What is “It’s me swindle” called in U.S. / U.K. / Canada?

In Japan, so-called “Ore-ore sagi -おれおれ詐欺"(It’s me swindle) is rampant. “It’s me swindle” is a fraudulent technique to swindle money from aged people, in most cases loving mothers, by calling them in disguise of their son. They say “Mom, it’s me,” on phone. “I lost a big money today. If I don’t pay it back, I’ll be in jail. Please transfer X amount of money to my bank account xxxx,” and urge the target parent to pay the quoted sum immediately into a suggested bank account. The total amount of damage by “It’s me swindle" jumped up to ￥48.7 billion (USD 487 million) in 2013 from ￥364 billion (USD 364 million) in 2012 in Japan. The National Police Agency officially named “It’s me swindle” as “Special Fraud” last year, which I think very vague naming. I heard “It’s me swindles” are observed in U.S. too, and that it’s called “I’m Mike” fraud. Is it true? What do you call this crime in spoken English and in legal term?


Using semicolons to create run-on sentences ... what's the deal with semis?

I often see people making sentences quite longer than I'm comfortable with, such as like this: > The dog ran, the dog fell, the dog dwelled; the dog didn't wish to be a part > of such a place in his life; however, the dog did do his deed and carried > on. That is how I witness people with semicolons, and they're always making sentences longer and longer this way. It's wrong, isn't it? A semicolon used is to include a separate clause that does not stand well in a sentence of its own, yes? If so, that example sentence above should be phrased as: > The dog ran, the dog fell, the dog dwelled. The dog didn't wish to be a part > of such a place in his life; however, the dog did do his deed and carried > on. Alternatively, you could make it a bit different by carrying it on with a comma instead: > The dog ran, the dog fell, the dog dwelled. The dog didn't wish to be a part > of such a place in his life, however, the dog did do his deed and carried > on. Basically, I want to know what the deal is here: Are those sentences with tons of semicolons that continue endlessly correct, am I wrong, or how do you accurately determine if the sentence should be snipped of semicolons?


Is it okay to say and write "ain't" yet?

Over 10 years ago saying "ain't" was discouraged but it was gaining momentum. What happened? Seems like it's still discouraged. Maybe in another 10 years?


Things we put on the left side of lists

I'm looking for an umbrella term (hypernym) that covers the things we put on the left side of lists — bullets, numbers, letters, etc. Is there such a word?


No quotation mark in a book?

So I just bought this book 'Requiem for a dream' and I just "found out" that there is no quotation mark in the book in a conversation. So it's up to me to tell when the converstation started by who! Anyone knows what this is. A traditional novel style of something?! How can I do some read with this? ![Snapshot of a page](http://i.stack.imgur.com/YAsW1.jpg)


Is "webdesigner" a word?

I am a uh, designer of websites, and I would like to use the phrase for my profession correctly. Unfortunately, _webdesigner_ is flagged by Google Chrome's spellchecker as a misspelling, and _web designer_ and _web-designer_ are suggested as alternatives. Dictionary.com only suggests _web designer_ , not even _web-designer_. Is webdesigner a misspelling?


Meaning in context and grammar

**From Narnia book 1 chapter 1:** > "Is Mr Ketterley really mad?" > > "Well either he's mad," said Digory, "or there's some other mystery. He has > a study on the top floor and Aunt Letty says I must never go up there. Well, > that looks fishy to begin with. And then there's another thing. Whenever he > tries to say anything to me at meal times - he never even tries to talk to > her - she always shuts him up. She says, "Don't worry the boy, Andrew" or > "I'm sure Digory doesn't want to hear about that" or else "Now, Digory, > wouldn't you like to go out and play in the garden?" > > "What sort of things does he try to say?" > > "I don't know. He never gets far enough. But there's more than that. One > night - it was last night in fact \- as I was going past the foot of the > attic-stairs on my way to bed (and I don't much care for going past them > either) I'm sure I heard a yell." > > "Perhaps he keeps a mad wife shut up there." > > "Yes, I've thought of that." > > "Or perhaps he's a **_coiner_**." > > "Or he might have been a pirate, like the man at the beginning of Treasure > Island, and be always hiding from his old shipmates." > > "How exciting!" said Polly, "I never knew your house was so interesting." . > > "You may think it interesting," said Digory. "But you wouldn't like it if > you had to sleep there. How would you like to lie awake listening for Uncle > Andrew's step to come creeping along the passage to your room? And he has > such awful eyes." > > That was how Polly and Digory got to know one another: and as it was just > the beginning of the summer holidays and neither of them was going to the > sea that year, they met nearly every day. > > Their adventures began chiefly because it was one of the wettest and coldest > summers there had been for years. That drove them to do indoor things: you > might say, indoor exploration. It is wonderful how much exploring you can do > with a stump of candle in a big house, or in a row of houses. Polly had > discovered long ago that if you opened a certain little door in the **_box- > room attic_** of her house you would find the **_cistern_** and **_a dark > place behind it_** which you could get into by a little careful climbing. > The dark place was like a long tunnel with brick wall on one side and > sloping roof on the other. In the roof there were little chunks of light > between the slates. There was no floor in this tunnel: you had to step from > rafter to rafter, and between them there was only plaster. If you stepped on > this you would find yourself falling through the ceiling of the room below. > Polly had used the bit of the tunnel just beside the cistern as a smugglers' > cave. She had brought up bits of old packing cases and the seats of broken > kitchen chairs, and things of that sort, and spread them across from rafter > to rafter so as to make a bit of floor. Here she kept a cash-box containing > various treasures, and a story she was writing and usually a few apples. She > had often drunk a quiet bottle of ginger-beer in there: the old bottles made > it look more like a smugglers' cave. > > Digory quite liked the cave (she wouldn't let him see the story) but he was > more interested in exploring. > > "Look here," he said. "How long does this tunnel go on for? I mean, does it > stop where your house ends?" > > "No," said Polly. "The walls don't go out to the roof. It goes on. I don't > know how far." > > "Then we could get the length of the whole row of houses." > > "So we could," said Polly, "And oh, I say!" > > "What?" > > "We could get into the other houses." > > "Yes, and get taken up for burglars! No thanks." > > "Don't be so jolly clever. I was thinking of the house beyond yours." , > > "What about it?" > > "Why, it's the empty one. Daddy says it's always been empty since we came > here." > > "I suppose we ought to have a look at it then," said Digory. He was a good > deal more excited than you'd have thought from the way he spoke. **For of > course he was thinking, just as you would have been, of all the reasons why > the house might have been empty so long.** So was Polly. Neither of them > said the word "haunted". And both felt that once the thing had been > suggested, it would be feeble not to do it. > > "Shall we go and try it now?" said Digory. > > "Alright," said Polly. > > "Don't if you'd rather not," said Digory. > > "I'm game if you are," said she. * * * The words in bold and italic, I've looked up the dictionary, but I cannot find a good explanation: coiner, no idea at all. box-room attic, I know what is attic, but box-room I have no idea. cistern, dictionary said it is a big water tank, do these people keep a water tank in their house? Where is the dark place it is talking about? How come there is a tunnel in a house? Where is it? I am not native English, and I live building with 35 floors, so I cannot imagine what does the above tunnel/house/attic look like, would you give me a guide on this? I don't understand where are they and where are the tunnel. If the tunnel are in the roof, why can it connect to other houses? And the later sentence in bold, "For of course...." is a new grammar expression I've never seen. What is the function of "For" and "of course" in here? What does it trying to express?


Universal Etymology of Words

Where could I find examples of words and their etymologies that occur frequently in many different languages? For example, I know that the English word "Mother" shares a similar etymology with many other languages from civilizations across the globe. Is there an online resource that provides examples of some (or many!) other words like this.


How were key positions on the typical QWERTY keyboard chosen?

It's hard to know where to ask this question, but I decided to ask it here because of how uniquely the keyboard relates to the language being typed. The keyboard appears to be English-specific, but I'm not experienced enough to tell for sure. Were the key placements chosen logically, or randomly? Can someone explain the history behind it?


Usage of "convivial"

Is "convivial" a formal and uncommon word? Can I say "a convivial community"?


Is "Don't Nobody/Anybody/Anyone + verb" a double negative?

I was reading a passage in Steinbeck's _Of Mice and Men_ and a character, a migrant farmer, says of another character's fighting ability: > "Nobody don't know what Slim can do". And then a little later, a similar statement: > "Nobody can't tell what a guy'll do". I'm quite familiar with slangy statements phrased like questions, such as: _Don't nobody care_ , or _Don't anybody want to hear that_ , or _Don't anyone feel like talking to you_ , but the reversal of the first two words--which does not seem to change the meaning--sounds off. My questions are, are constructions like > Don't nobody/anybody/anyone + verb and > Nobody don't + verb double negatives, and, if so, is that why the pieces (don't, nobody) can be moved around without changing the meaning?


Meaning of "excited much", "stalker much"

What does 'excited much' or 'stalker much' mean exactly, and which context are they used in? I don't get the usage of _much_ after a noun or adjective. I often see this construction in comments, for example.


Where's 'in-law' in mother-in-law from?

I've read that it's somehow connected with the Canon Law, but I'm not sure. I'm really interested in finding the answer.


Which is more common - 'the most' or 'most'?

A thing I have never had the time to look more closely into. But I find both variants: > What I love most is ... or > What I love the most is ... I think the more common form is 'the most', and I think 'most' is only a matter of shortening the adverbial. But I may be mistaken. It might also be that it is a thing of regional or individual preferences or that American and British usage diverge.


phrase request: describe authorship which overruns logical stopping points and/or fails to omit extraneous ideas

> How can I describe authorship where the author often oversteps logical > stopping points, or where the author introduces superfluous, tangentially > related content? Here are some more details to describe the situation I am referring to. Suppose there is a true statement about the relationship between A and B which is what the author wants to express. Now suppose there is another true relationship between B and C which is true but has little or no relevance to the topic at hand. The type of author I have in mind would slide smoothly from A to B to C in a single sentence or paragraph regardless of the damage it does to the cohesion of the paragraph. In short, I guess you could say such an author has a penchant for adding fifth-wheel ideas. Some bad alternatives crossed my mind. It is kind of like "logorrhea," except it's not about verbosity, it's about ideas. Apparently "idearrhea" already exists (informally) but does not really have the connotation I'm interested in. The type of author I have in mind is capable of writing clear individual statements, but they apparently have trouble evaluating what to mention and what to omit. I think this word or phrase would be useful because I think it is a common affliction in poor student writing. A student writing for a prompt may write the entire document in one pass, spewing ideas down onto the page as they came into mind. If the student then didn't proofread for clarity of presentation of ideas, I can easily imagine this pattern of awkward chains emerging.


Difference between "canteen" and "cafeteria"

Are there any differences between _canteen_ and _cafeteria_? In India, usually an eating place attached to an office, factory or school is called a _canteen_. Of course, in some new offices it is called _cafeteria_ , but government offices and factories still call them _canteens_. In US, I have never heard _canteen_ used except for military canteen. Is it the same in British English too?


Why "it’s turtles" not "they are turtles"

_It_ is a third person singular and is used to refer to _a thing_. If that’s the case, then why do we say: > A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public > lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and > how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars > called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back > of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is > really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The > scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise > standing on.” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old > lady. “But _it’s turtles_ all the way down!”   >  —from _A Brief History of Time_ by Stephen Hawking I would use _it_ instead of _they_ because the former sounds natural to me, but I wouldn’t be able to explain the convoluted details (unless they are simple) behind it.


Using apostrophe when abbreviating "recommendations" as "reco's"

When abbreviating the word "recommendations" as "reco's", is it proper to use the apostrophe to show that it's an abbreviation, or does it conflict with a possessive apostrophe?


Why does common usage of "random" feel so incorrect?

I am bothered by the modern usage of the term "random", and am wondering if "it's just me" or if there is a reason for my being discomfited. Take for instance, this lovely bit:               The column and table names are random.       Or, perhaps, in the colloquial sense, when talking about a post on Facebook, etc.:               That's so random.      To me, random indicates something that occurs completely _by chance_. A post on Facebook and indeed the names of columns and tables, can hardly be "random" since they have been _chosen_ consciously. Am I right, or just too "old skool" for my own good?


What is the difference between "accounting" and "accountancy"?

Is there a difference between the words "accounting" or "accountancy", when referring to the field or branch of study?   * Could one or the other be said to be a subfield within the other?   * Are there any abbreviated forms for both or either of these words used to refer to the field, e.g., similar to "biol." used for "biology"?


Proper use of "prescience" & "prescient" with implicit subject

If I am sending an email with the subject line: **Look at how spot on the Economist was with the Real Estate Bubble** In the body of the email, I quote 2 paragraphs from the article and write a comment like so: \---- Begin Email Body This article was written in 2005. Key passages: > NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so   >  many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America,   >  Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property   >  prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket   >  bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust? > > According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of   >  residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30   >  trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase   >  equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does   >  this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global   >  stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of   >  80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of   >  GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history. http://www.economist.com/node/4079027?story_id=4079027 Wow......talk about prescient. \---- End Email Body Is my use of 'prescient' here correct or incorrect? Why or why not? I would love an explanation about the structure of the language and how it applies in this case.


Does the word “umpty” have two different meanings?

I happened to learn the word “umpty” in association with “umpteen” appearing in the following sentence in the article titled “Obama’s Gitmo Problem” in May 24 New York Times: > Late Wednesday afternoon, President Obama made his big national security > speech — in which he said, for the **umpteenth** time, that the prison in > Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should be closed. Both Merriam-Webster online dictionary and Readers English Japanese Dictionary at hand define ‘umpty’ as ‘such and such,’ in the same wording with an example, ‘umpty percent of all new houses’ in Merriam Webster. It sounds like simply saying ‘a certain’ or 'X' against an unidentifiable number or thing. While both ‘Free dictionary’ and ‘Dictionary com’ define it as ‘an indefinite, fairly large number’ in the same wording. Though implications of ‘such and such’ looks different from ‘an indefinite, large number’ to me, are all saying the same thing, or there are two different meanings in this word? Neither Cambridge nor Oxford Dictionary carries this word. Is ‘umpty’ popular English word? Can you give me a couple of examples of the use of “umpty” other than ‘umpty percent of something’’?


What's the deal with exophoric pronoun references?

I have been reading about errors with exophoric pronoun references (the paper was mostly aimed at preparing one for a certain standardized test), and found the author saying "In the context of this test, exophoric pronouns are **always** incorrect." So I have two questions: 1) Just to make sure that I understand exophoric pronoun references correctly, I am wondering if something like > John went outside in the middle of the day. He found the weather to be > calming and relaxing. would be incorrect within the context of the standardized test? It looks very natural to me, but I think that's because in my native tongue such a reference is acceptable ("he" is exophoric here, am I right?) 2) How unwelcome are the exophoric references in general? Is it just this test being picky, or should I refrain from using them elsewhere?


How accepted is ‘f***ing’ in informal conversation?

I live in Brazil and speak English as a foreign language. For the past twenty years I've heard people use the adjective _fucking_ more often than ever before in the US: in real life, in movies and on TV. Sentences like "You _fucking_ idiot." I've also heard the word being used as an adverb. My question is: how acceptable is it in informal conversation, at work, among friends, talking to a stranger, etc. Does anyone get shocked if you use it? Whatever your answer, can you say whether it applies to England and other English speaking countries?


Word for "the action of making something optimistic"

Is there such a word or concise paraphrase that corresponds? _Optimize_ might have the same root but it obviously doesn't have the same meaning. Is there any verbal form that could fit or does _optimism_ (and any other philosophy) imply a self state?


What is the difference between “scream” and “shriek”?

I’m now curious because while I was updating the Wikipedia page for Onomatopoeias, I saw two different sets of sounds for _scream_ and _shriek_. The sounds listed under these two sections seem to overlap. According to Google, both words are synonyms: >   * **scream** _noun_   >  a long, loud, piercing cry expressing extreme emotion or pain. > >   * **shriek** _noun_   >  a high-pitched piercing cry or sound; a scream. > > They both seem to have almost identical meaning. (They are identical to me.) Is there any difference between these two words?


'Preternatural' vs 'supernatural'

I am wondering what the **precise differences** between _preternatural_ and _supernatural_ are. I know _praeter_ is Latin for _beyond_ so that _preternatural_ literally means _beyond natural_. But how exactly does that compare to _supernatural_? Isn't _supernatural_ just the same thing? I also have the vague idea that on the "scale of unnatural-ness" we should have _unnatural_ < _preternatural_ < _supernatural_ = most unnatural. Is that the only distinction?


Using 'for' as a coordinating conjunction at sentence beginning

As I understand it, 'for' is a coordinating conjunction. Learning German as a second language has taught me specifics about reforming sentences, but it is an awful lot less common in English. If I were to rearrange the sentence: "I ate lunch, for I was hungry," so that 'for' was the first word of the sentence, by my reckoning I should end up with "For that I was hungry, I ate lunch." Does this new sentence have any grammatical errors? I inserted the word 'that' after 'for', because without it the sentence didn't sound right. Should I have? Is there a rule for that? Thank you in advance, an aspiring author. **Additional Information:** I am not having problems with the sentence, this is a general question to increase my knowledge of the manipulations of coordinating conjuntions.


Are there regional distinctions in how hiccup/hiccough is spelled?

So I was a student of English was taught English right on the border between the US and Canada. My husband (who is from the Southwestern states) was reading something I wrote where I used the spelling hiccough and laughed at the spelling as he had not yet encountered it. I was wondering if there was any regionality behind how one spelling gets chosen over another in how the spelling is taught. I actually know and use both spellings (I don't know why I choose one over another in any particular circumstance). To draw an analogy, all over BC Canada, you find "cheque" spelled as I show here. However, all over Washington State US, you find it spelled, "check." Pronunciation is the same. I'm just wondering if any one knows if there is a similarity in regard to hiccup/hiccough.


"Apply for" vs. "apply to"

Here I want to say that this function just should be applied to the following classes: Conductors, RYSP and Officer. > This function just applies for/to Conductors, RYSP and Officers. But once again I am not sure which preposition should I use ?


Comma at the end of a sentence?

Is it correct to use a comma before the word "correct" in the following sentences: You get in tonight, correct? Or her name is Mary, correct? If so, what's the rule for this?


What is the opposite of the verb obfuscate?

The opposite for veil is unveil but what is the opposite for obfuscate? Is it unobfuscate?


What does the phrase “I’m down with” mean?

I was wondering about the meaning of: > I am down with something. Also, I was wondering whether people say: > I am up with something. If so, what does it mean?


Can I start a text with “While”?

I know it’s OK to start sentences with _While_ , but is it OK to start a **text** with it? For example: > While electron-electron correlations and interactions are crucial in the > descriptions of atoms and molecules, studies of ionization in the strong- > field régime have in general ignored their effects. I’ve had a look in the corpora but I can’t quite see how to ask the question there.


Is there a term that describes the class of words that, if accidentally dropped, completely invert the meaning of the sentence?

When typing a sentence, accidentally dropping a word is much more common than accidentally adding a word. I do it often enough in long emails that I have to double check any important draft before I send it. **Is there a term that describes the class of words that, if accidentally dropped, completely _invert_ the meaning of the sentence while the sentence retains grammatical and contextual validity?** For example, **`not`** , **`just`** and **`if`** would exist in this "class" of words:   * Dropping **`not`** : _"The 1930s were not Germany's finest political period"_ becomes _"The 1930s were Germany's finest political period"_.   * Dropping **`just`** : _"Designing space-age rockets was not just hard; it was cool"_ becomes _"Designing space-age rockets was not hard; it was cool"_.   * Dropping **`if`** : _"If the briefcase is his, you will execute the spy"_ becomes _"The briefcase is his, you will execute the spy"_.


Difference between "chest" and "trunk"

According to several dictionaries, a "trunk" is a large case or box that can be used when travelling or for storage, whereas a "chest" is used only for storage. Is that the only difference between the concepts of "chest" and "trunk"? Which word is more common? Which one comes to your mind first when you see that kind of large box?


Name for anti-decoy

There is this trick when you give a person two choices: one which you want her to accept; and the other, which is significantly worse than the first one. This way you create the illusion of choice, and also make the first option look better when contrasted with the second. In some sense this is anti-decoy: a decoy must attract, while this fake option must repel. Is there a name for this second, fake option?


Syntax of "not only" + "furthermore"

Can I use _not only_ with _furthermore_ instead of _also_? > Not only is he tall, he is also heavy. Can I say or write: > Not only is he tall, he is furthermore heavy. or (and please tell me if this one is correct): > Not only is he tall, but furthermore he is heavy.


What is the word for using something for other than its intended purpose?

I think this is originally a term used in biology or evolution theory. I heard it in a youtube video but I cannot find it now. **Edit:** This word does not have negative connotations. For instance, an animal may develop a different way to use an organ intended for something else. Or you can use a big book as a door stop.


Proportion of unique words in typical English text?

I recall hearing a statistic that, in a typical block of English text (e.g. a novel) a really suprisingly large proportion (a third? half?) of the distinct words that appear, appear only once. That is, if you counted each occurrence of each distinct word in the text, then you'd find a huge proportion of the distinct words appear only once each. I think I heard this on a radio show but I can't find the source. Can anyone confirm where I might have heard this, and/or indicate whether there's any truth to it? Thanks.


Past subjunctive Vs. Present Subjunctive

The verb _be_ is the only one that has a past subjunctive form. In some cases, _be_ , as a subjunctive, retains its present form even if the sentence is in the past tense. > Example: > > Present: It is essential that **she be** present. > > Past: It was essential that **she be** present. However, in other cases, namely, conditional sentences and subordinating conjunctions, we use the past form of the subjunctive > Example: > > **If there were a** death penalty for corporations, Enron may have earned > it. So two questions here:   1. Is there a reason the subjunctive _be_ remains in its present form in some past tense constructs, yet is converted to the past form _were_ in some others?   2. And if we use the were-subjunctive to express contrary-to-the-fact clauses, then why Shakespeare said this?  > **If music be** the food of love, play on.


Replacement for the word "mediator"

I am trying to look for a word that means: a person that organizes communication between two or more parties. For example: If I work with a group and we must communicate with a company and a professor, and I were to make sure everyone is on the same page and communicate between the three groups, what would I be? I can only think of _mediator_. However it seems to imply that these groups are in conflict.


it "went" without saying?

I was reading a traveling novel and came across this sentence: > We all caught the metro back to the centre of town at about midnight, drunk > and very happy. It goes without saying that the carriage was crammed full of > people drinking beer and snogging. The native-English author used "goes" instead of "went." My question is: Would it be awkward to say "It went without saying..."? I've googled both. Although "goes" appears a hundred times more than "went," there're still around 692,000 results of the latter.


Origin of the phrase "third time's the charm" / "third time lucky"?

What would the origin of the saying "Third time's the charm" ? I've also heard it used as "third time lucky" ....Does anyone know if they are related ?


Is "Canuck" offensive?

I was criticized the other day for using this word. It never occurred to me that it was offensive, but Wikipedia says it "may" be derogatory. Given Vancouver's hockey team, I tend to think it's benign, but I wouldn't want to get William Shatner angry. Please help me oot.


"Inter-", "multi-", "cross-", "trans-" in relation to disciplines

In academia the words _inter-discipline, multi-discipline, trans-discipline_ , or _cross-discipline_ are used to describe a type of combination between different disciplines or the uniqueness of a field. Searching on OED.com for the terms _inter, multi_ , _cross_ and _trans_ shows different uses.   * _multi_ has some nouns and adjectives, with one option of "multi-, comb. form"    * _cross_ has nouns, verbs, adjectives and prepositions, with "cross-, comb. form"   * _inter_ has nouns, adjectives, verbs and prepositions, with "inter-, prefix"   * _trans_ has nouns and adjectives, with "trans-, prefix" In academia, the difference between _multi_ or _inter_ is not well-defined. What is the difference between "comb.form" and "prefix"? Why are there no results for using _multi_ or _cross_ as a prefix, but there are for _inter_ and _trans_? How did the interchangeability of these come about, or is it improper to use them that way?


Entice and Persuade

Could someone provide insight into the following difference between entice and persuade


What does "those are the breaks" mean?

I remarked to a friend, "It's too bad I have to wake up early," and he responded "those are the breaks." What does this mean? Isn't it a bad thing to wake up late, which would be the opposite of a break?


Positive synonym for 'exploit'

I want to know a single word which denotes the idea of full or maximum utilization, such as the words _exploit_ or _milk_. But the trouble is, they both have a negative tone to them. Is there a positive word which can be substituted for 'best use' etc.


Would you mind, please

I receive various requests -- over email -- of the form "Would you mind please..." or "Would you please mind..." with and without punctuation. Neither of these sound quite right to my native AE/Californian ear. > Would you mind, please provide some details for us to capture the steps > required for future requests? > > Would you please mind providing some details for us to capture the steps > required for future requests? Are these grammatically correct? Is there a better way to express these? Is the "please" necessary and in what position in the sentence?


Meaning of "one in his/her own underwear"

I wonder what it means by "someone is in his/her underwear" both literally and figuratively? For example: > When people downvote your posts arbitrarily just imagine them in their > underwear.


"Always" vs. "forever"

What is the difference between _always_ and _forever_? Are they synonyms used in different contexts or can they be used interchangeably?


Is “laser-focused” a new word?

I found the word “ _laser-focused_ on the bottom line” in the following sentence of the _New York Times_ (August 6) op ed titled, “Dream, Baby, Dream!” > “We also know – look at Syria – dictators who have spent decades ruling > through fear do not go quietly into the night any more than great powers > readily abandon their profitable dominions. And I thought these finance guys > were hard-nosed realists _laser-focused_ on the bottom line. > > Dream on, Mitt, dream on! Even if your dreams, to use that word you let drop > on the Olympics in London and then scrambled to retract, are > “disconcerting.” I think _laser-focused_ simply means “pinpointed” or “sharply focused.” It doesn’t seem to be any foreign word to me. However, curiously enough, this apparently easy-to-relate word is not found in any of Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster online dictionary, or in Ngram inventory. Other online vocabulary site e.g. www.wordnik.com says `'laser-focused' hasn't been added to any lists yet`. But I found the catch phrase, “Wal-Mart ‘gets _laser-focused’_ on lowest prices again” in DailyFinance. Is _laser-focused_ a received English word, or a business jargon, or just an up-and-coming word?


"All of this" vs "All of these"

I've read/heard people saying "all of this" and "all of these" where _this_ and _these_ both refer to some plural entity. Are there any differences in using _this_ and _these_ in this way? I'm guessing that the answer is that it doesn't matter, but wanted to make sure. For example (taken from here) > Participants commonly report increased mental clarity, improved quality of > sleep, higher energy levels, and better moods. You can achieve all of this > WITHOUT ... Shouldn't it be "You can achieve all of these"?


What does 'stand' mean in 'stand with regard to'?

I encountered this phrase in a technical book. The surroundings are: > If your goals are measurable (as they should be), you can establish > baselines. Run tests to find out where you currently **stand with regard > to** the metrics for your goals. Can any body tell me What the word _stand_ means here, and what is the meaning of the whole phrase?


Looking for a minimal triple

I am looking for a minimal triple for a particular set of phonemes. By minimal triple, I mean three actual English words that differ in one and only one phoneme between them. Examples therefore include:   * _phony, tony, pony_   * _swim, swam, swum_   * _bad, bat, bath_ The three phonemes that must appear one apiece in each of the three words are: `/ɑ, ɒ, ɔ/`. I can get pairs, but no triples, and I wonder why. Length doesn’t count, so for example `/aː/` counts as `/a/` and `/ɔː/` counts as `/ɔ/`. If such a triple exists, what is it? If no such triple exists, **_could_** it? Or do the various mergers preclude a threefold phonemic distinction here? These have all to be in the same accent, of course. And preferably a rhotic one, too, because I’m trying to figure out something in particular about phonemic perception in rhotic speakers of North America, and non-rhotic accents will not further that goal. As a last resort, if the only such triple you can find is a non-rhotic one, then go ahead and offer that one, perhaps along with some suggested explanation why there “can’t” be an equivalent rhotic triple.


Love in a hating way

Is there a word (or a phrase at least) that means to love in a hating way (hatefully, execrably) ? There is "Love–hate relationship" but it is more like a psychological term. I'm looking for a "noun" or "verb" mainly.


Can I use "because" more than once in a sentence?

Something like, > 'Because' cannot be used in a sentence more than once because... How to explain these sentences?


Is there a word or idiom in English for describing the moment when goverments blame unknown powers?

Is there an idiom or word for describing the moment or situation when governments blame some unknown power(s) for bad results caused by their own actions? These governments try to acquit themselves by blaming these nonexistent, external powers.


Possessive form in alternate names or other extra clarifying sentences?

Suppose I'd like to refer to a car owned by my neighbor. I write this as "That's Mr. Johnson's (my neighbors) car". Should I write the extra "my neighbor" in it's genitive form? Sorry if the title seems messy, but I couldn't think of a good way to put it. An edit would be appreciated.


Is there an English variant of "Zeitgeist" other than "spirit of the times"?

Is there a cut-and-dry English word that means the same, or roughly the same, as the German word "Zeitgeist," other than its literal meaning of "spirit of the times"? I've grown sour on its presence in conversational English due to heavy use as a clever buzzword and would like to know if there is a simpler alternative.


Grease quote explanation "Pinkslips ownership papers?"

My son loves Grease and watches it over and over. So I am starting memorizing it all, but there are some phrases I don't understand. Please explain exactly what this part means (it is before the car race between Danny and Leo - Scorpion's leader): Leo: Good, 'cos we're racing for pinks. Danny: Pinks? Leo: Pinks, you punk! Pink slips! Ownership papers! Danny: Oh, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho!


What is a noun or adjective to describe somebody who juggles work, study, hobbies, family and more?

I'm trying to describe someone who burns the candle at both ends. They work full-time, they study full-time, they have creative projects on the go, they raise their family and manage their property - etc... all at the same time. I want to use a word to sum this up but will also hang a small definition on (similar to what is above) after the word to clear up what it means. Words like multi-tasker spring to mind but this does not convey the meaning I want to give. I also considered words like dexterous and agile - but again, these don't seem quite right. Given that people often use the term 'juggling' to describe people that 'juggle' their work, study and private lives, I thought there might be a nice adjective to describe the skill that a good juggler has but I can't find something suitable for this either. Any help or ideas greatly appreciated. The context is that of a reference for employment or a CV.


Word contractions in Shakespeare's plays

In Shakespeare's plays it is common to find contracted words, such as "o'er", "e'en", "sulph'uous", "ta'en". Is it just a literary device or those words were actually pronounced (in day-to-day speech) that way in Early Modern English?


Term for wordplay using adjacent repetition of homophones

Is there a term for the kind of wordplay in which homophones are repeated adjacently with different meaning? For example, > The **rose rose** up. > > **Rows rose** in church.


"In the third person" or "in third person"

Which is more correct? > He's talking in the third person. > > He's talking in third person. Does it matter?


What is the origin of "sucker" and "it sucks"?

I think it is clear that a _sucker_ means somebody who is naive or gullible, while _it sucks_ means “it is bad”, but I wonder where these two terms come from and what they mean originally? Could _sucker_ actually mean a baby who was just born and therefore, naive and can’t tell if somebody is lying to them? If so, then what about _it sucks_?


AM/PM vs a.m./p.m. vs am/pm

I used to think PM/AM was correct, but at some point, I switched to using p.m./a.m. for reasons I can't recall. I know that in practical, casual writing, people tend to use whatever form is most convenient to them, but I'm curious about what the official usage—should it exist—actually is. What is the correct or official form for these initialisms?   1. Are they capitalized?      * _4 pm_     * _4pm_   2. Is there a space before them?      * _4 PM_     * _4PM_   3. If the correct usage is a.m./p.m., how does this affect punctuation at the end of a sentence?      * _Should we meet at 4 p.m.?_     * _Let's meet at 4 p.m.._ (Let me know if these should be split up into individual questions, but I figured that because they were all related to these initialisms in particular, it might be okay to ask them all in one question.)


Which grammatical case is "him" in "I help him", and why?

In languages which distinguish the accusative and dative cases, it is clear from the actual usage whether a divalent verb takes a direct or indirect object. For example, the German _eat_ takes a direct object ("ich esse ihn"), while _help_ takes an indirect object ("ich helfe ihm"). How do you know what kind of object an English verb takes? Which case is the object pronoun in the phrase "I help him"? Edit: I'm looking for a reason to say that it, without doubt, is an accusative or dative pronoun. The reason for the German example is that the English accusative and dative pronouns are degenerate, and it therefore is easy to claim something -- you can't disprove it with an example.


Expanding "science" and "diligence" usage to direct object

I seem to have seen these phrases: > to do science   >  to do due diligence quite a bit in recent years, and they sound funny to me; I wonder whether this usage of "diligence" and "science" as direct objects of "do" is in fact new, or just a bit of ignorance on my part? Assuming that these words _have_ expanded their allowed functions in sentences, what is that expansion called (cf. "verbing" (probably not the technical term :))? Are there other examples? Is this a common occurrence?


Are the noun and verb forms of "badger" related etymologically?

Are the noun "badger", naming an animal, and the verb "to badger", describing the behavior of a person, related etymologically? Does the meaning of one come directly from the other? What about the word "badge"?


Are "fault" and "default" etymologically related?

_Fault_ and _default_ sound rather similar to me as a German, but are they really related? I am interested in _default_ as used in _default value_ for some configurable setting in computer programs.


Is there a sound name for 's', 'z', 'sh', 'ch' and 'j'

I know the sound name of 's' or 'sh' is called sibilant. This pronunciation name is useful and could be used to summarize the pronunciation rules, instead of listing all the individual letters. But for this list - 's', 'z', 'sh', 'ch' and 'j'(/dʒ/) , what is their sound name? If there is no such a single name to cover them all, what's the descriptive language for them? This list is special because the final 's' at the end of their plural forms is pronounced as /əz/.


What does "God is subtle, but He is not malicious" mean?

What does the phrase "God is subtle, but He is not malicious" mean? I've read an answer here, but it doesn't seem to be clear enough.


What does it mean to "eat glue"?

I have come across this phrase a time or two and can't seem to make any sense out of what it means. As a web developer and in the context of this graphic, I have a little idea what it may mean, but I'm not sure... ![Browser Wars](http://i.stack.imgur.com/hIFlk.jpg)


What is the modern day equivalent of a "dandy?"

The Japanese still use this word to describe how a person dresses. However I'm sure that their idea of _dandy_ is different from what I saw in Wikipedia, which shows pictures of men from hundreds of years ago. I tried to ask this question on the Japanese stackexchange board, but it didn't quite answer my question. What is the modern-day English equivalent of a "dandy?"


What does "Kooing" mean?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081226070704AAhqTFt; > Maybe its the sound like a Kooing, like a little baby would make? What does _Kooing_ mean in this context? Is _Koo_ a word or something?


Noun for enable ("enability", "enabliness")?

I need a noun to describe the state of being _enabled/disabled_. Do any exist? **UPDATE:**   For example, I have some device (or software control), which can be in an _enabled_ state or a _disabled_ state. Let's say I want to ask someone to check whether device is enabled: > Please check device _enability_. I need a real word to replace _enability_.


What's the origin of the word "sprite"?

**EDIT:** I appreciate all the answers and the effort provided here, but my question is not about the meaning about the word in English, but about the genesis of the word in computer graphics—I linked myself to the Wikipedia article, so I know it comes from the Greek fairy, but why? I know what sprites are and how to use them. This question is purely linguistic. I would be interested to know where the word _sprite_ (as in computer graphics) comes from. English is not my mother tongue, and the word as such doesn't ring a bell for me...


Is it correct to say "I would like to inquire about something?"

When I make a call to get some information regarding a matter, I generally start the conversation with "Hello, I would like to inquire about something." Is this a correct usage? If not, what would be a good way to start such a conversation? **Edit:** To provide some more context, here's a sample conversation: _**Call center employee:_** Hello, my name is ... How may I help you? _**Me:_** Hello. I would like to inquire about something. One of my clients is a paper factory, and they would like to do business with one of your suppliers. Do they need to be get any kind of certification from you to do so?


in average? on average?

I am writing a summary for a facebook campaign, and I want to say "each post reaches over 1000 viewers in average", does it sound right? Should I use "on average" or "in average"?


How would you spell "Tehran" in English for it to be pronounced "correctly" (i.e. as in Persian)?

Native English speakers do not pronounce the _h_ in _Tehran_ so it is pronounced like "Teran". But in the original pronunciation in Persian the _h_ is pronounced, resulting in /tehˈɾɒːn/. Is there any alternative for the spelling of _Tehran_ to be pronounced "correctly", i.e. as in Persian, by a native English speaker? (I'm asking this question because a friend is asking me for the correct spelling of his name _Mehran_ which with the exception of the first consonant is pronounced like _Tehran_.) **Edit:** Bahrain (البحرین) is another similar word with the _h_ dropped in its English pronunciation /bɑːˈreɪn/, while in Arabic it is /bɑːħreɪn/.


“It's no use of doing something”

I have recently encountered a person from Uganda who insisted that the phrase “It’s no use **of** doing something” is correct, as opposed to “It’s no use **_** doing something.” Taking the descriptive approach, would that usage be correct in Ugandan English as opposed to the person’s idiolect? Would it be marginally acceptable in some other variety of English? Would it be acceptable in a major English dialect (if yes, which one)? I don’t know of any corpora for marginal English dialects, so I am at a loss.


Pronunciations of 'retard' and 'retardation'

Why are the verb form (`/rɪtɑːd/`, _ri-tard_ ) and the offensive noun form (`/ˈriːtɑːd/`, _ree-tard_ ) of the word retard pronounced differently? While I have heard both variants in use as part of the pronunciation of the word, _retardation_ , ODO as well as Webster only offer `/riːtɑːdeɪʃ(ə)n/` ( _ree-tardation_ ) as an option. Has the word always been pronounced like this or has the increased popularity of the "offensive retard" had an effect on it?


"As smart as you may be" means "However smart you may be"?

> As smart as you may be, there are always difficult problems making you in > trouble. In this sentence does "As smart as you may be" mean "No matter how smart you may be"? So, the first _as_ is a conjunction? If that means _however_ , then should it be just _However_ or "No matter how"?


Single word for “for how long information is considered fresh”

I am looking for a single word for “for how long a piece of information is considered fresh”. Suppose I have a piece of information, say a score of a cricket match at a particular moment in an ongoing live match. It can be considered as “stale” or “fresh” depending upon whether we have updated information available or not. I was thinking of _validity_ but somehow it doesn’t look correct to me. Validity is more like whether something is correct or incorrect.


What is the word for "the way a word sounds to your ear"?

I do not mean "Phonaesthetics" or euphony or cacophony which carry a value judgement. Words have an audio 'pattern', mostly unique and different from other words. This is the unique audio "finger-print" of the word, which does not carry a un/pleasant connotation - it is simply the sound of a (particular word) being spoken. I am looking for the definition or term for the sound of word/s. Does such a term exist? I used to think it was "nomenclature".


"where's that to?"

In Plymouth, and other areas of Devon, it is common to suffix the question "where's that?" with _to_. e.g. > Steve: I'm off to see Rita. > > Dave: Oh yeah? Where's Rita to? or > Steve: I'm off to Roborough > > Dave: Where's that to? Is there an origins story for this construction?


What is the term used "When a person is called in to work on a holiday"?

Someone asked me about what term is used for a **person who is called in to work on a public holiday**. (He told me that it is called _pump of leave_ , but he himself was not sure of it.) So, there are two questions-   * What is that person called?   * What is that leave is called? If there are specific terms for them please tell.


Do you need to use "on" or "upon" when referring to dates?

When defining a date, should I use _on, upon_ or _when_ , or can I leave these words out? For example, can I say: > The date the company allots the securities is known as the Despatch Date. or should I say: > The date on which/upon which/when the company allots the securities is known > as the Despatch Date.


"Season" vs. "series"

TV shows, other than ones that have new episodes year-round (e.g. news, soaps), typically group episodes in batches — most often per year, although not necessarily calendar years, and sometimes there will be multiple batches in a single year. The term I am familiar with for these batches is "season", and the term to refer to the entire set of episodes that have ever been made of the show is "series". For example, there are 24 episodes of the TV show _24_ each season, but there are 192 episodes in the entire series. I've been told that in the UK the correct (perhaps "most commonly used"?) term for a batch of episodes is "series". Is "series" indeed the correct1 term in the UK? If it is the term for a batch, what is the UK term for the entire set of episodes? (I.e. what I would call a "series".) Finally, assuming that a "season" is a "series" in the UK, if I am referring to a UK TV show, is it more correct (e.g. if I was writing academically) to refer to a "season" as a "series", even if the rest of the writing does not use UK English? 1 "correct": most likely to be understood correctly by a UK native.


What is an English word for 'something that adds value'?

I'm looking for an English word which could mean something or someone that adds value to something else. Is there a single word for that?


What does “Somebody just can’t bake the cake,” mean? Is it a popular phrase?

I found the phrase “I don’t care how you cut it, the brother just can’t bake the cake,” in the Maureen Dowd’s article in New York Times (December 10), titled “Fire and Ice,” that compares the character of GOP Presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich and President Obama. In this article, there was the following line referring to the skirmish between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in the recent presidential debate: > “Nutty Newt is dancing a fandango on Mitt Romney’s head even though not a > single hair has gone askew. As Michael Steele, the former Republican > National Committee chief eloquently summed up the Romney free fall on MSNBC, > “ _I don’t care how you cut it; the brother just can’t bake the cake.”_ I don’t understand what this ending line means. I guess Steele said “It’s up to Romney how to respond to Newt’ charge (or cook Newt) in the debate, but he didn’t know how to finish Newt off,” but I’m not sure. What does “I don’t care how you cut it, the brother just can’t bake the cake,” exactly mean? Is “(Somebody) bake the cake” an idiom or a popular set of words?


What possessive pronouns do have an apostrophe?

I was explaining _it's_ vs. _its_ to someone the other day, and I said "None of the pronouns ( _his, hers, theirs, yours, its, whose,_ ...) has an apostrophe." Later I got to wondering whether that was really true, and sure enough fairly quickly found one that does: _one's_ , as in "One's memory isn't what it used to be." Are there other **pronouns** that use an apostrophe?


Why is "de facto" often written in italic?

Often when I see " _de facto_ " written somewhere it is in italic. For example: LaTeX website: > LaTeX is a high-quality typesetting system; it includes features designed > for the production of technical and scientific documentation. LaTeX is the > >>> _de facto_ <<< standard for the communication and publication of > scientific documents. LaTeX is available as free software. Wikipedia Article > Continued practices of expecting African Americans to ride in the back of > buses or to step aside onto the street if not enough room was present for a > Caucasian person and "separate but equal" facilities are instances of >>> > _de facto_ <<< segregation. Why?


Is it OK to say "recurring again"?

I've seen people often use "recurring again". Recurring means "occurring again"; then why do we have to add "again" along with "recurring". Which one the following is correct way to say it ?   1. Confirm that it is not recurring again   2. Confirm that it is not recurring.


Different pronunciations of "she's" depending on the meaning

According to The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the contraction **she's** may be pronounced both with a short [i] sound(as in **pit** ) and a long [i:] sound(as in **sheep** ) when it means **she is** , but it must be pronounced with a long [i:] sound when it means **she has**. I've always thought that **she's** is pronounced with a long [i:] only when it's used emphatically, regardless of its meaning. For example, **1.She's not coming with us.** (she is, [i])   **2.She's been doing well**. (she has, [i])   **3. _She's_ the one who stole your keys.** (she is, emphatic, [i:])   **4.I don't have your keys. _She's_ got them.** (she has, emphatic, [i:])   According to the dictionary, however, I am wrong at least in my example 2. English is only my third language, so maybe I don't distinguish between [i] and [i:] as well as I should, but I hear the word **she's** in examples 1. and 2. pronounced in _exactly_ the same way. Questions for native speakers:   * Were you aware of this difference in pronunciations of **she's**?    * If I(or anyone else) were to pronounce **she's** from example 2. with a short [i], would you actually sense that something was pronounced not quite as it should have been?   * Would you pronounce **she's** with a long [i:] in a non-emphatic context?


School students are instructed, self-taught students [self-study?]

> "You will be instructed" > > "I have been taught for 4 years" To > "You will [self-study?]" > > "I have been [self-learning?] for 4 years" Both seem kind of clumsy. Is there a better word or phrase?


Is there a specific word for hemocyanic blood?

I would like to be able to use a word specifically meaning the blue blood -- having hemocyanin rather than hemoglobin -- that, for example, an octopus has. I have been unable to find one using the internet. Does any such word exist?


What is meant by 'overlap in your experience'?

Recently I had a conversation with an employer. I am in IT field. After seeing my works he said 'I'm seeing a lot of overlap in experience'. I am not sure what does he meant by this. Can anyone explain me what he is intending to say?


Correct comma use with "but" and "that"

Compare these 3 sentences: >   1. Both are based on librsync, but above that they behave quite > differently. >   2. Both are based on librsync, but above that, they behave quite > differently. >   3. Both are based on librsync, but, above that, they behave quite > differently. > I found the first one hard to parse (I needed to read it more than once to actually make sense of it). The second is far easier, and the third has oh-so- many commas.


How to use hyphens appropriately when listing multiple hyphenated terms?

If multiple hyphenated terms share the same latter half, and I wish to list them without repeating that latter half, how should the hyphens be placed? For example: > I will be investigating control issues in ground-based, water-based, and > air-based robots. If I do not want to repeat _based_ , could I write: > I will be investigating control issues in ground-, water-, and air-based > robots. Is it correct to just leave a hyphen dangling after _ground_ and _water_? If not, how should it be written? I know the original sentence doesn't sound too bad, but I really just want to know the punctuation rule (or the convention in American English if there is no rule).


In the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries; suspended hyphen

How would you suggest to list centuries here: Suspended hyphen: > In the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries... Separated by commas: > In the late nineteenth-, and early twentieth-, centuries... Spelled out in full: > In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries... Or, finally, condensed: > In the late 19th and early 20th centuries... Any help, or reference to style manuals would be hugely appreciated!


Omitting common word in all but last item in a list?

I'm wondering if lists comprised of similar or related words/phrases can be shortened by omitting the root/suffix/word that they have in common except in the last item in the list. Examples:   1. "We were best-friends through elementary, middle, and high school."   2. "I received checks in amounts of five-, six-, and seven-thousand dollars."   3. "He works with para and quadriplegic patients."  I feel if any of the examples is permissible, it would be example 1. In example 2, although riding the line of ambiguity as to the amount on the checks (it could be "$5, $6, and $7,000" OR "$5,000, $6,000, and $7,000") it seems to be a reasonable sentence that would be easy to understand in context. However, I am unsure my use of hyphens would be proper in this sentence. In example 3, the prefix "para" is isolated from "paraplegic" I don't think the sentence in example 3 is anywhere close to proper but I read it in a document that was sent to me for work and it prompted me to ask questions concerning similar language situations. Thanks for any replies! -Ian


Restrictive relative clause or non-restrictive relative clause?

I am wondering whether to use a restrictive relative clause such as: "Multicopters belong to a family of aircraft called rotorcraft **, which also includes helicopters,** and although they appear to be similar, a multicopter's design is mechanically much simpler." or non-restrictive relative clause: "Multicopters belong to a family of aircraft called rotorcraft **that also includes helicopters** , and although they appear to be similar, a multicopter's design is mechanically much simpler." I am leaning toward the latter because the second half of the complete sentence relies on the inclusion of the statement "also includes helicopters" for its meaning. However, the first part of the sentence ("multicopters belong to a family of rotorcraft") makes sense by itself (i.e. it could be a complete sentence), and the second part of the sentence is really another statement attached with "and". So I'm not sure. Would it be better as two separate sentences: "Multicopters belong to a family of aircraft called rotorcraft, which also includes helicopters; although they appear to be similar, a multicopter's design is mechanically much simpler." Side-note: Now I'm going crazy, wondering whether it should be "include" or "includes". This is why it takes me so long to write anything. _sigh_


"in the order it was received" and referring to position as "order"

I'm sure many of you have been in this situation—I'll be on hold for a bit and some automated voice will say > Your call will be answered in the order it was received. I understand what they're saying, but I believe it's phrased wrong. They're saying that my call has a place in a sequence of calls, and they'll _all_ be answered in the same order in which they were received. There must be, as far as I know, multiple (or, a list of) things in the subject of a sentence in order for the action on the subject to be done in an _order_. I generally steer away from customer service phone calls, but in the few that I've done, I've heard this phrasing more than the alternatives, which can be something like: > Calls are answered in the order in which they were received. To me, this latter usage seems more reasonable, and "correct" (because I've always seen the "in which" construction as grammatical—though it seems awkward to many). I'm wondering—   1. (based on a comment) Is it acceptable to refer to the _position_ an of an item in a list as its "order"?   2. Is the former quoted phrase more common and accepted? If not, is its implication well understood, or does it warrant rephrasing? (edit based on my meta question/answer regarding this )


How can I rephrase sentence to make it more concise?

**What I am trying to say:** A farmer should provide essential food for his livestock. The failure of farmer to provide this essential food for the cattle will materially impact cattle's health. Farmer's boss is going to hold him responsible only if he does not provide the essential food that directly impacts the health of the cows and but will not hold him responsible for if essential food does not impact the health of cow (e.g. is only good for cow's fur/skin - aesthetic conditions.) **my concise version** The farmer's boss will hold the farmer responsible if farmer does not provide essential food that considerably impacts the health of a cow and does not lead to aesthetically unpleasant health. **Question** How do I frame what I am trying to say in one sentence which is better than my version above. I believe my version is not clear (esp. at the tail end of the sentence).


What is a decent word for "spitting"?

I want my friend to step aside from wash basin so that I can spit after brushing. What is a decent word for spitting? Is there a better statement to ask him to step aside?


"get a coating"

I recently saw the expression "get a (real) coating" in this book review: > Swales, perhaps unsurprisingly, is the only guy who gets a real coating, but > only in passing But I just cannot figure out what it means as I can't find it anywhere. Any clue?


What is the word for the opposite of "preferred"?

_Non-preferred_ sounds clunky to me and words like _alternative_ , I feel, don't convey the sense of "the set of things I really don't like". **Edit:** Perhaps the context will help. In this version, I've used tchrist's suggestion of _disliked_ : > Most parts of the brain have preferred patterns of input that those parts > link to characteristic patterns of output. Many disorders arise when a brain > region receives patterns of input it dislikes or cannot link the preferred > input to its characteristic output. I want to avoid too much anthropomorphism because this is for a scientific paper. The field already uses the word "preferred". In the section intended for a general audience I wanted to avoid using technical words but not accidentally convey something.


Any name for "focusing on the problem, not on the solution"

Do we have a term to describe the attitude which instead of solution, focuses on the problem. This attitude is encouraged in many places and there are some stories about it. Maybe the most famous story is "The Empty Soap Box". I was thinking of **Pluralism** as a description for having many ways to get to one goal (not really relevant), or **lateral thinking** which is a superset of what I want. What term is suitable?


Is there a difference between 'unknowingly' and 'unintentionally'?

Sorry, it was unknowingly.   Sorry, it was unintentionally.


Aspect/respect in sentence

_"After an hour I reached a different hotel, which was better than the previous one in every aspect/respect."_ I'm struggling with the difference between _aspect_ and _respect_. What I wanted to say was something along the line "from every point of view" or "no matter how I looked at it ..." I have seen _aspect_ likened to "point of view" but most other information I have come across online suggests I use _respect_. Which one is correct, and how can I tell in the future?


What is the word for an epiphany brought about through an object?

I heard this on the radio probably a decade ago where someone was talking about an epiphany he experienced through a glass of milk. He said very distinctly that there was a form of epiphany which was one brought about through an object. I subsequently forgot what the word was but I torture myself on an almost weekly basis as to what it was. Needless to say it doesn't seem to google. Any help would be wonderful.


Hairdo and Haircut

What is the difference in meaning between "Hairdo" and "Haircut"? In the dictionary into my native language it is written that "hairdo" must be used according to women. Does it mean that "haircut" can't be used in that way? I would like more explanation on this question.


"I will write about stress" and why not "I will write about THE stress"

Why can't I use THE here?.And does it differ in meaning if I use THE?


Difference between 'which' and 'that' in restrictive (defining) relative clauses

Excuse me if this topic has been brought up before though I couldn't find it. It seems that there are many similar topics related to both defining and non- defining clauses but there is still one question that bothers me. I want to know about the difference between wh- pronouns (who, which, what...) vs. that in **restrictive relative clause**. For example: The man that I saw at the mall looked puzzled. The man who I saw at the mall looked puzzled. I omitted commas intentionally, as I'm willing to talk about defining clauses only. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language gives quite vague description on that and I cannot think about actual examples: "Relative clauses are so called because they are related by their form to an antecedent. They contain within their structure an anaphoric element whose interpretation is determined by the antecedent. This anaphoric element may be overt or covert. In the overt case the relative clause is marked by the presence of one of the relative words who, whom, whose, which, etc., as or within the initial constituent: clauses of this type we call wh relatives. In non-wh relatives the anaphoric element is covert, a gap; this class is then subdivided into that relatives and bare relatives depending on the presence or absence of that." Thanks in advance! UPD: I know that it seems that in general there is no need to dig for this information but still I need this for my research.


Is "both" singular?

Is the following correct? > Both of these essentially act as a WebKit wrapper. Or should it be the following? > Both of these essentially acts as a WebKit wrapper. Context.


Expressing an expectation for an action

Here's a sentence that expresses an expectation for an object: > I've been expecting your email. How would it work if it had to express an expectation for an action instead? Would the following be correct: > I've been expecting you to write me.


"Those exposed to extreme cold" vs. "those who are exposed to extreme cold"

I saw the following example sentence in a TOEFL preparation book: > To prevent frostbite, those exposed to extreme cold are advised to wiggle > their fingers and toes to increase blood circulation. But shouldn't it be "To prevent... those _who are exposed_ to extreme cold..."? Am I misunderstanding?


Difference between contract and catch [a disease]

What could be the difference between **_contracting** a disease_ and **_catching** a disease_? I know there isn't any big difference. However, it looks like there are some diseases you can both catch and contract and others you can only either catch or contract.


Is "homogeneous...as" grammatically correct?

Here is the sentence: "A is made of a homogeneous material as that of B" Is this sentence grammatically correct?? or is there any more appopriate phrase?? Please help me out..


19th century English texts occasionally use Germanic-style number words, such as "four-and-twenty". When did this fall out of use?

19th century English texts occasionally use Germanic-style number words, such as "four-and-twenty", but the same text would also have the modern "twenty- four" in places (see e.g. Conan-Doyle for several examples). How did the usage of germanic-style numbers change historically? When did the Germanic forms fall out of use? (I have asked this question previously on Sprachlog (German) and got a short answer by A.Stefanowitsch, but would appreciate any additional input.)


German way of saying numbers found in Dickens

Reading "Great Expectations", I noticed that numbers (I don't remember if this refers to all numbers, but I'm sure it was used when age was concerned) were given in the German way, namely, for instance: > _one-and-twenty_ for twentyone I'm asking why and when did the two languages split in this sense, that is, when did English start to tell numbers in the reversed order with respect to German. Google N-grams does not shed any light on the topic.


What does "How do I feel this good sober" mean?

Help settle an argument. There's a song whose chorus "How do I feel this good sober?" One interpretation is, "How is possible that I feel as good as I do, even though I am sober?" The other is, "What can I do so I continue to feel as good as I do now, even once I sober up?" Of the two disputants (one of whom is me, the other of whom is wrong), one asserts that the song-writer (Alecia Moore in case it helps) is being deliberately ambiguous; the other asserts only the first interpretation is correct. I'm not taking a poll here. I'd like someone to give me a reasoned defense of one interpretation or both.


Present Perfect for the past?

I've come across the - more or less - following sentence in a book (American publisher): _**"They have done it in the past"_** I've always thought that "PAST" and "PRESENT PERFECT" can't go together. The proofreading for the book is generally rather poor so it might be a simple mistake. Or there's more to it, is there? Like the PresPerf is there to stress completion? Or - aware of the US tendency to replace PresPerf with Past Simple - the author tried too hard and ended up hypercorrect? Or am I reading too much into it?


How many syllables are there in the word "fire"?

We were making up Haiku, and there was some disagreement about the number of syllables in "fire." Now granted Haiku isn't technically about syllables (see on), so technically it was a meaningless discussion. However, I still do not know how many syllables are in "fire." I understand an r-colored vowel might be at play.


Starting a sentence with "rather"

I've sometimes heard people use _rather_ for connecting two sentences where the second one sets counterexample to something negated in the first. > This is not a meaningful sentence. Rather, it's an example. First, I would like to find out whether this is a proper usage of the word. Finally, if it is, I would like to find out how to properly write such sentences (the above example is likely grammatically incorrect). I am especially interested whether they can, or even should for that matter, be separated by a semicolon rather than by a period.


How does one correctly use "q.v."?

Wikitionary mentions offhand that "q.v." is used to reference material, but the definition it gives is far too sparse for my taste. My question is, what does "q.v." stand for and when should one use it? How does it compare with "cf.", for example?


What is the warning that you're almost done called?

Consider the following items:   * the warning track around a baseball outfield   * the red stripe near the end of the a roll of receipt paper   * the margin bell on a typewriter   * the rumble strips when a highway becomes a street They all seem to be of a class: things that give you a warning that something is about to change, that you're almost done. I'm looking for an expression or word for this. (I was thinking "canary in the coal mine", but that is for emergencies, disasters, that kind of thing -- I want something for the _routine_ changes of life.)


Replacing the periods/dots with spaces in abbreviations

In Swedish, it's common to replace the periods with spaces when using an abbreviation. Is this valid in English? Personally, I think this approach is easier to use and looks better in text (and all problems with multiple periods magically disappear). Of course, it doesn't work in all situations, but still. Some examples to further illustrate my question: > That's a car, i e you can drive it. > > There are many things you cannot do, e g carry a gun on a public street. > > What is that? It's a p v t! I made the last one up, by the way, if someone didn't notice.


What is the mean of bold words

All, I read this paragraph from a read. But not sure about the exactly meaning. please help me to understand it .thanks. > Grant focuses on making it fun for beginners to learn Ubuntu Linux. **If > you're just an ordinary user, who's not sure what's going on behind Windows > or Mac OS X's glossy interfaces and you don't really care either, this is > the Ubuntu book for you**. Grant is a linux book author.


"On the header" vs. "in the header"

> Include logo on the header of all the pages. In the above sentence, is it correct to use _on_ or should it be _in_? I have a decent idea of where to use _on_ and _in_ most of the time. But in the above sentence, both seem to be correct.


Are the words "swag" and "sway" cognates?

I'm fascinated by the similarities between them, which both refer to some kind of action meaning alike, namely "wavering" action, and they are morphologically alike too. If they are cognates, in my opinion, these similarities may be explained reasonably.


Double Copula or "double is" in professional/technical writing

I am proofreading a professional, technical text written by someone else. In the text, I encountered, "But, the reality is _is_ a..." My intuition says that this should be rewritten as, "But, the reality is _that_ a..." because it looks like a "double is" or a "double copula" However, I can't tell for sure if this is a legitimate use of two successive copulae. Does, "But, the reality is..." qualify as a dependent clause? It seems to me that "But,..." does not make the subject dependent. Am I right? Am I wrong? The sentence with a little more context: "But, the reality is is a company like _Spacely Sprockets_ cannot continue to _do old fashioned things_..." (We have already had a discussion about beginning sentences with "but" in professional writing. It appears that the consensus is that it is both appropriate and acceptable here.) I would like to see a way to clearly identify this statement as something that ought to be changed in the document. Grammar dissection, linking to authoritative works and explanations of grammar mechanics will all help me answer this question. Simple answers like, "it's wrong," don't help me be a better proofreader or editor. I already know it is wrong, but I don't know _why_ it is wrong.


To whom does "British" refer?

I've seen from sources claim that the word "British" can be used to refer to different things. Some say Great Britian, some the UK, and some even the UK including her overseas territories. Which of these is correct? If it refers to people from the whole of the UK (and her territories), then why? It seems natural to assume that only people from Great Britain are British, and I was under the impression that the Britons inhabited what is now known as Great Britain. Here are some examples: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/British?q=British: "British: relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to its people or language." (a poor source, I know, but I've seen it used this way in person) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people: "British people, also referred to as Britons, informally as Brits, or archaically as Britishers, are nationals or natives of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Crown Dependencies; and their descendants."


Participle of "center/centre" in UK English — "centring"? Seriously?

As an American, I was never shocked to see the word "center" spelled as "centre." It didn't bother me at all. Honestly. But then I saw the participle of it spelled as "centring" as opposed to "centering," and it really made me reconsider the whole thing. Do UK (and Australian, New Zealand, etc.) speakers pronounce it similarly to US speakers (three syllables)? Do you guys ever spell it "centering?" Do you find the US spelling as weird as we find the UK spelling? Does it make you uncomfortable in a way you can't fully understand? Also, I see that my Chrome spell check is equally thrown off by the UK spelling. Is your browser's spell check disgusted by the US spelling?


Is there a verb for 'unconditionally beats or takes priority over'?

Sometimes people use _trump_ in this sense. > Human rights are legal trump cards, you can make whatever laws you want so > long as it doesn't violate one. The relations between rock, paper, and scissors in the handgame also fit what I mean to describe.


Meaning of "getting all its ducks"

> As the Nexus 5 launch nears, we’re getting one more confirmation that Google > is **getting all its ducks** in order before pushing the big chocolate > KitKat covered GO button and releases the new smartphone to the public Read > more at http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/10/30/google-play-store-changes- > prepare-nexus-5-launch/#TT4suQTKYz828wl6.99 What's the meaning of that expression?


What alternatives are there for the popular and ubiquitous use of the word "iconic"?

In light of how frequently people seem to be using the word _iconic_ today, what are some alternatives which are perhaps more apt and more accurate? I've always associated the word with paintings in a church, which have that certain iconic look to them. I guess you'd call it a signature- or highly stylized look, and not very realistic. I've provided a few "before and after" examples below, but I welcome suggestions for improvement; that is, better alternatives. Possibly you prefer the word _iconic_ and would not seek to substitute another word for it. That's OK too. > The O. J. Simpson trial is _the_ iconic controversial trial from the 90s. vs. > The O. J. Simpson trial is representative of controversial trials from the > 90s. or > Snowboarder Joe Schmo's performance in the 2014 Winter Olympics was iconic > for that relatively new event. vs. > Snowboarder Joe Schmo's performance in the 2014 Winter Olympics was the > quintessence of that relatively new event. or > The iconic romantic comedy from the 90s has to be "Four Weddings and a > Funeral," starring Andie McDowell and Hugh Grant. vs. > "Four Weddings and a Funeral," starring Andie McDowell and Hugh Grant, is > the epitome of romantic comedies from the 90s. Perhaps the appropriate alternative word or expression varies from context to context. If so, could you also explain grammatically why that is so? I'm not much of a grammarian, so please be simplistic, if possible.


Difference between "novel" and "fiction"

Both _novel_ and _fiction_ refer to a book in which the story is just imaginary. But what's the difference between them and what are the scenarios to use them right?


What's the meaning of "lost" in "lost prophet" in general and in this particular context?

The sentence is: > Admittedly, for every lost prophet there is a crank who is simply lost. This is from an article in The Economist, here: http://www.economist.com/node/21542193 I gather from the context that the sentence means to say at least that the participants of online forums are varied: There are intelligent people and there are cranks who don't know what they are talking about but insist on pushing their ideas. And, using two instances of **lost** is clearly a clever thing which The Economist is known for. But the meaning of **lost prophet** in general and in particular for this context is, well, lost on me. I Googled and found that **Lost Prophet** is at least the name of a book, so using these two words together clearly isn't a first the news weekly. My guesses are: a) a prophet who's prophecy is "lost" on others; the prophet is ignored, not heeded; b) a prophet who was lost (= unknown, unreachable) to the world but re-found and greatly appreciated on the online forum for his/her words; c) a prophet who lost on one of his/her economic predictions, having made a bad prediction. Any input would be appreciated.


The meaning of 'School blows dogs'

I don't understand the meaning this phrase: _School blows dogs_. I heard this phrase in a film. There was boy who didn't like to go to school and he uttered this phrase to his father. He says it with a little displeasure, a little upset. What does it mean?


A word appears to be missing in this sentence

The following sentence appeared in a report in The Guardian: > All eight will appear in court on Monday charged with grievous bodily harm > and damaging property. Should not _causing_ be added before _grievous_ as under? > All eight will appear in court on Monday charged with _causing_ grievous > bodily harm and damaging property.


How should this sentence be structured?

I want to know which one of these two sentence structures is correct grammatically: >   1. This book is, despite being dense, a good read. >   2. This book, despite being dense, is a good read. >


Why should the first person pronoun 'I' always be capitalized?

Why should we capitalize first person pronoun 'I' even if it does not appear in the beginning of a sentence? Why it is not the case for other pronouns?


Why it is so important capitalize 'i'?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why should the first person pronoun 'I' always be capitalized? I'd like to understand the phenomen, why writer's person is so important in English, that i can't write ' _I_ ' intentionally lower-cased. I don't like to emphasise myself, writing ' _I_ ' makes me more important, i think, i prefer to write ' _You_ ' as capitalized. In German to address formally i could use ' _Sie_ ', but myself is still ' _ich_ '. So in Russian ' _Вы_ ' and ' _я_ ' or in Estonian ' _Te_ ' and ' _ma_ ' and in other languages i know. AFAIK, formal address in English has still ' _You_ ' too, but ' _I_ ' is always ' _I_ '. There is so many people who write their names intentionally lower-cased, but ' _i_ ' is still ' _I_ '. When i write to some moderated or edited site, my ' _i_ '-s are still growing all the way up. Why?


Why is "I" capitalized in the English language, but not "me" or "you"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why should the first person pronoun 'I' always be capitalized? I realize that at one time a lot of nouns in English were capitalized, but I can't understand the pattern of those left. Is there a reason why _I_ still capitalized while _you_ and _me_ are not? Could it have something to do with hand writing rather than the printed page?


Can I use the letter 'i'in small letter in the middle of a sentence? I have seen many places where people have used it. Please let me know whether 'I' should always be used in capital letter or not. Thanks


Why is the pronoun "I" written with an uppercase letter, even when it's not at the beginning of a sentence?

In the following sentence, the pronoun _I_ is written capitalized, even if it is not at the beginning of a sentence. Why? > What kind of questions can **I** ask here? should I capitalize all the pronouns?


What do you call a person who's grading exams?

I've recently had a job where I've read exams and graded them. I'm now going to put this on my CV but I have no idea how I should label this kind of work. What have I been? An examiner?


First appearance of a ghost after a person's death

In the ballet _Giselle_ , the title character dies at the end of Act 1. One wouldn't generally describe her ghostly presence in Act 2 as the result of a resurrection, because that implies that her death has been reversed or undone, and that is not the case in this narrative; yet I cannot think of another term that comes as close to describing her rising from the tomb into a new state of existence. Is there a word for the appearance of a ghost as in this case?


Attention Americans: Do you use the SILENT H in the beginning?

English _is_ my mother tongue and we often follow the British pronunciations. However, something caught my attention recently. In my Oxford dictionary, I noticed that so many words that begin with 'wh' have a leading 'h' as part of the phonetics. Here are some of them: > what > > when > > wheeze > > wheel > > wheat > > whatever > > whip and the list goes on... I have heard many US accents but never encountered this. Perhaps I never noticed it. Thus my question: Do Americans really use these words with a leading `h` or at least are they supposed to? Thanks! EDIT: I am not using the net as my source here. It's a printed book. So for those who are unsure, here it is: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/DvQUy.jpg) BTW, the exact title of the dictionary is: Oxford WordPower English-Arabic dictionary ISBN: 0-19-431485-5 NEWEST EDIT: Please do not consider this a duplicate of Hwat, hwere, and hwy? That discusses the origins of words and various 'accents'. Yes, the examples are related, but my question is different and simple. I'm more keen on knowing if _Americans (today) use the leading h pronunciation (at large)?_ Ever since I started my study of languages (my mother tongue included), I've tried to stick to a standard pronunciation from the dictionary. Thus in a way I look at the dictionary's pronunciation as the _right_ way to pronounce words, regardless of what people really do. So now after seeing the leading h pronunciation related to Americans, I'm curious to know if they really do so. And after the kind of responses and links I've seen on this subject today, I don't even think that an average non-academic American really knows this exists. Perhaps I'm wrong.


Adjective used to mean "smellable"

An object that can be seen is **visible**. Something that can be heard is **audible**. What's a similar word to indicate that something is _smellable_?


"Aims" vs. "objectives"

Is there a difference between _aims_ and _objectives_?


What does the word 'penumbra' mean in this sentence?

The following is an extract from the book The Road to Serfdom. I was wondering what 'penumbra' is used to convey in the sentence. > There is no restrictive penumbra of individual rights that can never be > touched by government in administrative matters whatever the circumstances. A quick Google search defines penumbra as: > the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object. >   >   >     Astronomy >     the shadow cast by the earth or moon over an area experiencing a partial > eclipse. >     Astronomy >     the less dark outer part of a sunspot, surrounding the core. >   > >   1. a peripheral or indeterminate area or group. "an immense penumbra of > theory surrounds any observation" >


simple present or past in describing an event shown in a series of pictures

I'm correcting my 7th graders' writing assignment in which they're given three pictures of a fat boy who decides to go on a diet and finally becomes thinner. I've been told that using present simple can create an effect of "bringing the character to the present time" and therefore sounds more lively to the reader. But I'm also confused because the pictures certainly deal with something already happened to that boy, so simple past sounds more logical to me. And what if a students starts a sentence like "One day...."? I don't think simple present can be applied here.


What is "a label for a book identifying its owner" called?

What do you call the thing - a small imprinted piece of paper - that an owner attaches inside the front of a book to mark it as his own?


Can the word 'pre-order' be used for an item already in production?

As I understand it the term _pre-order_ refers to ordering an item that hasn't been released yet, probably as a concatenation of _pre-release order_. However I just received an email from Farnell Element14 inviting me to _pre-order_ my Raspberry Pi. Now as I understand it, these machines are already in production and limited release; a lot of people have already received theirs. Shouldn't the company in this instance have invited me to simply _order_ my copy at this point, even if the estimated dispatch time is a couple of months away, or does the term _pre-order_ have a different meaning in this context?


How would you name/define "huh..." or "hum..." or "hm..." in a sentence?

Sorry for the convoluted question but I'm not sure how to ask this. These examples should make it clear what I'm talking about: "Well, hum... you know."   "It's, huh... there!"   "Hm... now where were we?" Basically, it's something you say while you're thinking, maybe to let the other party know that you're going to start speaking soon or that you're going to continue with your thought. My questions is, is there a name for these expressions that I can use so I can talk about them?


What is the term for a photo used to advertise a business such as a firm?

I'm looking for the word that describes the portrait style photos used to advertise yourself to the world. You often see these in the context of a law firm or theater artist profile. Would _profile_ be an adequate term?


phrase "extend over" in context

I don't understand the part in boldface. The Oxford dictionary interprets _"extend over"_ as _"occupy a specified area or stretch to a specified point"_ , but I'm not sure if that definition fits here. > However important it may be, in order to form a proper judgment of the > natural state of man, to consider him from his origin, and to examine him, > as it were, in the first embryo of the species; I shall not attempt to trace > his organization through its successive approaches to perfection: I shall > not stop to examine in the animal system what he might have been in the > beginning, to become at last what he actually is; I shall not inquire > whether, as Aristotle thinks, his neglected nails were no better at first > than crooked talons; whether his whole body was not, bear-like, thick > covered with rough hair; and whether, walking upon all-fours, his eyes, > directed to the earth, and confined to a horizon of a few paces extent, did > not at once point out the nature and limits of his ideas. I could only form > vague, and almost imaginary, conjectures on this subject. Comparative > anatomy has not as yet been sufficiently improved; neither have the > observations of natural philosophy been sufficiently ascertained, to > establish upon such foundations the basis of a solid system. For this > reason, without having recourse to the supernatural informations with which > we have been favoured on this head, or paying any attention to the changes, > that must have happened in the conformation of the interior and exterior > parts of man's body, in proportion as he applied his members to new > purposes, and took to new aliments, I shall suppose his conformation to have > always been, what we now behold it; that he always walked on two feet, made > the same use of his hands that we do of ours, **extended his looks over the > whole face of nature** , and measured with his eyes the vast extent of the > heavens. This sentence comes from A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality among Mankind


Why "live on campus" but not "live in campus"

Why do we say _he lives on campus_ but not _he lives in campus_? Technically we live _in_ the boundaries of the campus.


using "in the future" at the end of a question

Just wondering if it is necessary to use in the future at the end of certain sentences. E.g. "are you expecting him to come and work for you in the future?" I know most people tend to put this at the end of questions like this. Is it necessary and if so please explain why!


What is a reasonable definition for "is"? What is the rule for inserting it in a sentence?

I am learning a foreign language with the help of an excellent tutor who speaks enough English for me to be able to understand them. The deal is, essentially, I correct their English if they teach/correct Malaysian. Today I got a bit stuck. They provided the following statement: > That not exactly correct This is clearly understandable. The obvious response is: > That **is** not exactly correct I'm struggling to explain _why_ one is preferable to the other. Bearing in mind they have little-to-no understanding of esoteric grammar rules (same here, to be honest). Google tells me it is the "third person singular of 'be'". Fantastic. What, exactly, does that mean? Also, how can I explain this using relatively simple English to a non-native speaker? Any responses are very much appreciated, by myself as much as the ultimate recipient. (And hell, if you want to pick holes in the grammar/vocabulary of this post, please do) Aside: I have checked for questions related to this, but I'm sure you can appreciate that "is" is (oh the irony) a bloody difficult search query. A search query for "[is]" (questions tagged with "is") returns nothing, so again, please help :)


Is "agriculture" a verb?

Can I say _to agriculture the land_? If not, what would the alternative be?


What is the difference between 'last' and 'least'? Is least a superlative of last?


"be in at the end I cannot", from G.M.Hopkins' poem

There's a great poem by G.M. Hopkins, in which I but vaguely get the meaning of the two last stanzas, stumbling at properly parsing the sentences in my mind. In particular, I don't understand the bit with "be in at the end I cannot". At the end of what? And I hope I rightly understand "wind" to be a verb meaning "to finish something". Thus, of the part spanning from _wind_ to _cannot_ I get only the general feel but not the literal sense. Usually I get the meaning on an umpteenth reading, but this remains a huddle of words to me. "The Lantern out of Doors"               SOMETIMES a lantern moves along the night,         That interests our eyes. And who goes there?         I think; where from and bound, I wonder, where,       With, all down darkness wide, his wading light?            Men go by me whom either beauty bright         In mould or mind or what not else makes rare:         They rain against our much-thick and marsh air       Rich beams, till death or distance buys them quite.            Death or distance soon consumes them: wind         What most I may eye after, be in at the end       I cannot, and out of sight is out of mind.            Christ minds: Christ’s interest, what to avow or amend         There, éyes them, heart wánts, care haúnts, foot fóllows kínd,       Their ránsom, théir rescue, ánd first, fást, last friénd.


Express more formally

How can I say these sentences in a more formal way?   * Glad you're OK   * Great news , got the job   * Sorry, can't make it next Saturday   * it's still ok for Friday?   * Thanks loads!   * can't wait to see you


Idiom: in my neck of the woods, AmE

Idiom: in my neck of the woods, AmE The meaning of this expression is: in the region where I live. Once I tried to find out how a word meaning a part of the body can develop an expression where it means region. I have just had a look at etymonline but they know nothing concrete about neck, except older variants that explain not much. As we have here specialists of etymology, some of whom know exactly what is what even in ProtoIndoEuropean, I thought I might ask if someone has read something useful or has an idea that might explain this semantic change.


Unnecessary pronouns: "The President he issued..."

Is it now considered acceptable to follow a proper noun with a pronoun? E.g. > The President he issued a new executive order.


"Undistinguishable" vs. "indistinguishable"

Is there a difference between these two words? To me, it seems that _undistinguishable_ is more where you can't tell what it is, and _indistinguishable_ seems to be where they're the same. It seems a lot of places list them as synonyms though.


"By clicking submit you agree..." or "By clicking submit you are agreeing..."

>   * By clicking submit you agree to the Terms and Conditions. >   * By clicking submit you are agreeing to the Terms and Conditions. > Which is correct? Why?


What term refers to "problematic situations of misunderstanding due to cultural differences"?

In situations in which people of different cultures meet, it is people who are unaware of subtle cultural differences can easily find themselves in a situation. Here are two simple examples:   * Someone from a culture where people generally smile to passing strangers might assume, when in a foreign land, that the locals do not welcome their visit.   * A waiter expecting a tip might become angry with a frequently returning foreign customer unfamiliar with the custom. Within communication studies, cross-cultural studies, or any similar field of study, is there a special term to describe these "situations of misunderstanding" which are brought about not by a language barrier, but by differences in culture, and a mutual lack of understanding of the culture difference by one or more parties involved? The answers in Word or phrase meaning 'Misinterpretation of tone due to language or cultural barrier' do not fit this meaning:   * First, they have the connotation that "someone has made a mistake violating the norms of a particular culture", which is not always the case in these situations.   * Second, I am looking for a term that does not refer to a specific action committed by one person, but by the created situation.   * Finally, these words do not address the potential mutuality of the situation, but rather, connote blame on one individual.


Word for "only letters"

I am looking for a word that means "only letters A–Z", sort of like _alphanumeric_ , but not numbers. The closest I got is _alphabetic/alphabetical_. The context is > Please enter a [word] string: This is in a program I am making that doesn't work if anything other than A–Z is entered.