-hide" seem slightly unwieldy and "retrieve from archive" feels too long). Perhaps "restore" would work, but we're leaning away from that as it has connotations of the entry having being deleted or removed completely. Our target audience includes people who do not speak English as their primary language, so we're striving for simplicity and focus. I was wondering if anyone has ever come across this situation before or if there are any useful suggestions for our situation?


Is the term "halfcast" racist?

When I was at university in the late 90s, a girl I shared a flat with would use the term "halfcast" to describe people of mixed race, especially in the context of people who had a similar skin colour to Halle Berry or Melanie B (from the Spice Girls). Is this a racist or offensive term? * * * For a bit of context - this was at a university in the British midlands (ie near Birmingham/Leicester/Nottingham), the girl was born in Dundee in Scotland but was brought up in Northampton in England. I don't consider her to be a racist.


Meaning of "circle of fatality"

Basically, I'm having trouble with the following sentence: > Difficulty in breaking through the circle of fatality. I'm currently looking through a random horoscope and I'm finding difficulty understanding what the meaning of this could be. Any ideas?


Difference between "eat rice" and "have rice"

Consider the following 2 questions: >   1. Do you eat rice for breakfast in the morning? >   2. Do you have rice for breakfast in the morning? > My questions are: Are both questions acceptable? If they are, are there any difference in meaning?


Looking for an expression that means "I'm at an event right now"

Is there any simple and frequently used expression that means "I'm at an event right now", like "I'm here", or "I'm present"?


"A is followed by B." What's the order?

So the English class teacher is teaching IEEE referencing style, and we have something like this as an example: > Chan [1] claims that... The teacher said: > The referencing number **is followed by** the author's last name. Wait... I thought "A is followed by B" means B follows A, that means A comes first, B comes next. Has the teacher made an obvious mistake, or is it my fault? (Could I have misheard that?)


Does Clink Street take its name from the prison or vice-versa?

In Southwark, between the Cathedral and the Globe Theatre runs Clink Street. It is in that dark and dingy alley that such that remains of the notorious prison, which is now rebuilt as a museum, is found. Narrow, dark, and cobbled, it is well-known for the chase-scene in the David Lean film Oliver Twist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clink_Street Now the word 'clink' is widely used in Britain for prison. 'He did a year in clink', 'At this rate he will end up in clink' etc. What I am unsure about, is whether 'clink' derives from onomatopoeia, the sound of metal doors closing, keys, chains and fetters etc. and in that way became an everyday term for prison. Does Clink Street take its name from the prison, or did prison become known as 'clink' because a notorious one (from the 12th to 18th centuries) was located in Clink Street. It is not clear from the quotations in the OED.


Is there a word that describes an inept schemer?

I am idly curious as to whether there is a word for someone who is prone to scheming, but not terribly good at it.


What is the past tense of this phrasal verb (double down)?

Blackjack players can "double down" after receiving their initial two cards. What is the past tense of 'Double Down'?


What is a "mind-share leader"?

My limited understanding is that it applies to a company that comes first when people think about a particular topic. Could I say Microsoft is a mind-share leader for Operating Systems? The expression is on various websites, and my company just chose it as its slogan.


"Why are you asking?" versus "Why do you ask?"

> Why are you asking Tom? He does not know the answer. Ask me instead! versus > No, I have not seen for quite some time. Why do you ask? Is it correct? And if it is, why the difference? Is it not in both cases a single action ('ask') happening at or around the time of speaking? I guess that the answer is to do with the fact that, in the first sentence, the pupil knows why the teacher is asking Tom, (in order to get an answer, which goes without saying), whereas in the second sentence, I do not know the reason the person who asked me whether I had seen Tom lately did so. The difference here would be parallel to the difference between Present Perfect Simple –'I have repaired the car.' – where the emphasis is on the result of the action, and Present Perfect Continuous – 'There is grease on my hands because I have been repairing the car.' – where the emphasis is on the action itself, is more descriptive, and we do not know whether the result, getting the car repaired, has been achieved or not.


Is there any difference in meaning to start a two-clause sentence with "As" or "Because"?

Is there any difference in meaning to start a two-clause sentence with "As" or "Because" in first clause to explain the reason for the second clause > As we need that function, we must import the following properties file. > > Because we need that function, we must import the following properties file. Thanks.


What's a better word to use instead of "nicheification"?

What would be a better word to use than "nicheification"? In the article here, there's one sentence that says > _Furthermore, when your entire career has been structured around > **nicheification** , there's little potential for leadership or management, > skills that are learned rather than innate, and generally ignored when your > search targets a niche player._ I searched for this word using define:nicheification on Google, and it doesn't seem to exist. Thanks.


What is the origin of the -ass speech?

I am spending one month in the US and it seems that everything is "big ass", "lame ass", and "crazy ass". What is the purpose of modifying every adjective with "ass"? Is this an Americanism or some global trend which I have yet to notice (I don't watch television). Where did this phenomenon begin? Medicine before the disease: I have seen the relevant XKCD comic. **EDIT:** I ust found this from another E.SE page. It does discusses the phenomenon but does not mention the origin. Is this phenomenon not new?


What to use for hypothetically completed future actions

I was talking to a friend where I had to make a hypothetical statement about an activity that was completed in the future. So I came up with the following statements. > If he continued college, he would have completed his college by 2013. > > If he continued college, he would complete college by 2013. The second statement doesn't work because it just talks about the action that happen in that unreal future. Not completed. I can't say the following either because it makes it more real: > If he continued college, he will have completed college by 2013. So is the first one the right way of saying this?


Is there any difference in meaning between "faith" and "blind faith"?

> To use the term blind faith, is to use an adjective needlessly. I had heard the above quote from a positivist friend some time ago. Also, the dictionaries define "faith" as a "belief that is not based on proof" or an "unreasoned belief". So my question is: Is "faith" by definition "blind"? If no, what is the difference between mere "faith" and "blind faith"?


Word for lover of war, beginning with a B?

I know there is a word _beginning with the letter B_ for someone who loves war and loves to conjure up support of war?


What is the appropriate preposition for "mailing list"?

I am trying to write a motivation letter and in this sentence I am not sure which preposition is appropriate for "mailing list". Would you please help me? To clarify the case, I am subscribed to a mailing list which a John Doe used to distribute an ad about a vacancy. I am going to apply for that position and try to state that I have been informed about the position via the mailing list. This is sentence I have used: is "in" appropriate? Or should I use another preposition or another sentence structure to state that? > I was informed about this position by the ad sent by John Doe **_in_** XXX > mailing list. Thanks


Dropping the '-ly' in adverbs used in a negative response to a question

Two British gangsters riding in London traffic. One says: 'Have you seen him?' Other says: 'Not recent. One says: 'do you still go there?' Other says: 'Not regular.' Is this a colloquialism, idiom or just plain bad grammar.


Use of the plural of tang (as in taste or smell)

Discussing with friends, we decided tang (like a flavour or smell) is a noun. Smell, when pluralised is smells. Flavour - flavours. What's the plural of tang? We believe it would be simply 'tangs' but it sounds crazily weird in a sentence. Eg if you mix chilli and blue cheese together, would it be possible to say 'the meal had two strong tangs'?


What does “Serve red meat to the crowd" mean?

I found the phrase “serve up red meat to the crowd” in the following sentence of Washington Post's article titled “Michele Bachmann steals the show in Iowa”: > Michele Bachmann _served up red meat_ to the crowd at the Iowa conservative > principles conference Saturday, slamming President Barack Obama as a Jimmy > Carter retread, dissing the Mitch Daniels "truce" call for social issues, > and saying she wants a "waiver" from the last two years of White House > leadership. And I saw _“serve red meat speeches"_ for breakfast in the following sentence of an article in the Buzz (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida- politics/content/gop-candidates-serve-red-meat-breakfast) > At the Brokaw-McDougall House in Tallahassee early this morning, Republican > candidates _served red meat speeches_ for breakfast at the kick off for the > whistle stop tour through North Florida. What does “serve red meat” mean exactly? Obviously it’s not ‘meat that is dark brown in color when being cooked” as defined by COD. Is this day-to-day usage or political jargon? What is the origin of this phrase?


What's the difference between using "in the way" and "on the way"?

I'm a Spanish native speaker. I'm learning English and I want to know the difference between using "in the way" and "on the way". I want to know the real meaning of both phrases. PS: Sorry for my bad English.


Which (if any) is correct: est., estd., or est'd.?

A business founded (or a building built or a monument dedicated) in 1854 might have a sign or plaque reading "EST'D 1854" or "EST 1854" or "ESTD 1854", or some other combination I haven't seen or heard of. What is the correct way to abbreviate the word "established" in this manner? What is the correct way to capitalize this abbreviation?


Avoiding the use of "the reader"?

I'm writing a response essay to Medieval Women's Visionary writings that possess power. In this essay I'm supposed to explain how two writers, that I've picked to write about, possess or don't possess power through their writing (we're using Cixous and Foucault as reference for definition of power). I seem to find myself using the the phrase "the reader" a lot to express how a reader is being written to or directed in the writings by the visionaries. Does anyone have any suggestions for avoiding this trap, which probably hurts my argument?


"Or so say scientists in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters."

The sentence is from the transcript of a podcast: > What does a bookworm have in common with a black-tufted marmoset? They both > like a little quiet. **_Or so say scientists in the Royal Society journal > Biology Letters._** [Marina Duarte et al., "Noisy Human Neighbours Affect > Where Urban Monkeys Live"]   * How should I understand the sentence in bold?    * What's the grammar phenomenon called in English?   * What does "or so" mean here?


What does "close to you behind the door" mean?

I love this song, it's called "Behind the Door" by Sixth Finger. I love the song, but I have no clue as to what it really means. Here's a link to the song, just in case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y3OXssV34M


What are differences between an "opposite" and "antonym" to a word?

What are the differences between an "opposite" and "antonym"?


"Destination language" or "target language"?

For example, I translate a word from English to German. I call "English" "source language". Should I use "destination language" or "target language" for "German"?


names for sleeve garter

In his younger days, my grandfather wore little leather thongs pulled tight on the sleeves of his upper arms, so that his cuffs would not pick up ink, brushing what he was writing. I've heard someone else describe ribbons used for the same thing. I am wondering if there are standard names for those thongs or ribbons. Is "garter" the right word? Are there others? I see "tie-up" in the OED, defined "(makeshift) garter", with two citations from the 1970s, one of which is in connection with shirts.


Can someone please explain the bolded parts to me?

The master said, with vehemence, "It's far above instinct; it's REASON, and **many a man, privileged to be saved and go with you and me to a better world by right of its possession, has less of it * _that** this poor silly quadruped that's foreordained to perish;"_* and then he laughed, and said: "Why, look at me—I'm a sarcasm! bless you, ***with all my grand intelligence, the only thing I inferred was that the dog had gone mad and was destroying the child, * _whereas but for the beast's intelligence—it's REASON, I tell you!—the child would have perished!"_ **** From A Dog's Tale by Mark Twain, From what I understand many who have been privileged to possess REASON have less of it **than** a dog who is destined to be destroyed. am I correct? Does **that** mean **than** here? With all my great intelligence I could only infer that the dog went crazy and tried to destroy the baby. I don't understand the rest of the sentence " whereas but for..."


"The reason why" v.s. "The reason for why"

Which of the following is to be preferred, and why? > The reason for why the grass is wet is that it rained last night. > > The reason why the grass is wet is that it rained last night.


Present perfect for past action with present effect

If I seem tired, can I say: "I haven't slept last night"? If not, why have I been told that we use present perfect for actions that have present effects?


Does the following sentence make sense?

The bond between children and their parents is the strongest bind on earth.


Use of commas before a quote

In the following sentence, should there be a comma after the word _slogan_? The 1958 Ford Edsel was advertised with the slogan "Once you've seen it, you'll never forget it."


Does one eat soup or drink soup?

What is the correct verb associated with the consumption of soup? I've come across both the version.


Meaning of backpacking as in "go backpacking"?

> _I'm not sure. Maybe I'll turn them all down and go backpacking round the > world._ What does "backpacking" exactly mean in this case? I do understand the whole sentence in general, but want to know what "backpacking" implies particularly (rather "exactly").


Feeling VS Sensing

What is the difference between _feeling_ and _sensing_? They are synonyms but for me they sound as the same thing. I've read somewhere that _feeling_ is more about emotions (sadness, happiness, love), and _sensing_ is "touch or a sensation in the body" (such as _seeing_ , _hearing_ ). This answer could be logical but I'm not really sure. So it would be really good to know the actual differences.


pleat vs crease

What is the difference between words _pleat_ and _crease_ in the meaning of a fold in a piece of cloth?


What is the difference between a Summit and an Apex?

Summit, Peak, and Apex are often interchanged. What is the difference between Summit vs Apex or Peak vs Summit


A single word for someone who spends their wealth very foolishly

What is a single word for someone who spends their wealth very foolishly? For example: A person is obligated to take care of their children but instead spends their money on unnecessary things leaving no money to provide the necessary things for their children like food and clothes.


Am I using the word 'arbitrarily' correctly?

For example, if I were to say: > "What? Just because I was arbitrarily born as an Asian, that means I have to > stick with my own kind?" If that is wrong, how would I change it so it makes sense? Is there a way I can still use the word 'arbitrarily'? I'm really just trying to figure out how to use the word.


English equivalent for a Portuguese saying on “bad company”

In Brazilian Portuguese, we have: > "The bird who goes around with a bat wakes up hanging upside down" Original: _"Passarinho que anda com morcego amanhece de cabeça pra baixo"_ The literal meaning is that the bat is a bad company (the kind our mothers warn about) and the bird will wake up like a bat, hanging on a branch upside down. I suspect this kind of humour is more prone to happen in the "New World" than in the old Europe, but maybe all English-speaking people share a similar expression. If not, which expression(s) could be globally understood?


What is the word for a secret concerning one’s own life?

The following passage is found in _The Luminaries_ by Eleanor Catton: > ... there is a great deal of difference between keeping one’s own secret, > and keeping a secret for another soul; so much so that I wish we had two > words, that is, a word for a secret of one’s own making, and a word for a > secret that one did not make, and perhaps did not wish for, but has chosen > to keep, all the same. Notwithstanding the speaker’s befuddlement, there _is_ a word for a secret thrust upon you - **confidence** > (often confidences) A secret or private matter told to someone under a > condition of trust: _the girls exchanged confidences about their parents_ But is there a discrete word for a secret of one’s own?


Russian: nationality and ethnic groups

In Russian language there are 2 different words that are translated into English as "Russian". The first is nationality. For example (in English), Russian man (even he's Tatar or Chechen, but has Russian passport). The second is "Russian language" that means "language of ethnic group of Western Russia" (there are 24 official languages in Russia: Russian, Abaza, Adyghe language, Altaic language Bashkir language, Buryat language, Ingush language, Kabardino-Circassian, Kalmyk, Karachay-Balkar, Komi has Nogai language, Mari, Moksha language Ossetian language, Tatar language, Tuvan language, Udmurt, Khakas language Circassian, Chechen language Chuvash language, Erza, Yakut) and 174 languages in all (including non official). In Russian, words "Russian man" mean that the man has ethnic group of Western Russia. How can I say it in English?


"grew warmer" vs. "became warmer"

Can "grew warmer" be used as a replacement for "became warmer" anywhere? I've started to think of the phrase "grew warmer" and it seems kind of strange. Things can become warm, but it sounds strange to say that some things grow warm. Like for an inanimate object that doesn't grow, how is it ok to say that it grows warm? Can someone explain this?


For + verb-ing at the beginning of a sentece

Is the following sentence structure grammatically correct? I mean, I've found a lot of examples that have this structure but not at the beginning of the phrase but with a subject before. Here is an example I'm trying: > For designing the 3D model of a new tool it's necessary to be sure... UPDATE: This is the research I've done: > For + verb-ing: the purpose of an object   >  However, if we are talking about the purpose of an object or an action, we > normally use the for + verb-ing pattern. Note that this pattern commonly > answers the question: What are they (used) for? Compare the following: > >> Schools are for educating children not for entertaining them.   >  Schools are for learning. Life is for living.   >  This kitchen knife is especially useful for slicing vegetables.   >  What's this for? ~ It's for opening oysters. It's much better than a knife.   >  What's this fifty pound note for? ~ It's for buying food for the weekend. > > Note that when the subject of the sentence is a person rather than the thing > described, the to + infinitive pattern is also possible: > >> I use this small knife to slice vegetables with.   >  I use this gadget to open shellfish with. As it is explained it can be used with a subject before, but I haven't been able to find anywhere something explaining the case when For + verb-ing is at the beginning of a sentence


Meaning of "conferred obligation" and "conferring obligation"

What does “a conferred obligation” mean? Given that _confer_ has a positive sense to it as a transitive verb, could it be used to refer to an obligation which is favorable for the obligor or considered an opportunity for them? Or does it simply mean that it is expected from the obligor to feel indebted? If the latter is true, how the former should be expressed? The following might provide some context: A Roman proverb: > “Be not unmindful of **obligations conferred**.” A passage from an essay on Aristotle and Shakespeare: > “Friendship cannot be purchased; such a conception is false and > unphilosophical neither love nor friendship are to be obtained by gold > although when possessed both may be strengthened by its influence. [...] In > those however who belong to the higher walks of life it is very much to be > doubted whether **a conferred obligation** which circumstances may not > enable them to expunge is not a barrier to real friendship [...]” An excerpt from _Continental adventures_ : > “Nothing attaches woman to man so strongly as the sense of obligation She is > proud of his superiority not humbled by it. With man it is the reverse He > loves the woman on whom he has **conferred obligation** who clings to him > for protection and looks up to him as a superior being.” An excerpt from _The Fortunate Union: A Romance : in Two Volumes_ : > “I merely righted a case of oppression in my path and had no reason to think > that I either **conferred obligation** on the one hand or excited enmity > [...]” And used in a definition in a scientific paper: > “Responsibility: A conferred obligation to behave in a specific manner > and/or to ensure that others do.”


What is a person who smells things called?

I was authoring a letter and made a joke about body odor. Regarding the visual sense:   "... the beauty is in the eye of beholder..." Regarding the olfactional sense:   "... the fragrance is in the nostril of..." Well, of what? Of _besmeller_?! That can't be right... Also, I'm curious if my usage of _olfactional_ is correct.


Animalisms... What other terms derive from parts of an animal, like 'wing it', or 'hoof it'?

The question " Past tense of "to wing"? " got me thinking about terms we use in the English language that derive from **_parts of an animal_** , especially verbs or verb phrases, like 'wing it' or 'hoof it'. There are many noun and adjective phrases that use animal parts, like 'on the horns of a dilemma', so I'm more curious about verbs and verb phrases, but all entries are welcome. (-1 to anyone who proffers 'udder despair'!)


Plural or singular when stating that an amount is enough

A colleague of mine corrected the following sentence in a text I had written: _A handful of iterations was generally enough for convergence._ According to her it should be: _A handful of iterations were generally enough for convergence._ I am, however, confident that my original usage was correct, but I am unsure how I should motivate this. EDIT: What made me think it was singular was not "a handful of". I thought it would be correct to say _Five iterations is enough._ because it is a statement about the number of iterations rather than the iterations themselves. When googling to find an answer I found a television series called _Eight Is Enough_. Is that correct because the noun is left out? Compare the sentences: _Three friends are ideal._ and _Three friends is ideal._ I would have thought that the first sentence means that there are three persons who are ideal friends, while the second sentence means that three is the ideal number of friends to have. But maybe my intuition is really off here. EDIT2: Here it is stated that: > * **Subjects expressing periods of time, amounts of money, or quantities may > take either singular or plural verbs** depending on whether represent a > total amount or a number of individual units. For example, "Four weeks is > not enough vacation time" and "Two days have passed since I asked for your > response." Isn't the first example here quite similar to mine?


Difference between "in progress" and "in process"

When reporting on a project that is still being worked on, do you call it _in progress_ or do you call it _in process_? I have heard both, and both make sense in their own way. I want to know what both the descriptivists and prescriptivists have to say.


Are greetings and salutations redundant in an e-mail?

Do I really need to write my email this way? > Hi John, > > [My Message here] > > Regards, Jane The email header already includes the _to_ and _from_. The recipient should not be confused by who the email is directed at (himself) and who it's coming from if the greeting and salutation are missing. Some people might say the greeting and salutation are there for politeness. Is this really true? Will you be offended if they're left out? As a website user interface designer, I was always taught by the great usability experts (Steve Krug, Jacob Nielson) that writing more than you need is disrespectful of a website user's time. To me, leaving out the greeting and salutation makes the email easier to read.


Origin of 'Son of a Gun'

According to the OED a 'son of a gun' was a child born to a woman who accompanied her husband on a Royal Navy gunship. However I distinctly remember hearing on a BBC Radio 4 history programme that the 'sons of guns' were children born to 'ladies of easy virtue' with whom British sailors frequented in foreign ports. They would be allowed on to any subsequent ship to give birth, which happened on the gun-deck between the guns, and the ship's doctor would attend them. As no one took responsibility for fatherhood the child would be known as a 'son of a gun'. Wikipaedia is clearly unsure concerning these two possible origins. Does anyone know anything about this?


Is "he takes extreme measures to ensure that he is seen by no one" a complex sentence?

"he takes extreme measures to ensure that he is seen by no one" I am confused. Is it a complex sentence? If so which is the Independent clause and which is the Dependent clause? I know that " he takes extreme measures" is an independent clause and "that he is seen by no one" is a dependent clause. But what is " to ensure" in this context?


Is it correct to use "Please find in the following"?

I'm writing an article. At the beginning of the article, I want to write this quick introduction: > We are pleased to share with you our knowledge in the network device > managements. Please find in the following our experience in the RFCXXX > implementation. I'm wondering if the usage of "Please find in the following" is correct in the above introduction?


Is a determiner considered an adjective or a separate part?

I came across some blogs which states that determiners are types of adjectives (according to traditional grammar), whereas wiki (which I do not entirely trust) indicates some key differences. after studying both determiners and adjectives, I found that they share some similarities, specifically:   * Possessives   * Demonstratives   * Quantifiers > Example: "My" crew members are lost. To stretch my question more:   * Is "My" an adjective or a determiner?   * if the determiner hasn't a separate entity from the adjective, what is the proper/common distinction for it?


"Evocative" vs. "provocative"

I am starting to use _evocative_ and _provocative_ interchangeably. I would like to understand the difference between these words and when one should be used instead of the other. although the definitions of these words are readily available, I am looking for an explanation for when one word should be used instead of the other.


What does “bullying beat” mean?

There was the following line in New Yorker’s (January 18) weekend book review titled, “A Startup Fairy Tale and the Dark Side of Yoga.” > “Emily Bazelon **returns to the bullying beat** in this week’s New York > Times Magazine, in a story about bullies, their victims, and a third party > of Internet activists that seeks justice when authorities won’t.” http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/01/weekend-reading-a-startup- fairy-tale.html I don’t think I’ve met the word, "bullying beat" before. What doe’s “ _Emily Bazelon returns to the bullying beat_ ” mean? Is “the bullying beat” a common English word ?


Is describing someone as “higher-educated” awkward?

I’m updating my résumé and would like to convey in a condensed manner the fact that I have a Masters degree in a particular branch of the humanities (politics and society of the Middle East, but that’s not necessarily relevant). I completed the program in 2006, though, and have gained a good bit of professional and field experience since then, so it sounds kind of wrong to refer to myself as _a recent postgraduate_ even though that’s actually a nice, punchy formulation of the concept I’d like to convey . . . if only it was recent! Then again, calling myself _a postgraduate_ might not be fair because it could connote that I’m currently undertaking study, which is not the case at all. I could call myself _higher-educated_ , but that just sounds awkward and contrived to me. What do others think about that phrase? Can you think of any alternatives?


One of the best person I got to work with

I am trying to write a recommendation. How could I improve the following sentence which sounds too informal and it also sounds like it is in the past whereas I am still working with this person: `He is one of the best person I got to work with`


Need a word-pair along the lines of simulacra

I'm looking for a pair of words to respectively represent a “real” thing and for multiple representations of that “real” thing. _Simulacra_ is close, but I’m not aware of any term for the object that is being mimicked, and I’m not sure its usage is common enough for people to know the term. I like _replicant_ (the fake people in _Bladerunner_ ), but there are some issues using it. _Silhouette_ feels close, but not quite there. The hologram watch from _Total Recall_ comes to mind in describing what I’m looking for. The idea is that there is the real object, but you can interact with the copies just like the original such that it doesn’t matter that they aren’t the original. Sorry, the words I’m looking for would work well in describing what I’m looking for! * * * ## Edit I’m working on a software library for interprocess communication, and am trying to come up with a few terms that convey the intent. The idea is that you create an object in your process that behaves the expected way, and it doesn't matter whether the “real” object exists in another process. If the object is in another process, the library handles all of the communication to keep things synchronized with that (real) object so your version behaves exactly the same way. Proxy and RPC ( _remote procedure call_ ) focus on the information transport. I’m looking to convey the intent instead of the implementation. I do need terms for each, so I can describe the implementation to people. * * * ## Edit2 Updated to clarify question. I'm not sure what the line is between describing a conceptual behavior in computer programming vs. naming of a class. The suggestions have been very helpful for helping me figure out how to describe what I'm working on, so it is unfortunate that my question has been put on hold as off-topic.


"Elves and Men, the Firstborn and the Followers"

This is a quote from Silmarillion, but I really do not know if there are two meanings or one. Because on my language this "Followers" can means that come after the Firstborn or those who likes following, like sheep. For example, I can say "The Secondborn" instead Followers. This is the oficial translation. So, in your interpretation, these word has just one meaning and the second one is just misunderstood or that word really can be used with these two meanings and that looks like a double intentional interpretation?


Does the phrase "violations will be enforced" make any sense?

I see this on traffic signs around my town, and I don't think it makes any sense. I googled the phrase and apparently a lot of people use it that way, but that does not change my opinion. I think you can:   Enforce a law   Respond to a violation   Punish a violator But how can you enforce a violation? Violations are prohibited… not enforced.


Single word to describe something that is "meant to be"

I am trying to come up with a single word that describes the saying "meant to be" in a poetic and prophetic manner (but I am not looking for a fantastical description that talks too much about fate). Specifically this is referring to a situation where Neil deGrasse Tyson succeeded Carl Sagan as host of the show 'Cosmos'. In Carl Sagan's personal journal, he had mentioned that he had always wanted to meet Neil deGrasse, since he had a lot of respect for him. Anyway, it was almost "meant to be" that Neil deGrasse would become the next host of Cosoms. The closest word I could think of was "poetic." -- It was very "poetic" that Neil deGrasse would take over as host of Cosmos...but it is not exactly the word I am looking for. Any suggestions??


Is this an oxymoron

Is the following quote an oxymoron? > I hope the events at the Olympics will be uneventful (meaning lacking any > terrorist attacks, etc.)


“Terrified, John locked the door” — Is the comma necessary?

Which one would sound better? **_Terrified, John locked the door and switched off the lights._** OR **_Terrified John locked the door and switched off the lights._**


Correctness of "Let go!"

I yelled _Let go!_ to my son while he was pulling his sister's arm. My husband says it's incorrect. I have no idea. Is it correct?


The expression "by my checks the bet should be winning" is correct?

Could you please tell me is the expressions "by my checks the match finished" and "by my checks the bet should be winning" are correct? Many thanks, Sandy.


Does "prosody" include facial-expressions and gestures?

Is "prosody" purely aural / auditory or can it also include visual perceptions? Are facial-expressions (rolling of eyes to indicate sarcasm) considered as contributing to _prosody_? What about hand-gestures like air quotes?


Is there a single word that means "more informative"?

Looking for one word that means "more informative" or "more clear", "better communicates" etc...


Which pronoun to refer to "person"? It? He or She? They?

"When he found his seat on the plane, Sam recognized the person who was sitting in the seat next to his. It? She? was a woman he knew." Which is more common/natural? Isn't 'it' more correct – grammatically speaking – than 'she', since 'a person' can be a 'he' or a 'she', and obviously you cannot use the singular 'they' here?


Why do these verbs take bare infinitives?

> [a] It makes the tree grow. [b] I never heard him speak. I’m wondering why causative and sense verbs ( _make, hear_ ) license bare infinitives for their complement, instead of taking _to_ infinitives? What semantic difference is there between bare and _to_ infinitives? I glimpse a clue that this adjective complement is “more immediately or directly visible (CGEL,p.263)” in ‘she looked **happy** ’ than in ‘she looked **to be happy** ’; _to_ infinitives have meaning of modality, change, and potentiality (CGEL, pp.174, 1242, 1243). And I guess those verbs would take bare infinitives to denote concurrence of matrices and complements' actions. But I’ve not found any accounts of this. Why do they license bare infinitives? (I've read the difference between their taking infinitive and gerund, in ELL and CGEL (p.1236-7): the verbs have the "whole event" of the infinitives and "a segment of" the gerund.)


How do you call the largest unsigned item in a list?

so for example, what is the clearest way to refer to -10 in the vector $v$; $v=(1,2/3,-10)$. I   initially was going to refer to it as the largest entry of $v$ but don't want to run the risk of having the reader infer that I'm implying $1$ (obviously, in this paragraph I'm talking about the 'largest' of an non specific vector, so I can't refer to it as the third entry). # edit: here is the context: > [...] we use the convention of flipping the sign of $\pmb P_q$ so that it's > largest unsigned entry is always positive. $\pmb P_q$ is a matrix with many entries (some positive, some negative). It turns out that the only the magnitude of these entries matter in this application. Still, to compare two such matrices (say $\pmb P_q$ and $\pmb P_q'$), we need to impose a sign convention.


give some example using s+verb(be)+adj+to+infinitive?

> s+verb(be)+adj+to+infinitive? i just wanted to know how to use and give some example using this.


How to convert this sentence into passive voice?

Sentence: `the carrier requires the manufacturer to install the software code on the iPhone` I want to conver the above sentence into passive voice by making `software code` to be subject, but not sure I am doing correctly Passive sentence:               the software code is installed on the iPhone by the manufacturer as required by the carrier      Did i change the meaning of the original sentence in the passive sentence?


How should I phrase "Not only but also.."?

I am writing a sentence like so: > "I bought the Dell laptop because not only did I find the price appealing > but I also liked the the fact that the laptop had an integrated webcam." Is my use of ".. not only .. but also ..." appropriate? Is there a better way to phrase such a sentence?


Way of saying 'washes hands of it' but implies physical

Looking for a non-crappy way of describing someone doing that washing hand motion you do to clear your hands of dust or dirt, but without saying 'washing hand motion'. I feel like there's a good way of describing it, a stock phrase of some kind, but I can't remember it. Tip of the tongue, and it's driving me mad.


Word or phrase for literally and figuratively?

Say, for example, you and a group of people were all sailing out in the ocean and something happens...then you say, "I guess we are all in the same boat" You are literally in the same boat with everyone else, and your current situation is the same as everyone else. Now such a phrase can be applied literally and figuratively. I was wondering if there was a word that would mean both literally and figuratively. I know this is a tad bit of an oxymoron, but I was curious to see if there was such an "all encompassing" word for this.


"Though", "even though" and "although"

I **do** want to know what is the difference between these three conjunctions. Are there any differences? "Though" vs. "Even though" vs. "Although"


"__ like so much fine china" phrase

I sometimes see this kind of usage of "like so much": > Her flawlessly crafted facade hides a real person that's usually breaking > like so much fine china in order to keep up the deception. Similarly: > In staking out the line between poem and prose, [Danielewski] treats our > traditional lexis like so much Silly Putty. Seems kind of archaic / quaint to me. What does it mean exactly?


Through a Glass, Clearly / A Scanner Darkly / In a Mirror, Darkly / etc

I've seen a pattern in a couple of titles.   * Asimov has a book called "Through a Glass, Clearly".   * Philip Dick wrote "A Scanner Darkly".   * Star Trek has the episode "In a Mirror, Darkly"   * Agatha Christy wrote the story "In a Glass, Darkly" Curiously, 3 of the 4 are sci-fi. Any reason for the commonality of phrasing? Does it have some sort of meaning? Anyone know how it originated? Is it used in spoken English?


What is the convenient way to state the meaning that being bored in the past?

So, actually, I would like to form the sentence that includes "bored" in the past perfect continous. Is it right, if I say: "I had been being bored." ? Or what would be the right way to say that a person was being bored during in a particular time in the past ?


What is the definition of a word?

I'm wondering what the minimal requirement for a word to be an actual word is. My _opinion_ is that a word is a word if it can be understood and defined by everyone who hears it in conversation. For example, let's say my friend and I are having a discussion about Quant Wall Street algorithmic traders. During the discussion I use words like "Quantism" and "Quantic" etc. They aren't words, but the meaning is immediately apparent and understood. Are these now English words? Similarly a phrase like "I'm so sick, I'm going to vom"-- everyone knows what's impending. Thanks for your time and input.


"Take a decision" vs. "decide"

I realise there is a small element of subjectivity, but for the purposes of efficient use of the English language, I wonder if one should say "take a decision" or simply "decide". I feel like many, if not all, uses of "take a decision" could just as easily be said as "decide" but I hear the latter relatively rarely. My question is, do they mean exactly the same thing?


Which sentence is correct to say?

In a conversation, which of the two sentences below is grammatically correct? > There was a party celebrating for my sister's marriage. > > There was a party which was being celebrated for my sister's marriage.


Why is it silly to think that ‘all truth is relative’?

> First of all, why is it silly to think that ‘all truth is relative’? Well, > we know that the statement ‘all truth is relative’ _cannot_ be _absolutely_ > true, because if this statement _were_ absolutely true then not all truth > would be relative. So only two possibilities remain. Either the statement > ‘all truth is relative’ is absolutely false – in which case we shouldn’t > accept it. Or the statement ‘all truth is relative’ is only true for some > people and is false for other people   >  – in which case, why should we accept that it’s true? (♦)   >  Either way, it’s senseless to think that ‘all truth is relative’. As the > philosopher Roger Scruton observes, ‘A writer who says that there are no > truths, or that all truth is “merely relative” is asking you not to believe > him. So don’t.’ Would someone please explain and elucidate this paragraph? I'm only asking about the use of English in this paragraph; I don't apprehend the argument as written in English. I'm not asking about law or philosophy per se. Also, why should we NOT accept the sentence that I've signaled with (♦) ? Source: P80, Letters to a Law Student, 1st Ed 2006, by Nicholas McBride


Meaning - "Thank you," ... "but apologize to him."

> Last November, Sri Srinivasan, a government lawyer, apologized to Justice > David H. Souter for referring to him as Justice Scalia. > > "Thank you," Justice Souter said, with characteristic self-deprecation, "but > apologize to him." > > "[Laughter.]" Would someone please elucidate the meaning or subtext here? Is Justice Souter implying that the apology should be directed at Justice Scalia, because Scalia, and not Souter, is the one who would be offended? What's amusing?


What to call someone who falsely accuses you?

One Word. A person that falsely, without valid proof, accuses you of something, such as a statement or act you said or did. Either because of his lack of knowledge about the proof or because of intent.