What usage arguments are persuasive?

Given the recent blog post that some kinds of subjective questions are OK on Stack Exchange sites, I thought I would try to formulate a good subjective question about usage to see what kinds of arguments people find persuasive and why. So, for questions about a usage dispute:   1. What basis do you use for deciding what is correct or grammatical?   2. Why do you find some arguments persuasive and others not?    3. Does the pervasiveness of a usage affect your opinion of it?    4. What kinds of authorities on usage do you respect and who do you find to be not authoritative?


Comma Delimitation

I just started reading Terence Tao's second edition analysis textbook, and I came across the following sentence. * * * **1.2 Why do analysis?** _It is a fair question to ask, "why bother?", when it comes to analysis._ * * * I am wondering if this is the "correct" way to write this sentence in modern English usage.


Some techniques to replace infinitives?

My English teacher doesn't like infinitives and she wants me to replace most if not all of them in my essays. Writing them is habitual for me and I always catch myself writing them but I'm always unsure of how to revise it without sounding awkward. What are some ways I can replace infinitives in my sentences?


Tense for an event that is about to occur as the reader reads

I came across this sentence today in a wait screen for a twitter client: > Did you know that this wait is actually Twitter's fault, not ours? Is "Did" correct usage in this case? I didn't know it earlier, but I became aware of it as I read it. Hence this seems logically correct. But a "Do you know..." sounds more natural in this case. What tense would be correct in this case?


Is there any difference between "All the night" and "All night long"?

Is there any difference in nuance between these two expressions, any examples of where one would be more appropriate (or even just sound better?) _(On reflection, I'm not sure I'd ever say All the night, but someone just asked me the question)_


What is the meaning of "gather way" in "The idea gathered way"?

As far as I know "gather way" means "to attain headway" in navigation. So I believe this is a kind of idiom or something like that. I just found this sentence with no context, so I don't know if you could help me with the meaning of it.


What's a good adjective to whether a set/range can be "tessellated"

Say I have the concept of a "Range", which is basically an "Interval" in Mathematics. If a range is inclusive ("closed") on one end and exclusive on the other, it has the following property: > It can be placed immediately before or after another range with the same > inclusiveness of both endpoints and leave no gaps or overlapping. For example, given the ranges 0-5 and 5-10, if their starts are inclusive and their ends are exclusive, they can be appended to form the range 0-10. However, if their starts and ends are both inclusive or exclusive then appending them will result in either an overlap or a gap. **What is the most suitable adjective or adjectival phrase I can use to describe a range that has this property?** The best I can think of is _tessellatable_ , which is really more about geometry and seems uncommon.


– at scale – definition?

Whats does the expression **_at scale_** mean? Does it mean "on a larger scale" or it means "at a level appropriate to the what's available"? I came up with these two definitions by looking the expression up on the internet, but I still feel very confused. Here are two sentences: > Over the course of that first afternoon, the next months, and finally over > several years, we honed our practice activities into tools that could help > make teachers better, **at scale** > > If you seek to do somethings great, you most likely live a battle for talent > – for smart and capable people who can do great things **at scale**.


When to, and when not to pluralise month?

Can someone please explain the correct way of pluralising month, for instance why do we sometimes use months or month, such as: "Victor is a 7 month old baby" and "Victor is 7 months old" What is the grammar behind this?


Visual connotation associated with “lucid”

I’m interested in the definition and connotation of _lucid_ when it comes to physical objects: what does a lucid object look like? From _Merriam-Webster_ : >   * suffused with light : luminous >   * translucent <snorkeling in the lucid sea> > From _Dictionary.com_ : >   * shining or bright. >   * clear; pellucid; transparent. > From these definitions, it seems like the term _lucid_ can describe stars in the night sky, light bulbs, the ocean in Aruba, and wine glasses. Is this true? Are some of those objects more correctly associated with the word _lucid_ than with the words _bright_ , _glowing_ , or _transparent_? Also, links to any images containing lucid objects would be great.


Is there a language or subset of English for technical writing

I read a lot of technical documentation, especially in the computer programming space. Today I was reading the following paragraph: > Any type that implements a Read (or Write) method with this signature is > said to implement io.Reader (or io.Writer). For the purposes of this > discussion, that means that a variable of type io.Reader can hold any value > whose type has a Read method: [http://golang.org/doc/articles/laws_of_reflection.html] This paragraph could be re-written like this: > Any type that implements a Read method with this signature is said to > implement io.Reader. _Also, any type that implements a Write method with > this signature is said to implement io.Writer._ For the purposes of this > discussion, that means that a variable of type io.Reader can hold any value > whose type has a Read method: I'm guessing the first paragraph was used instead of something like the second because the second (my) example is longer. This all got me thinking, "It'd be great if there were a way to write this paragraph that is clear and concise". Something like: > Any type that implements a [Read|Write] method with this signature is said > to implement io.[Reader|Writer]. For the purposes of this discussion, that > means that a variable of type io.[Reader|Writer] can hold any value whose > type has a [Read|Write] method: In my example above, one could imagine the square brackets allowing for a choice of words with the options separated by a pipe. Before going down the road of thinking more about what a language like this may look like, I'm wondering if this has already been done? I.e. is there a language or writing style that addresses these concerns? ("These concerns" being how to be clear and concise in technical writing.) One specific issue I'd like to address is have a construct for xor.


Why do people say “Why don’t you not?”

Why do people say “Why don’t you not?” — what is meant by that? It seems especially to be a Dublin thing.


Use of "yet another" in the middle of a sentence

Is the usage of _yet another_ correct in the following sentence? > This sentence might need **yet another** piece of work for you! Where can I place _yet another_ in a sentence?


What does "Per [person's name]" mean?

What does "Per John:" mean? From the context of the article I'm reading (article unlinked), it seems to mean "From John:" or "John (said):" What exactly does the word "per" mean when used as such?


Is the English Language becoming more generic, in the sense that English is distinguishing less between masculine and feminine?

To clarify: what I mean is that in Australia for instance there is a trend in English to use words that do not distinguish between men and women. E.g. Chairperson instead of Chairman. So the question relates to whether or not English is (both in terms of the adoption of new words and the adoption of words into common usage) moving away from distinguishing between masculine and feminine gender terms.


Usage of "for" in this passage

Non-native speaker here. Be kind :) From TLOTR Book 1, Chapter 7, "In the house of Tom Bombadil" > 'Let us shut out the night!' she said. ` **For** you are still afraid, > perhaps, of mist and tree-shadows and deep water, and untame things. Fear > nothing! **For** tonight you are under the roof of Tom Bombadil.' I have doubts about the exact meaning of "for" in the previous sentences. I believe the first time it indicates causation. Something like "Because you are still afraid ...". Am I right? The second one is more difficult for me. In this case, it could be causation (the reason why the hobbits should not fear is that they are in a safe place), or just used to set a specific time (tonight) like in "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face". Which one is correct?


Somebody who is kind, yet hard, but fair

> A person who speaks kindly. Sometimes she might be hard, but fair. What is an adjective to describe such person?


Is there a word for describing the shoulder and/or neck pain caused by bad sleep postures?

There is a simple word in my native tongue for this symptom but it is somehow hard to find a corresponding term in English despite how common this type of pain occurs in our daily life.


To download something ON or ONTO a device?

I've seen both these forms used and I was wondering, is either of them incorrect or are they interchangeable? > You can download something **ON** your device. > > You can download something **ONTO** your device.


Is "uplift your life" grammatically correct?

A superior would like me to go with this structure for advertising headlines, e.g. _Uplift your life / Uplift your recipe_. I'm not certain if this is grammatically correct and would like to check it with you before I go ahead with the work.


Is "else" in "someone else" necessary?

Since I'm already referring to a person in third-person by using "someone", isn't the "else" in "someone else" redundant? If it not, why is that? The only significance I see in the addition of "else" is the implication that a person other than myself is similar to me, so "else" is just indicative of equality. Context: > The man wants to be like someone else. More context: > Someone else created that control mechanism. Some more context: > When someone else wants to complete that task, they'll get it done. In all cases, I feel like taking "else" away allows the meaning of the sentence remain.


Adjective/adverb that means "seemingly clever, but actually foolish"

Is there a single word in English (or borrowed) that describes someone or some action as being clever or smart on the surface, but is actually quite foolish or unproductive? I used to think "disingenuous" meant this (which of course it doesn't). The closest word I'd use would be something like "dis-ingenious".


I was confused about “to be + past participle"

Why does the following sentence use "to be reinforced" rather than "was reinforced" > The fact that organisms evidently inherit the capacity to be reinforced by > certain kinds of event does not help us in predicting the reinforcing effect > of an untried stimulus. and in what case should I use **to be + past participle**?


Usage of the word 'warming'

I was just wondering how exactly the word _warming_ is used with different sentences which actually gives different meaning. For e.g., >   1. _My house warming ceremony_ >   2. _Global warming_ > How it is actually giving different meaning? I understand the meaning of both, but just curious about why it is exactly as such. I would be glad if any one would explain this to me in detail about this.


Does this phrase take an adverbial or adjective role?

> "Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half- > moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he > can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can’t you > see how much better off he'll be, **growing up away from all that until he's > ready to take it**?" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) Does the participial phrase take an adverbial role implying the cause of him being better off, or adjective role modifying ‘he’?


Why don't "-use" verb-noun pairs obey initial stress derivation?

It's well known (and several past questions on this SE have covered) that to convert a two-syllable Latin-derived English verb into a noun, you shift the stress to the first syllable. This is apparently called "initial stress derivation". Some examples:   * permít (v.) ~ pérmit (n.)   * addréss (v.) ~ áddress (n.)   * recórd (v.) ~ récord (n.)   * expórt (v.) ~ éxport (n.) However, I've just realized there's a class of verbs that obey a different rule: verbs ending in _-use_. When these verbs change into nouns, they **keep the final-syllable stress** , but **devoice the final consonant** : so the verb ends in /uz/, and its derivative ends in /us/.   * _abuse_ : abú[z]e (v.) ~ abú[s]e (n.)   * _diffuse_ : diffú[z]e (v.) ~ diffú[s]e (adj.)   * _reuse_ : reú[z]e (v.) ~ reú[s]e (n.)   * _excuse_ : excú[z]e (v.) ~ excú[s]e (n.) My question: **Why do verbs that end in "-use" follow this pattern rather than initial stress derivation?** (Or perhaps not strictly "rather than" - I can also think of one example that both shifts the stress **and** devoices the /z/:)   * _refuse_ : refú[z]e (v.) ~ réfu[s]e (n.)


About the meaning of "light smattering of applause"

I expected "light smattering of applause" to mean "few applause" because "light" has the meaning of "small, not heavy". However, the phrase seems to mean "a lot of applause" in the context. For example: > The critics were so fulsome in their praise that Scheinhauer, a librettist > known to become squeamish after a light smattering of applause, retreated > from public view. Does anyone know how to understand the meaning of _light smattering of applause_?


Is “ass-wise” an acceptable English word? Is it a noun, or adverb?

I was surprised to see the New Yorker’s (February 26) article titled, “Boehner defends decision to remain on ass,” which was chockablock with the word, “Ass.” > “Minutes after telling the United States Senate to “ **get off their ass** ” > to avoid the deep spending cuts that will take effect this Friday, House > Speaker John Boehner called an impromptu press conference to announce his > intention of **remaining on his ass** “for the foreseeable future.” > > Mr. Boehner’s words drew a strong rebuke from Senate Majority Leader Harry > Reid, who said that Mr. Boehner’s suggestion that the Senate **get off their > ass** while he remained on his “seems like the height of hypocrisy, **ass- > wise**.” My question:   1. Is it acceptable (or sometime welcome) for decent statesmen to repeat the word, “ass” in public, e.g. in a press conference and in mass-media in western world? In our country ass is “A-word,” not suitable to utter in public.   2. Is “remain on one’s ass” a precise antonym to “get off one’s ass”?   3. What dose “ass-wise” mean? Does it mean “in terms of the implication of Ass”? Is it used as a noun or adverbially here?


In what contexts would I capitalize "city" and "county"?

In the following context, it is obvious that _County_ is a proper noun and deserves capitalization. > Currently, Albemarle County has four main reservoirs. However, in these other contexts below, I am not sure whether _county_ and _city_ would be considered proper nouns. **Is a reference to a specific geographic area considered a proper noun?** > The James River lies south of the county and has a tremendous flow rate. > > The Ragged Mountain reservoir is located closest to the city of > Charlottesville. According to the Illinois Identity Standards, I should "not capitalize common nouns and various shortened forms of official names". In the first example, _county_ is referring to a generic county, so I suspect it is a common noun (and can remain uncapitalized). In the second example, I am not sure whether _city_ is proper (and consequently, whether to capitalize). On official documentation, this city is referred to as the "City of Charlottesville", but I have never heard anyone say it quite like that. I would appreciate any clarification!


Single word for "Where are you guys?"

What slang expressions can I use to express "Where are you guys?" in a single word? I am looking for a very short, informal phrase or a single word I could use to ask this question that would still be recognizable to an English- speaking person.


difference between "this very" and "this particular"

It grew to my attention lately that I've read multiple authors using the expression "this very" like:   * I will be writing on this very blog   * I recommend going to this very restaurant What's the value of using "very" on these sentences and what is the difference if we replaced "very" with "particular" ? Note: My native language is Arabic.


Are English speakers reluctant to use /l/ in a consonant cluster mid word?

A relative of mine recently went on a rant regarding the pronunciation of 'jewelry' (as joo-la-ree) and 'realtor' (as ree-la-ter). It reminded me of the oft criticized pronunciation of 'nuclear' and I wondered if this represents a pattern of native speakers avoiding putting /l/ in consonant clusters mid word. Are there more example like this? Is this a pattern?


What would you use for "one who contacts or contacted"

Google shows contactor as a word but not contacter.. But contactor is a term for an electrical component. I feel like contacter would be appropriate but I'm not sure. Which would be correct?


Is there a name to describe a video game player who plays for aesthetics?

Word to describe a video game player who plays for aesthetics or other useless-in-game achievements? I'd go with overachiever but it doesn't sound like internet slang, nor is it very concise. Stolen from this on-hold question, so I can answer it later. ;) http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/179264/collector-gamer-or-player- game


Clause and noun as subject in a sentence

Can I use both a clause and a noun as the subject of a sentence? For example: > How the factors interact and their compound impact are not well understood. I find the meaning is clear but the structure of the sentence seems not valid.


Word for individual who tips the balance

Suppose there are two vice presidents vying for influence/supremacy within an organization. One vice president is admittedly weaker than the other, so he forms an alliance with a powerful underling who can tip the balance and make him (his team) the stronger. Is there a word for this third person, the underling on Team B, whose involvement would tip the balance? I'm thinking of a politically-charged word like "power-broker", but in a more subservient role. (Power brokers pull the marionette strings, whereas this fellow is talent.) _Note: I would create the tag "mot-juste" but I presently lack the required rep._


"Tradeoff" usage

How is this word to be used in practice when a subject is also mentioned? I am interested in both the static situation of _dealing with/being into/being subject to_ a tradeoff and the dynamic process of _accepting/entering/undergoing_ one. What are the proper terms/expressions to be used in place of my gross tentatives in italic? Please mention more choices if available...


"Really" modification problems

I can read a French newspaper with the aid of a dictionary, but I cannot speak the language or understand it when spoken. So I do **_not really_** know French. Some people say that _really_ modifies _know_ ; others say that _not really_ is a phrasal adverb that modifies the whole sentence — that is, it is not really the case that I know French. Which of those two perspectives is correct?


Is there a word to refer to "changing TV channels"?

I wrote the following sentence: > As if she had just realized it was there, she grabbed the remote control > from the table, turned on the TV, and **changed the channel** to the news. I'm not a native English-speaker, but I think there was a word for "changing the channel." Is there one?


Can somebody help me to understand this love saying?

> If you press me to say why I loved him, I can say no more than because he > was he and I was I...


"Stands for" direction?

In the song YOLO I heard the lyric "You oughta look out also stands for YOLO." I thought that the correct usage of "stands for" with acronyms was only the "[acronym] stands for [meaning]" direction. Using 'stand for' in reference to acronyms says that that direction is correct. But I've heard it used a lot in the other direction. Is it misuse, or can "stands for" be used the other way?


What does "dirty" mean in relation to a drink?

I saw in a movie a girl asking for a "very dirty" drink. Did she want higher alcohol content? I searched definitions of _dirty_ but I couldn't find any related to a drink.


There is (there's) vs.There are

What are the roots of the creeping usage of "there's" for both singular and plural predicates? (This seems to be more common in spoken English.) I have 2 theories. Perhaps it is because spoken communication our society is becoming less formal by the day. Or perhaps it is a reflection of speakers of other languages having increasing contact with native English speakers. I am aware of German "es gibt" and Spanish "hay" constructions. Please comment. 3/06/14 I ran a couple of Google Ngrams and was surprised to find a greater rise in the use of "there's" in English fiction than in general English language books, since the turn of the century. This would seem to support my contention that informality is behind the shift.


To 'confirm' or to 'affirm' a finding, anecdotally?

I just saw this come across my Twitter feed: > RT @hackernewsbot: Your Commute Is Killing You... > http://www.slate.com/id/2295603/pagenum/all/ **My two + hours every > dayconfirm this...** That made me question for a moment if _affirm_ would be preferred here? They seem like very similar words, and from the definitions I viewed I could make an argument either way.


term for a brand run by a company without direct acknowledgment?

The classic example of this in my mind is the relationship between Lexus and Toyota. At least in the United States, Lexus is not presented as "Lexus... by Toyota". From a newcomer's perspective, it is a fully independent entity. For Toyota, Lexus was targeted at a specific market segment, sales to which might have been adversely impacted by using the Toyota name. The term I thought of for this was "house brand", but googling suggests that term's meaning is generally confined to supermarket generics like "Sam's Choice". Can someone please help me properly name this brand relationship?


Figurative expression for outrageous/unlikely/overly bold claim

What expressions could one use to qualify an expression as unlikely, to soften the impact by changing it from accusation or hyperbole into unlikely (if outrageous) conjecture? Something like "God forbid" but more neutral, with no deities involved?   * Assuming he knows something about the criminal case, or, ......... he's the murderer?   * That was a small event, but with enough coincidences, this could ......... lead to war!   * Watch out for your daughter, she might marry not just someone of lower stance, but a foreigner an outright commoner, or even ............ a godless Negro!


Word meaning "to create unrealistic expectations"?

I'm drafting a letter to my family to announce the date and location of my destination wedding. I'm asking my family to not tell others about the wedding for now: > We would appreciate your help in not sharing this information with others, > including but not limited to extended family and family friends, so as not > to **_**. Originally I wanted to use the word _offend_ but that doesn't seem right - the act of telling someone about a wedding is not offensive. _Disappoint_ doesn't really work either for the same reason. I'd like to use _set unrealistic expectations_ as this truly captures the intent in me asking my family not to tell others about the wedding, but this seems very wordy. Is there a word that captures the meaning I'm trying to convey?


"None so far" is this grammatically correct?

A: do you have any questions? B: None so far. Is "none so far" a strange English and was it correct to use it in the dialogue above?.I was told by a native speaker that it is strange to use it this way in the dialogue.


What does "anticipation" mean in this sentence?

> He sees Empedocles' work as a primitive anticipation of Plato, a significant > union of spiritual other-worldiness with the philosophical and scientific > traditions of the Presocratics.   >  (Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle, by D. O'Brien). An activity anticipates another activity, a product anticipates another product. So either Empedocle's writing anticipates Plato's writing his dialogues, or Eempedocles' work is the forerunner of Plato's books. Here the speaker says that a work of one thinker(an object) is an anticipation of another thinker. I donot know why, because it is beyond my understanding of "antipication" as set forth above.


Order of importance , time order and space order

Why can't I say "Importance order" while I can say "time order" or "space order".


Is it OK to replace the preposition “through” with “during”?

> You'll hear the determination in the voice of a young field organizer who's > working his way through college. This is a line from President Obama's address. My question is why it is _through_ college, not _during_ college? Sometimes these prepositions confuse me.


Antonym of "recurrent"

What is the antonym of _recurrent_? This is like I have to few activities which I have to perform each month so these are recurrent but there are few activities which I only perform once. So what should I say this activity is recurrent and that activity is _one time_? What is the proper word in this situation?


'Would' for past events

For the sentence, > He said he would buy a new car. Does adding 'He said' in front make it sound like an event that happened in past? For example, if I write _He would buy a new car_ then that could mean he might be going to buy a new car in the future. But when I write it with _He said_ what difference would it make?


"Pricey" vs. "Pricy"

I've recently encountered these two variations of the spellings for the informal word for "expensive." My dictionary and the online dictionary seem to indicate that both of these spellings are correct, but I have yet to discover why there are two variations of this word.   1. Are both of these spellings correct?   2. Is this simply another difference between British and American English?


Meaning of "sharp"

Context (New York Times): > Still, rooms were large by the city’s pint-size standards, service was > **sharp** , and for the moment, they offer some of the best values around. Does _sharp_ here mean definition 20 (shrewd to the point of dishonesty) in Dictionary.com?


Difference between "at that time" / "that time"

What's the difference between **at that time / that time**? > When I faced the issue previously, at that time John helped us to resolve > it.   >  When I faced the issue previously, that time John helped us to resolve it.


"Requirement of" - correct preposition?

Is the use of the word "of" correct in the following sentence, or this there a better word? The meaning should be "which requirement the platform must fulfil". > The most important requirements _of_ the platform are performance and > functionality.


Is there a word for a personal or informal definition?

What's the correct way to say something such as "my definition of good C# code is _etc._ ". I could say "I would describe good C# code as having the following attributes and adhering to the following rules: _etc._ ", but that seems rather long winded. Similarly, I often hear the expression: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I looked up the definition of insanity, and that's not it. If we're speaking English, the definition of a word should be its corresponding text in the dictionary. Is there something else to call those expressions like the above examples, other than personal or informal definitions?


The Historical Development of Nouns and Adjectives

Historically speaking, were nouns derived from adjectives or were adjectives derived from nouns? That is to say, as verbal communication developed which came first: the noun, or the adjective?


Word for someone who pays attention to details

I know I've seen a word that describes a person who has a high perception of details (for example, seeing specific information in a log file), but I can't recall it now. Insights?


What does ‘Adjusts playbook with a pencil, not a sharpie’ mean?

I was puzzled to find the headline – ‘ _D’Antoni Adjusts Playbook with a Pencil, Not a Sharpie_ ’ in the sport article in today’s New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/sport/basketball ). Although I understand ‘a pencil, not sharpie’ is a figurative expression comparing metal cylinder sharpie to wood pencil, what does it exactly mean? Adjust his hard style to softer style? Is ‘Adjusts playbook with a pencil, not a sharpie’ a kind of cliché? The headline is followed by the following sentence: > Mike D’Antoni is fighting against perceptions, resisting his impulses and > wrestling with his playbook. For years, D’Antoni cultivated an image and an > offense based on speed and small lineups, constant movement and contrarian > thinking. In Phoenix, that offense produced 60-win seasons and deep playoff > runs. In New York, it re-energized a moribund franchise. But circumstances > have changed, drastically.


Is "stepmother treatment" Indian English?

When I googled _stepmother treatment_ , I found that it was mainly used in India to refer to neglect, disregard or inattention. Most of the other non- Indian links talked about the literal treatment by the relative. Does this phrase/idiom belong only to Indian English? In India, stepmothers carry this stereotype of being vile women, by the way.


What is "left-hand driving"

What does left-hand driving mean? Does it mean the steering wheel is on the left side of the car? > Sure that's not Britain? > > Look at the traffic flow and the direction of the lanes, it's not a left- > hand driving country.


What's the meaning of 'cub/s'?

What's the meaning of "cub" or "cubs" and in what context is it used?


Meaning of "I command you for that"

I noticed this somewhere and I have no clue what it means, as I'm not a native speaker. Google hasn't helped out. Does anyone know what this means? (If you need additional context, let me know). > I command you for that.


What's the origin of "[X number of] souls onboard"?

In nautical (and aeronautical) contexts, a vessel may declare a number of "souls onboard". I've googled around for origin of that phrase, but haven't found a definitive explanation. Most discussions of the phrase I've seen on aeronautical forums and obviously concern the usage in aviation, with the discussion often revolving around on rescuers tallying the dead after an accident. But the phrase is obviously older than that and used in situations besides emergencies. Of the explanations I've read, many claim that "souls" is used as it includes passengers _and_ crew, whereas a number on a passenger manifest would only include the former. But even so "people", "humans", or simply "there are 150 onboard" would seem as effective. While the inclusion of passengers and crew makes sense, I can't help but wonder what the requirements are for being counted as a "soul" and whether they've changed. Whether it's always meant "living human being" or if it was used to expressly exclude certain individuals rather than include them. For instance, would it include the (presumably non-babtized) "cargo" in the days of slave trade? A morbid thought, I admit. It may just be tradition based in "souls" sounding more dignified than "humans", and the religion-laden language of its day. Yet I can't help but wonder. * * * **Clarification:** The answers here so far concern aviation usage, yet I simply mentioned aviation because that's the context in which I've seen the phrase discussed. But my question is about its _original etymology_ ; not its current usage. The phrase comes from a nautical context, but why did sailors use the word "souls"? I understand the meaning of the phrase, and I understand that it makes sense as an inclusive term to mean "everyone onboard". I also understand that by now it's become traditional. But again the question is about its origin. Since a word like "persons" would be equally unambiguous (and as David Schwartz points out below, "persons" is indeed a valid alternative in modern aviation), why use "souls" instead? Was it for instance originally meant as an _exclusive_ term? * * * Some of the explanations I've seen elsewhere:   * "Souls" excludes human remains being transported (in an aviation context this would help crash responders sort out crash victims from those already dead, but again the phrase predates aircraft and aircraft crashes)   * It refers back to "S.O.S" for "save our souls" (which must be wrong since that's _not_ what S.O.S means. The code was chosen for its morse pattern and not as an acronym, and anyway the phrase is older than morse code too)   * "Souls" excludes lawyers and managers… (no comment) By the way, in aviation it seems the phrase is sometimes abbreviated as "S.O.B", much to the delight of some pilots, especially when pluralized: "We've got 40 SOBs here. And two pilots."


What's the difference between "false", "counterfeit", and "forged" when describing a document?

I'm reading Schengen Borders Code (2006R0562—EN) and in the Annex V Part B there's a list of reasons for refusing entry that includes > (B) has a false/counterfeit/forged travel document As far as I know, any of those would mean that the document bearer either obtained the document in an illegal way or has edited the document. What would those three qualifications exactly mean and what's the difference between them?


"Injunct" vs "Enjoin"

The _injunctions_ (and super-injunctions) that occasionally make the headlines restrain a defendant from doing something. It is fairly clear (e.g. OED) that the word was formed as a noun from _enjoin_ in the sense of stop, and has various uses. There is, however, a continuing need for a specific verb in the legal context (The Court granted an injunction to stop him doing it/ he was ???ed from doing it). It is increasingly common for this verb (both in the media and in court) to be "injunct", which is in the dictionary, but only as 'colloq.'. It seems to me that a word that is colloquial (and very ugly) has no place in a courtroom; but since most of the people who use it are High Court judges, I thought I'd see whether fellow EL&Uers agree with me. Is it worth campaigning to restore _enjoin_ here, or indeed is there a better replacement? TL;DR _Injunct_ is an illegitimate back-formation from _injunction_ , which actually came from _enjoin_. Is it too late to stop this word polluting our beautiful language?


Is "submittable" a valid word?

Is "submittable" a valid word to describe something that is eligible to submit?


Where can I get the list of diminutive forms of first names?

As the title suggests, where can I get the list of diminutive forms of people's first names? Like Mike for Michael and Dave for David.


"Housewife" vs. "homemaker"

What is the difference between **housewife** and **homemaker**? When can we use housewife and when can we use homemaker? >   * I am a housewife. >   * I am a homemaker. > > > Which is correct in the above examples for a married woman, who is > unemployed. She is filing up a registration form, applying for a ration card > in India. What should be written under Occupation.


Is there a word to describe rotation of ownership?

Is there a word which means that ownership rotates or moves around a known set of options? For example, the Olympics are hosted by a different nation each time, so they are [word I am looking for]. The only thing I can think of is something derived from "round-robin", which is a way of rotating ownership of tasks for scheduling in Computer Science, but I don't think that is a universally understood term.


Are there single words that are defined as "to remain to examine what others passed up"

I was beach combing the other day and I wanted to know a word for "to remain to examine what others have passed up." This happens in beach combing when you are following your fellow companion and are moving slower, searching for what they might have missed.


Antonym(s) for "antipode" / "antipodes" / "antipodean"?

Wiktionary says these terms refer to "the opposite" side, etc and offers no antonyms. But in practice, in the field of north vs south hemispheres, they are only ever used in my experience to refer to the southern hemisphere from the point of view of the northern hemisphere? What terms should be used to refer to this aspect "oppositeness" of the northern hemisphere from the POV of the southern hemisphere. Can I as an Australian refer to somebody from the northern hemisphere as "antipodean"? And even if technically correct will anybody understand me? Or do the terms in this set have accepted antonyms? Or what other solutions might I use when I want to convey this reversed point of view?


What is the origin of "tall tale"?

A _tall tale_ is a folkloric story that is generally wildly exaggerated and told for the amusement of the listeners. Tall tale tellers usually claim some sort of personal involvement in the story. I was curious about the origin of the phrase itself, and in the course of poking around, I found that _tall_ in this phrase means _exaggerated_ , so "tall tale" means an "exaggerated story." What I can't seem to find is where this term originated. It seems to be sometime in the middle to late 1800s in the US, but who coined this term? Was it a famous author? Did someone publish a book of tall tales around that time? (More specifically, the argument revolves around whether or not Mark Twain was responsible, although if it's not him, then who?) EDIT: According to Etymology Online, tall "meaning 'exaggerated' (as in **tall tale** ) is Amer.Eng. colloquial attested by 1846." (Now I will look to find where it is attested in 1846.) Another Edit: An additional bit of interest is that a tall tale is considered folklore, and this word (folk-lore) was very famously coined by William Thoms in 1846.


How did the word "chunter" come about?

Did it arise from a mixture of chattering and murmuring?


Synonyms of " in the case of"

Is there any word with the same meaning as _in the case of_? How we can say it in different ways if in one paragraph we have several copies of _in the case of_?


What is the difference between "quicker" and "faster"?

What is the correct word to use here and why: > I will get there quicker [than you] vs. > I will get there faster [than you] There must be similar adverbs for "slower".


Is there any word available for an incident occurred and vanished in front of eyes?

I was confused, when one of my friends was writing his name on a lead from vapor of mouth: I saw his name for a few seconds and after that it automatically disappeared. So what can I call this incident? Is there any word available for this incident?


What does “E!” mean in the phrases, a show “makes the debut Sunday E! sets in motion,” and “premiers on E! April 21”?

I came across a new interjection (seemingly) “E!” in the following sentence of the Washington Post (April 18) article titled, “Ryan Lochte, Ke$ha and the rules for celebrity reality shows”. > Ryan Lochte’s bold personal style: The Olympic swimmer’s reality series > “What Would Ryan Lochte Do?” **premires on E!** April 21. > > This week marks the debut of two such shows. **Sunday, E!** sets in motion > “What Would Ryan Lochte Do?,” a look at the Olympic swimmer who made > headlines at last year’s London games — not so much for his victories and > friendly rivalry with teammate Michael Phelps as for a flurry of awkward > interviews and self-deluded sound bites (trademarking the **frat- > thusiastic** phrase “ **Jeah**!”) that gave him a party-boy reputation. What does “E!” mean? Is it an interjection or a capital letter for something associated with TV entertainment programs? Additionally, is “Jeah” similar with “gee / jee”? Is the word, “ frat- thusiastic” which I presume to be a compound of “fraternity + enthusiastic” (Pls. correct me if I’m wrong) a current English word, or just a coinage by the author?


"Home page" or "homepage"?

Is there a convention for the spelling of the name of the main page of a website? Should it be _home page_ , with a space between the two words; or _homepage_ , all one word?


Having had nobody stood up for me -correct?

I'm not sure about the following: > Having advised to many of your colleagues (and yet having had nobody stood > up for me when the shit hits the fan), I have decided not to discuss your > issues anymore. or > Having advised to many of your colleagues (and yet having had nobody stand > up for me when the shit hits the fan), I have decided not to discuss your > issues anymore.


What's the connection between "Holy Grail" and "Killer Rabbit"?

This article says: > If there's a Holy Grail, there's a Killer Rabbit. I can understand that to be "even if there's a good solution, there's a catch to it", but what does _Killer Rabbit_ have to do with the _Holy Grail_?


phrasal verb or preposition at the end of a sentence?

"That bullet point is simply in place to ensure that projects are followed through with." I got blasted for ending the above sentence with with, and I feel it's a phrasal verb so is okay. Am I correct? The disclaimer here is that I'm terrible with the English language (probably seen in my question itself). Thanks ahead of time for the assistance


"The paper on Monday published X" vs. "the paper published on Monday X"

What would be the best position of _Monday_ in the following sentence — before or after the verb? >   * The paper on Monday published what the artist called a blunt attack on > people’s right to privacy. >   * The paper published on Monday what the artist called a blunt attack on > people’s right to privacy. >


Pronunciation of the letter 'W'

Why is the letter 'W' pronounced like double-'U' in English and pronounced as double-'V' in French? I've always wondered this. Typographically, the letter 'W' can be written with curvy bottoms (sorry for the lack of typography jargon) which looks like two U's side by side (uu). It can also be written with hard edges which make it look more like two V's side by side (vv). I thought this was pretty interesting.


Does this word qualify as a word - "evermore-so"?

I've not seen this used much. Can someone perhaps direct me to a more appropriate word. Edit: I would like to use it in emphasizing a current situation where something has become abundant over a short period. Ie: > Cyberspace is filled with various x, y and evermoreso now the extensive > option for z.


Contradictory meanings of 'sick'

We usually use the word 'sick' to refer to something that you are tired of or don't like. So it is quite clear when we say > I'm sea-sick, that we mean, one is sick of travelling by sea (eg: boat) due to the constant movement. I think we can use the 'sick' postfix in different situations to mean the same negative feeling. But is there are rule to indicate that you're sick of not having something? For example, when we say that we're > home-sick, we mean that we're missing home - thus the absence of home, and not of being at home. So how would one identify that what is meant is having too much of something or missing it?


Constructing long and detailed sentences, and the correct use of punctuation

I've had a browse of some of the questions here on commas and can't see if this has been asked. I have been fastidious about my punctuation and grammar, but find the advent of online social networking and texting is really taking it's toll on maintaining these lifelong habits. I am not an expert, but have (what I thought) was a sound basis of English usage. I'll use some example sentences: > I think, sometimes, that my use of commas, and, occasionally, exclamation > marks, can be excessive. Whenever I add a word or expression, not necessary, > to the sentence, just like I did with the "not necessary" and like I am > doing right now, I always include these words, well maybe not always, > usually include these inserts between commas; so, basically, I enjoy writing > long sentences, joined with lots of commas and, frequently, semi-colons and, > often, colons (and have been rather prone to using brackets, as well). > > When writing lengthy, detailed sentences, I find, sometimes, I can get > carried, or at least I think I do, and can join two, three or sometimes > more, usually, related, but separate ideas, that could be separated into > individual, perhaps less interesting, sentences. Is my use of commas, and other associated punctuation, correct? Have I explained my rationale behind my usage, well enough?


What is a "review" in this context?

What is a _review_ said on the following passage? > Physical activity is being increasingly recognized as an effective tool to > treat depression. PhD candidate George Mammen’s **review** published in the > October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine has taken the > connection one step further, finding that moderate exercise can actually > prevent episodes of depression in the long term. Looking it up on AHDE, it defines it as > A periodical devoted to articles and essays on current affairs, literature, > or art. However, judging by the context it seems like _review_ said here is a single piece of article/essay in the issue of the journal of Preventive Medicine rather than the whole periodical defined in the dictionary.


another way of saying "being of"

I am looking for a way to replace the word "being" in the phrase "being of poor character". My instructor is very adamant that we not use being unless it is used as a noun. In this particular case, I am having trouble replacing it.


Is "Compasses" a typo?

In the Wikipedia article for Freemasonry, it gave a picture regarding the emblem of the Freemasons: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/eoy4V.png) The caption below reads: > The Masonic Square and **Compasses**.   >  (Found with or without the letter G) Just wondering, is "Compasses" correct? Shouldn't it be compass? I looked this up on several dictionaries, and I don't seem to find "compasses" when referring to a tool for drawing circles, only "compass". However, "compasses" makes sense, as it looks something similar to "scissors". Should it be "compass" or "compasses"?


Single word to describe "make something worse"

In a technical report: One setting causes a problem to arise. Another setting causes this negative effect to get worse. For example:" When setting the switch to "magic" the runtime increased. Hitting the machine with a hammer [foo'ed] the problem. " I have the feeling that "exasperate" or "expedite" could maybe be used to describe this but that they don't quite hit the mark.


Can the preposition 'in' be used before the noun 'abroad'?

Can the preposition _in_ be used before the noun _abroad_? Can I write the following sentence: _Your friend in abroad?_


What is the name of the tactic that politicians use to bury people with torrent of words?

Some people write bloated books and long essays with skilful use of hooks, e.g. Jared Diamond; some others speak in long-drawn sentences with torrents of words, e.g. Noam Chomsky. It reminds me of a tactic politicians use in public discourse to waste people's time. I came across this word before but I can't retrieve it from either memory or the internet.


could you explain the below sentence about reporting?

"Half-yearly reporting included in overall project management costs" a report about the costs of the overall management of the project? or something else? thanks in advance


Etymology of Sidesplitting

What is the etymology of sidesplitting? In particular, is there a physical interpretation of sides splitting?


What are different kinds of shops based on the size, structure and location?

In my native language there are so many words to mean different kinds of shops based on the size, structure and location. I'm not talking about the types like grocery shop, barber shop, meat shop, book shop, etc. I'm talking about kinds of shops like below:   * Mall: Meaning a big shop or a complex with many shops   * Store: Meaning a small shop.   * Booth shop: Meaning a very small shop, may be temporary built one room shop. I don't know the words otherwise I can explain clearly and I'm looking for those words. For example what do you call a shop which is setup on the road side which has no roof?


What do you call someone skilled in researching quickly?

Having looked through the synonymous for researcher and come across the following definition of an investigator as a: > person who checks thoroughly is there a word, or phrase that describes > a person who checks rapidly without implying sloppiness or inaccuracy.


Term to mean a different person conjugation?

Recently, someone said the following, in a chat room: "You're an adult and that means it's your turn to decide what that means." I knew that came from something I recognized, and it turns out it is referring to this xkcd comic, which instead says "we're grownups now, and it's our turn to decide what that means". I was trying to explain to someone I was talking to via voice that they had quoted that comic, but I couldn't find a way to easily convey the shift from the original comic's use of first person plural, and the chatter's use of second person singular. Is there a word or phrase that easily denotes that shift?


Difference in meaning between "on his job" and "in his job"

What does this sentence mean? > He is working fifty percent more **on his job** and fifty percent less **in > his job**. He is 100% happier.


Verbs for "lexicography" and "cartography"

While I'm performing the act of being a lexicographer or a cartographer (I know that they are different trades/acts) what verbs describe what I'm doing? For example lexicography is what is being performed, but how do you say something similar to _a diver dives_ or _a fisherman fishes_ when talking about lexicography and cartography, or in fact a _-graphy_ in the general case? edit: Just had a thought.... I think the answer is _constructs_ , this is based on my belief that _-graphy_ means to draw together or build up.


"Technology" or "information technology"?

When generalizing about computers, the internet, software, smart phones and other gadgets, is it best to use just "technology" or be more specific with "information technology"? Humans have been developing and using technology for thousands of years, and its applications are quite diverse, including medical technology, military technology and so forth. There is so much popular interest in computers that "technology" or "tech" often is currently used as a shorthand for that one aspect. Shorter is usually better, but I wonder if is an oversimplification.


Is the phrase "At about the speed of ten miles per hour" correct in the context?

> The train is keep moving at about the speed of ten miles per hour. Is the phrase _at about the speed of ten miles per hour_ is correct? _At about_ looks strange to me. I think the sentence could be like below. Am I correct? > The train is keeps moving at ten miles speed.


Origin of “tout court”

According to the OED, _tout court_ means in short, in little, simply, without qualification or addition. But _tout_ itself means to peep, peer, look out; to gaze. So my question is how can “peep court” mean “in short”?


Indirect speech for “Was there a chair there at the last lesson”

Could you please to help me with translating it to indirect speach: _"Was there a chair there at the last lesson?"_ This exercise is from "Get your tenses right" by Ronald Barnes, and I have doubts about second "there", what is it, a subject? I think the solution is _"Somebody asked if a chair there was there at the last lesson",_ isn't it?


usage of the phrase "intrinsic nature of the philosophy"

I am trying to use the phrase _"intrinsic nature of the philosophy"_ in the following sentence, which comes from my thesis writing. As an ABC learner, I am not quite sure whether this expression is lengthy. Could someone give me a hand to make the following sentence an elegant English writing. Your help will be greatly appreciated! > This issue is more intractable, as the flaw is rooted in the _intrinsic > nature of the philosophy_.


Is this correct usage of the word "resist"?

Is it correct to say "People resist to learn new things."? By saying so, I intend to convey that most of us are not willing to learn new things. Also, which one of the following do you think is better.   1. People resist to learn new things.   2. People offer resistance to learning new things.


To what extent do English words sound like what they describe?

Is it true that the way languages develop causes the tonal qualities of the words to have a tendency to match the nature of the thing the word stands for? I am not talking just about obviously onomatopoieaic words such as "splash" or "murmur". I mean very general everyday words. For example the word "book" has a sort of hard quality to it, whereas the word "water" seems to almost flow like the actual substance itself. Is there any truth in this theory? Edit: They discuss this topic on QI. They claim a pointy spiky object is far more likely to be named a "kiki" than a "booba".


I don't understand this quote

Talent, **lying in the understanding,** is often inherited; genius, being the action of reason or imagination, rarely or never. I don't understand this part. What does it mean?


What does "bespoke" mean in this context?

> The synthetic CDOs that caused the trouble were expensive **bespoke** > instruments that were very profitable for the banks involved – JPMorgan was > paid $19m to structure and market the Squared CDO alone before it got stuck > with $880m in unanticipated losses I know the definition is _to be or give a sign of; indicate_. See synonyms of indicate. But it doesn't make a lot of sense. Context.


Dark vs Darkness

I have a usage related doubt about using 'Dark' in the following sentence:               Each time, when he switches on the light, he is surprised how it vanishes ______ completely.      'Darkness' fits well here, but does 'dark' work too, as it is also a noun?


"Buff" and "Nurf" from video games etymology

In video games when the makers increase the power of something it is sometimes refereed to as a _buff_. If they decrease the power of something it is called a _nurf_ or a _de-buff_. This also applies to player abilities to temporarily increase or decrease their power. Where do these terms come from?


Why do you suck at XYZ?

How bad is the usage of the word _suck_ in English? Is this "bad boy" language or commonly used?


Why is this marked ungrammatical?

Why is the second sentence below marked as being ungrammatical? >   1. Ed wanted a new CD player. >   2. ✲ A new CD player was wanted by ED. > > —Bas Aarts, _English Syntax and Argumentation_ > > Although the second sentence is marked as an ungrammatical one, it seems to make sense. Why does the author mark it as being ungrammatical?


What’s the word for somebody you know (sometimes well) but who isn’t your friend?

What is the English word for somebody who is not your friend, but you’ve know them even for years. For example, this might be a neighbor or somebody from school whom you see often enough but whom but only say hi to in passing, with everybody continuing on their way. The relation between you and this person is neutral. I mean you can have a small talk about the weather and such, like while waiting at the bus stop or something like that, but that’s all. I’m sure everybody has had at least a couple of similar relationships in their life. The closest I have come up with is “we know each other”, but I would like to know whether there exists some one-word term for this instead of needing to resort to four words to describe the relationship.


Using "that" (or any other word) three consecutive times

Is it ever correct to use the word _that_ (or any other word) three consecutive times? For example, > By reading Nietzsche I learned **that that that** does not kill me makes me > stronger.


Is this headline as redundant as it seems?

> Drunk driver found hiding after hit-and-run Is it necessary to write "found hiding"? It seems like the only time you can find something is when it is hidden or missing. Is this statement redundant? Isn't the above the same as writing things like "Man drowns in water"? (I would think it would be correct to be specific if he drowned in a strange substance.)


Idiom wanted for means and ends

There is a common Russian expression, literally translated as "winners are not judged". The meaning is that one can get away with cutting corners and/or employing less-than-wholesome means in pursuit of some goal, provided one actually achieves the goals. In other words "the ends justify the means, so long as you actually achieve the ends". Is there a compact English idiom for this notion?


What does "When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth" mean?

I found this quote by George Bernard Shaw: > When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth. Can anyone please explain the meaning of this sentence?


Is ‘then’ of ‘now and then’ past or future?

_Then_ is commonly used for things happened in both the past and future. In the common phrase _now and then_ , is _then_ in the past or the future? Could anyone help?


"Before long" and "after long"

This question is inspired by a chat conversation during which I was corrected on the use of _after long_. Certainly, > He will be back **before** long is correct. However, is > He will be back **after** long grammatical? If not, why does changing _before_ to _after_ make it wrong?


Expressions in Tim Minchin's "Cont."

In his song "Cont.", Tim Minchin uses two expressions I cannot find in a dictionary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmTexiEZmL8 Can somebody explain the meanings?   1. "..., who lean on their horn..." (5:34)   2. "talk camply" (6:04)


Why is the plural form of "life" "lives", while the plural form of "still life" is "still lifes"?

Why does the plural form of "life" is "lives", while the plural form of "still life" is "still lifes"? From Wikipedia: > A still life ( _plural_ **still lifes** ) is a work of art depicting mostly > inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either > natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking > glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on).


Do I need an extra "about", or does one suffice?

Consider the following sentence: > I have a lot to talk _about_ with John _about_ his project. Since I can swap the position of the first _about_ to make it 'I have a lot to talk with John about', then I would end up with: > I have a lot to talk with John _about about_ his project. My question is, can I consolidate the two instances of _about_ , giving me: > I have a lot to talk with John _about_ his project. Or do I have to keep two prepositions there, but change the second _about_ to something else in order to make it sound less-awkward, as in: > I have a lot to talk with John _about regarding_ his project. Related question (now that I'm thinking more...er... _about_ this): is the first _about_ really an adverb, in which case, of course, I cannot ever consolidate the two?


Adjectives in places of adverbs

I was reading this thread, and I thought asking this question again in Usage forum would make my understanding more clear. I am briefly explaining the question here. > She plays it **cool**. > > He plays / acts **stupid**. > > The headlines showed you played them **proudly**. Here **_cool_** and **_stupid_** are adjectives, but adverbs should be placed there in general. My question is how to determine which adjectives can be used this way and which aren't?


Correct use of "hereby"

Does the following sentence make correct use of _hereby_? > The total amount specified in "Appendix 3 Price Breakdown and Payment Plan" > attached to hereby Sub-Contract. Should I say _attached to **the** hereby Sub-Contract_? Is there some other problem?


Use of apostrophe in days?

Is it: > As Lilly lay down tucked up in her bed, all the days events span round in > her head. or > As Lilly lay down tucked up in her bed, all the day’s events span round in > her head.


"Well [noun] is here to rescue"

> Well [some noun here] is here to rescue. Does the structure of sentence sound good? Please suggest some example sentences where "to rescue" can be used.


Is there a single word for 'beyond the hype'?

I am trying to phrase "beyond the hype Cloud computing" tersely. I've been racking my brains for a single word, trying to get it into the form: > [word] Cloud Computing I thought of: > Real Cloud Computing But I want a word that hints at the fact `Cloud` is a buzzword and inverts it. Intuitively I feel the word is out there somewhere! Btw, this is for a writeup/report, not for advertising. The full context might be a statement to the effect that **_such and such carry out_** [ _word_ ] **_Cloud Computing_**.


What does the following statement mean?

Can anyone help me to make sense of the following statement : > **May all sentient beings never separate from peace and happiness.** Thanks for your help.


Is 'own' appropriate for an email address?

I recently used "I own some.email@gmail.com", and a friend said this was incorrect. I can see logically how this is true, you wouldn't use own in the context of an account identifier in any other circumstances (e.g. "I own 07700 123456"), but I can't think of a better word. Here's the full context: > I own some.email@gmail.com from a project _waaaay_ back. I get interesting > emails occasionally, where someone has decided to test their product with > that email address, not realising it's real and that I'm checking it.


What to call a person who doesn't respect personal space?

What would you call a person that doesn't care for your personal space and is kind-of sticky and doesn't get the hint that people are awkward around him/her and generally avoid him/her?


A word for a title and description

What is a single word for a title and short paragraph, for example: > # Lorem ipsum > > Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus sagittis > dictum nisl. Duis ac dapibus diam. Maecenas porta non dolor in commodo. > Aliquam feugiat nisl non enim vulputate semper. Cras imperdiet aliquet eros > sed fermentum. Etiam vitae arcu ac lacus viverra iaculis ut cursus magna. > Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. This could be at the start of a page or multiple times one under the other. Is there a word that defines this?


What is an alternative to the phrase "what you don't know won't hurt you"?

I am looking for an alternative phrase to replace "what you don't know can't hurt you."


Don't you think, I know that?

Does that mean: a) I know that or b) I don't know that and in a) or b) the other person is not aware of this?


Trouble understanding change in tense

The paragraph below began with the past tense but soon switched to present tense (highlighted in bold). I am trying to learn tense consistency. I don't know why such switch is allowed. It's very confusing for me to learn to keep a consistent tense =( > In Banjuh, the capital of Gambia, I met with a group of Gambians. They told > me how for centuries the history of Africa has been preserved. In the older > villages of the back country, there are old men called griots, who **are** > in effect living archives. Such men **memorize** and, on special occasions, > **recite** the cumulative histories of clans or families or villages as > those histories **have** long been told. Since my forefather had said his > name was Kin-tay (properly spelled Kinte), and since the Kinte clan was > known in Gambia, the group of Gambians would see what they could do to help > me. I was back in New York when a registered letter arrived from Gambia. > > Word had been passed in the back country, and a griot of the Kinte clan had, > indeed, been found. His name, the letter said, was Kebba Kanga Fofana. I > returned to Gambia and organized a safari to locate him.


What are the associations of the word "Heights" in a city name?

There are lots of cities and other designations with the word "Heights" in the name. Does this refer to something specific? Is it a marketing tactic perhaps? Examples:   * Hacienda Heights   * Sterling Heights   * Washington Heights   * Golan Heights


meaning of “go up five places” in this sentence

A person is recollecting his college days in Oxford. He used to be in the team of an eight, rowing a boat. > In the year I got my colours the Wadham boat went up five places on the > river. It was the happiest week of my life. What is _go up five places on the river_ supposed to mean? Five victories or something else?


Usage of macrons in Latin loanwords

I know that diacritics are often retained in loanwords in formal writing (cf. _naïveté_ ), but I haven't seen this done with direct adaptation of Latin words; i.e., _per se_. In Latin, _per sē_ comes with a macron, indicating the longness of the vowel. This practice is uncommon (unused?) in English, but so are accents and diæresis marks, which are retained in the aforementioned _naïveté_. Is there any attested usage or relevant guideline regarding the adaptation of macrons from Latin?


Can em dashes be used to isolate clauses starting with an “or”?

Here’s a simplified version of the sentence I'm working on. > Despite what he believed — or thought he believed — he still had to contend > with the truth. Or should I use commas?


Why is "subpar" not "superpar"?

My understanding is that the "par" portion of "subpar" comes from the sport of golf, as in the phrase "par for the course". However if this is the case, then the construction of the word doesn't seem to make sense. In golf, the farther _below_ (i.e., _sub_ ) the par you are, the better you've done and the better your score is. Likewise, the farther _above_ you are, the worse you've done. Is there a legitimate etymological reason for this word's construction in relation to its meaning? Note that I saw this question, but it's completely different and unrelated.


"The Japanese are a hard-working people." Is this grammatically correct?

I came across this statement. Is this correct? I am specifically confused at the part where "a" comes after "are".


A word to express 'currently active'

Suggest a word to express a task/thing has started, is running and is not yet complete. Does _inchoate_ fit? Also, suggest a word to express completed/fully built thing/task.


What does "enough" mean in expressions like "Fair enough" or "Funny enough"?

As a non-native speaker, I already get used to the word _enough_ in expressions like those below, but I sometimes still got confused of it. It makes me wonder **what it actually means** and **where does it come from**. There are two different groups in which it confuses me. Actually, the first group contains only one expression, that is _fair enough_. This is an idiomatic expression that is 'used to admit that something is reasonable or acceptable' Oxford Dictionaries.   The second group contains hundreds of examples; actually, it's a seemingly endless list:   _funny enough_ , _oddly enough_ , _strangely enough_ , _interestingly enough_ , _curiously enough_ , _amazingly enough_ , _appropriately enough_ , _astonishingly enough_ etc. Frankly speaking, in my mother-tongue, German, there's something similar, i.e. we add _-weise_ to certain words:               interestingly: interessant -- interestingly enough: interessanterweise         amazingly: erstaunlich --     amazingly enough: erstaunlicherweise      Though, there are two main difference between _enough_ in English an _-weise_ in German. First, _-weise_ does not have any meaning on its own1 and, second, in those instances you use _-weise_ you cannot drop it whereas in English you don't necessarily need to add _enough_. Example:               English: Interestingly (enough), you don't need *enough* in this sentence.       German:  Interessanterweise kann man in diesem Satz *-weise* nicht auslassen.                (Interestingly, you cannot drop *-weise* in this sentence.)      In all these expressions, the general sense of _enough_ ( _sufficient_ , _to the necessary or required degree_ ) cannot be applied; at least, it wouldn't make any sense in my book. _Funny enough_ , for example, means that a fact is funny but not that there's a sufficient amount of fun. So, again my question: what's the role of _enough_ and why that word? * * * 1For the sake of completeness I must mention that this statement is not really true. There's an adjective _weise_ meaning _wise_ ( _a wise old man_ ) and a noun _Weise_ meaning _way_ as in _a certain way_ or _a mysterious way_. When talking about the suffix _-weise_ in adverbs, the latter meaning (the noun) can be taken as an indicator what _-weise_ may mean; admittedly, I've never validated this from an etymological point of view.


Which object is modified by the infinitive in this sentence?

The sentence is like this: > Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial > support they need in order to thrive. I'm not sure about the `to thrive`. Does this sentence mean: (1) To make the major cities thrive, governments need to support them financially. Or (2) To make the governments themselves thrive, governments need to support major cities financially. In other word, which one is modified by `to thrive`? Is it `Governments` or `cities` and why? Does anyone have ideas about this?


Ambiguous pronouns

I have a statement like > The performance of the proposed scheme, and its dependence on … Here, ‘it’ can refer to either the performance of the scheme, or the scheme itself. I changed the statement to > The performance of the proposed scheme, and the dependence of the > performance on … – which doesn’t seem very professional due to redundancy. It is possible to change the statement in such a manner that it is unambiguous as well as sounds professional (for an academic document)? For the sake of completeness, the full sentence is > The performance of the proposed scheme, and its dependence on various > parameters, including X and Y, is reported. EDIT: I was able to use the ideas from some answers here to come up with a sentence that I'm pretty satisfied with: > The proposed scheme's performance and its dependence on various parameters, > including X and Y, is reported. However, now I don't know which answer to accept, since this solution came to me after reading multiple solutions here! Please help?


Something simple and yet complex...

Is there a phrase or word for a problem that appears simple but is in fact full of complexities? A few situations come to mind:   * Painting a room   * Breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend   * Eating a pomegranate ... and a million more. What to call these?


Were the word, woman and female produced after the word, man and male being invented?

Man and woman, male and female have the same phonetic element and root (man, and male) in English, while man and woman in both Japanese and Chinese language - Otoko (男) and Onnna (女) in Japanese, Nan (男) and Njui (女) in Chinese - don’t have the common phonetic elements as woman and female in English, and are totally different in characters. This means, the word 男 and 女 were produced concurrently, or separately, not in tandem. I wonder if the words _woman_ and _female_ were produced after the words _man_ and _male_ were invented by old Germans (or Anglo-Saxons) sequentially as in the way Eve was produced from one of Adam’s ribs by the God. – As a reminder, I’ve never been sexist. This may look a naive question to most of native English speakers, but is basic to me as a non-native speaker. What do “wo” and “fe” in the words ‘woman’ and ‘female’ represent? Can I see them as prefixes to mean opposite sex to man and male, though I've never seen them being used as a prefix in other words than woman and female?


Customer (delivers?) precious metal bullion to the bank

A customer want to place his gold to bank account. He shows up in a bank with his gold bars and says that he wants to put it to his gold account. I was unable to choose the correct word here. Customer delivers his precious metal bullion to the bank.   Customer leaves his precious metal bullion in the bank.   Customer gives up his precious metal bullion to the bank.   Customer leaves out his precious metal bullion to the bank.   Customer leaves his precious metal bullion to the bank.   Customer submits his precious metal bullion to the bank.   Customer puts away precious metal bullion to the bank.   Customer ... precious metal bullion to the bank.   Which word should I choose?


What is the correct term for this electricity device type?

Not sure how to phrase the question so, please, feel free to edit. Preferably without biting my head off. :) I'm looking for the (technically) correct term to describe the box that delivers electricity to a home or workplace. I've found " _fuse box_ " and " _electricity plant_ " but those are not quite correct. I'm looking for the correct name describing the boxy thingy that (formerly) had a rotating disc counting the kilowatt consumption, the reading of which is used for invoicing. If there's a difference, I'd prefer US version but it's definitely not a requirement.


Should I use "got" or "gotten" in the following sentence?

I can't figure out whether to use _got_ or _gotten_ in the following sentence: > I no longer recognized my own skin, my own feelings, my own thoughts. It was > as if the real me had **got/gotten** lost on the highway. Which is the correct form of the verb?


A better phrase for 'construction of mock-up objects by following historical recipes'

I'm looking for a better phrasing for use on a poster describing a scientific project. In this project, we will examine recipes of varnishes and lacquers from old recipe books. We will follow these recipes to recreate the varnishes, and paint these on small glass plaques (the so-called mock-up objects) suitable for chemical analysis. Our initial phrase was 'construction of mock-up objects by following historical recipes', but this does not really describe what a mock-up object is very well. Another attempt was 'reconstruction of historical recipes as mock-up objects'. This sounds wrong because we are not 'reconstructing' the recipe as such, it is already there. Rather, we are 'reapplying' or 're-executing' the recipe, but neither of those words sound right. I think I'm looking for a better re... word, but other suggestions are very welcome.


"distinguish them more completely" vs. "more completely distinguish them"

Is there a rule I could tell the difference between: >   * Both A and B have other attributes that distinguish them more > completely. >   * Both A and B have other attributes that more completely distinguish > them. >


a better expression for 'percentage divided by 100'

> The function _f(a,x)_ returns the value in the array _a_ specified by _x_ , > where _x_ is a percentage of the length of the array, divided by 100. (i.e. x can be any number between 0 and 1, corresponding to a percentage between 0% and 100%) Examples: if a = [1,2,3,4,5], then f(a, 0.5) = 3; f(a, 0) = 1; f(a, 1) = 5; Is there a better way to express that some variable is a ' _percentage divided by 100_ '? Preferably I am looking for a single word. Alternatively a phrase, and a single word that can be used later on to reference that phrase. My first idea was ' _fraction_ ', but I am not sure whether that conveys the concept. * * * Update based on long's answer: I am looking for a term for the first item in this list:   * ?, [0-1]   * ?, [0-10]   * percent, %, [0-100]   * per mille 0/00 [0-1000]    * basis point, permyriad 0/000, [0-10000]


Does this sentence "He's too thin to carry it" make any sense to you?   This is really bothering me for quite a long time!


Should I use "is" or "are" in this sentence

Could anyone please tell me which one of these sentences is correct?   * If you are thinking about it, chances are that so **is** many others!    * If you are thinking about it, chances are that so **are** many others!


How to pronounce "gemænscipe"?

I'm not sure if Old English counts here, but I can't find the answer to this anywhere. How would one pronounce _gemænscipe_? I believe it's Old English for "community".


Can the phrase "be necessary to" only be used on people?

My teacher told me that the phrase _be necessary to_ can be used only on people. For example, > Something is necessary to someone. Assuming she is correct, then this following sentence, the one I want to ask, will be incorrect. > Actually, healthy fats are necessary to our overall well-being. Which of us is right?


"Would you mind if I use" vs. "would you mind if I used"

> Would you mind if I **use/used** your mobile? One of my friends said _used_ is wrong here. But I think it's grammatical. Who is right?


whats the difference between final english exam and english final exam

I would like to know the difference between " _Final English Exam_ " and " _English Final Exam_." Thanks in advance.


"At the first" in the Bible

Why is the article _the_ used in the following verse of the Bible? > **At the first** God made the heaven and the earth. To me _at first_ , which according to OED means _at the beginning; in the initial stage or stages,_ sounds more natural, unless there are specific grammatical delicacies that I am not aware of. The passage is from an app on my iPhone called _My Bible Pro_. It uses the King James Version of the Bible. Here are some screenshots. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/HPsLy.jpg) ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/VJ5Vf.jpg)


Is "please find enclosed the attachment" grammatical?

In my office everyone uses "Please find enclosed the attachment" in emails. I can't digest the "the" between "enclosed" and "attachment". Is the sentence grammatical?


What does "misabilerist" mean?

James Wolcott, Vanity Fair culture critic, wrote a piece on the HBO series True Detective, including the following segment: > What lifts creator Nic Pizzolatto's show above the **misabilerist** monotony > and addiction pathology of Nordic noir and its derivatives is Proustian > time-shifting, sharp, sneaky-funny writing, and even sharper, sneaky acting > from Matthew McConaughey, whose detective Rush Cohle is so stick-figure > insectile, his man-who-fell-to-earth alienation and perceptions ("I can > smell the psychosphere") so cryptic and deflective, that he could have come > across as a David Lynch scarecrow if it weren't for the real, ground-in, > damaged-goods pain that McConaughey communicates on a deeper frequency, > between cigarette drags and beer sips: a redneck existentialism that > Flannery O'Connor might have summoned from beneath the rotting floorboards. I've been looking for a definition of "misabilerist" or a different with the same root, and I can't find anything. Is this most likely just a misspelling of "miserabilist" or is it a real word? Or, considering Wolcott's pension for esoteric language, is it a play on words or subtle reference?


Distinction between "pillage" and "plunder"

Both _pillage_ and _plunder_ refer to the taking of goods by force. What is the distinction in how the two words are used? Specifically, (due to a recent argument) do pirates only plunder, or can they pillage as well?


Does "yar" (or "yarr" or "yargh") in Pirate English imply an affirmative?

In honor of International Talk Like A Pirate Day, I’d like to ask a question about the pirate dialect of English. Most pirate sentences begin with a standard pirate-sounding hedge to lend authenticity. A frequent hedge is _arr_ , but the variations _yar_ , _yarr_ , and _yargh_ are also quite common. Is there a distinction in meaning between _arr_ and the _yar_ variants, or are these simply different spellings of the same exclamation? For instance, is _yar_ a contraction of _yes_ and _arr_ , therefore implying an affirmation or agreement?


Is the term "setting someone straight" offensive to queer people?

I replaced "Thanks for setting me straight" with "Thanks for correcting me" when editing an email to a recipient who is queer. Is the term "setting [someone] straight" inappropriate if the writer/speaker or reader/listener does not view straightness as better than non-straightness? Note that I am not interested in opinions as to whether people who are offended by such a remark are too sensitive. I am only interested in whether using it would be likely to offend or make me appear to be prejudiced. UPDATE: Yes, the question is serious (although I'm happy that it's also amusing some people). My understanding is that most blind people are not offended by the metaphorical use of "see" (as in "see what I'm saying") and that many African-Americans don't like "black" used as a negative (as in "black mark"). I'm just trying to figure out which category "straight" as correct goes in.


Can “heart and mind” be applied to a person, not to a group of people?

I was drawn to the word, “hearts-and-minds diplomacy” in New York Time’s (June 8) article titled, “From China, With Pragmatism.” written by an American Fulbright lecturer living in Beijing: > At a recent lunch with United States Embassy officers and local Chinese > intellectuals, we had a complete cultural breakdown over red envelopes. When > one embassy officer working his best “ **hearts-and-minds diplomacy** ” > suggested that the Chinese switch the giving of hongbao to after the > successful operation, rather than before, the Chinese were struck dumb with > astonishment. Of course, you have to give the hongbao beforehand because it > motivates the doctor. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/stephen-t- > asma I’ve been under the impression that ‘heart and mind’ can be used for personal emotions, like “I dedicated whole my heart and mind to her.” But when I consulted “heart and mind” with online dictionaries, it came out mostly (if not always) in plural form as “the hearts and minds (of sb)” and was defined as; The complete support of **a group of people**. example, I thought the president could have done a better job of reaching **the hearts and minds of the American people** in his speech on television yesterday. – Free Dictionary. And in Wikipedia;   1. Winning hearts and minds, the idea of persuading **enemies** instead of defeating them by force   2. Hearts and Minds (Vietnam), **a strategy** of the South Vietnamese and United States governments to defeat the Viet Cong insurgency during the Vietnam War.  Is the word “heart and mind” always used in plural form, and in predominantly in political or business context against a group of people (nation / enemies) like “Hearts-and-minds diplomacy / strategy/ operation” more than for the expression of personal emotion such as endearment and devotion to a person, or purpose?


Does the word "raytracer" exist?

If not, is it well readable anyway? "Ray tracer" seems to be used more frequently but this is not my question. An example sentence could be: > A **raytracer** is a computer program that uses an algorithm where light > rays are traced back to their origin to create realistic 2D images from 3D > scenes.


Synonym for mechanical pencil

I'm a non-native english speaker (from Brazil). I'm looking for the most common day-to-day word for the stationery device called "mechanical pencil". Indeed, while "mechanical pencil" seems to be the most commonly used word for that device, at least in US, I've also found the words "propelling pencil", for UK and "pacer", for Australia. I'd rather stick with mechanical pencil, but this word seems awkward, comparing to the brazilian word for this object (something like "penciler"). So, is there any simpler or most-commonly used word for that, or can I really stick to mechanical pencil without any further concerns?


General history of the English language – book / website recommendation?

Having just come across this site, I am finally asking a question that's been on my mind for a while … I am looking for a book, website or infographic that gives a (relatively) concise, high-level history of our modern English language – something that paints a picture of its sources, geographical roots, and who the people were (and are) that invent words (ex: scribes, poets, words borrowed from other languages, etc). I value the origins of words quite a bit – but feel I am missing some of the "big picture". Does anyone have any recommendations for someone relatively new to this search?


explanation of friendly fire

I know the meaning of friendly fire, but I never thought about it too much, if you are shooting someone who is your brother in arms, it's not like I'm not going to shoot someone just referring mostly to FPS as you probably guessed already, how can the fire be 'friendly', any idea about the origin of the word?


"Nobody does something for nothing"

I have a proverb in my native tongue saying something like "there is no cat chasing fish for God" which implies that anyone who does anything that may seem beneficial to you, is doing it for themselves. What is the equivalent proverb in English?


"My feelings about you never..." — what verb can I use?

I am trying to say _I always have feelings about you_ in a different way: > My feelings for you never ___ _ My first thought was _reduced_ , but it seems that _reduce_ is for size. (I remember hearing something similar in some movies, but I can't remember the name of it.) What's a good word to use here?


What is the role of "every" in idioms like "every so often"?

There are a couple of idioms whose meaning is _from time to time_ or _occasionally_. > Every so often   >  (Every) once in a while   >  (Every) now and then/again _Every_ actually is a determiner (or, broadly speaking, an adjective) specifying a noun or noun phrase and means that everybody or everything of the referred group is addressed, as in _every day_ , _every man_ , or _every student_. Obviously, _every_ is also used when referring to a period or range of time, e.g., _every thirty minutes_ or _every week_ but, again, the time frame is given as a noun. I was looking at the entry in Etymology Online, as well at Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries to get further information. Etymology Online doesn't address the matter at all. While the dictionaries at least define these phrases and list a couple of examples, they do not give any clue to answer my questions: **what part of role is _every_ playing** in these expressions (from both a grammatical and logical point of view) and **where did this usage come from**.


Can I use subjunctive when something is possible?

To my understanding when expressing something is not fact I should use subjunctive, e.g. > Without your instruction, we would be working now. I'm wondering if I can use subjunctive to express something that is possible for being a polite way. In my case, I'd like to reply to the recruiting manager like this: > If I was fortunate to get this job, ... Is it ok to say like this?


Always vs Every day

> I have lunch at school _every day_   >  vs I _always_ have lunch at school. Why does the frequency adverb, _always_ , go before the verb, _have_ , whereas the expression, " _every day_ " is placed at the end of the sentence?


What happened around 1700 that transformed / changed the English language?

When looking at examples listed in OED it is very noticeable that English differs greatly before 1700s and after (roughly) and it becomes recognizable and very similar to modern starting roughly from 1700s. What is behind this transformation? What happened in society which transformed language?


Plurals + The + Prepositions

I'm pretty sure I have to use _the_ in **'The people/citizens of this city speak a dialect'** but when I try to use another preposition, instead of _of_ , it doesn't seem right. I don't know why. Do I have to use 'the' in the following sentences assuming that those things have never been mentioned before in a conversation. I'm talking the specific use of the definite article   1. (The) people in the city still speak a dialect. (not just any people but those who live in this city)   2. (The) shirts in this store are cheap (.....in this store)   3. (The) Americans in Russia try to learn the Russian language (and so on)   4. I don't like (the) reviews on this site   5. I read (the) books by John Summers Or there's a difference in the meaning with and without the definite article?


The property of a variable that is either discrete or continuous

For example, the arity property of a function might be unary or binary. The (???) property of a variable might be discrete or continuous?


"I'm not being" or "I'm not been"?

> I'm not been able to make up my mind or > I'm not being able to make up my mind? Which one is the correct sentence? Why is it correct and why is the other one incorrect? Edit 10/09/2012: What if I'm talking about a present action? Like: "I'm not been able to make up my mind now, so I'll try to decide it later.


Omnipresent is to Ubiquitous as Omnipotent is to _____?

"Omnipresent" means everywhere at once, while "ubiquitous" means _seeming_ to be everywhere at once. My question is whether "omnipotent" (all-powerful) has a similar _'seeming to be all-powerful'_ counterpart.


What do you call money earned through unethical sources?

> Money/Assets/Property that is earned through unethical sources is called ? Money that is earned through bad sources like corrupted politics, corrupted business, ransom money, stolen or theft money. What is such money called? Is it bad money, black money. What is **one** particular name for it?


Title or word to describe the first, original member of a family tree

I'm looking for a word to signify the ancestor from which a family tree is derived. They would be the first, from whom all other family members are descended. Does such a word exist? I imagine, given the long history of creating family trees, that someone at some point decided on a word other than 'the first guy'.


Usage of the perfect gerund

Is there any grammatical error in this sentence: > Having been up all night makes me tired Can I use having been/done... as subject?


Why do so many names end in -May or -Mae?

I've been reading articles about trends in names. Apparently names like Bonnie-Mae, Ellie-Mae and Lily-Mae are trending up in the UK which I find odd in itself (aren't they typically Southern US?) but never mind... You don't see many endings other than -May or -Mae in double-barreled names. -Anne perhaps, and a few other exceptions, but -Mae seems to dominate. Any idea where this tradition stems from? Why the skew?


"It is" vs. "it was"

The recurrent cholangitis happened in the past. But when I am discussing the event now, which of the following should I use? >   * It is the incomplete stone removal that caused the recurrent > cholangitis. >   * It was the incomplete stone removal that caused the recurrent > cholangitis. >


Pronunciation of "scone"

The argument about the pronunciation of _scone_ :- > skoʊn, skɒn noun 1\. a small, light, biscuitlike quick bread made of > oatmeal, wheat flour, barley meal, or the like. reappeared in the pub last night, as usual with no-one being able to produce a convincing argument about which of _skoʊn_ or _skɒn_ was correct. So I'd like to know, is there any historical or etymological reason for one to be preferred to the other? In my travels up and down the country I have heard it both ways whereever I have lived, but is there a regional or geographic divide for the pronunciation? Do non-British English speakers also have this argument?


Can 'domestic animal' mean 'livestock'?

Is it correct to use 'domestic animal' instead of 'livestock' (cattle)?


Is domain-specific meaning acceptable/advisable when used in a document directed outside the domain?

Here's the problem. Many common terms in the programmer's lexicon--i.e., used in information communication and in published texts--are identical to everyday words; others are slight 'distortions' of everyday words (so that if you saw them but weren't a programmer, you'd swear they were misspelled or used incorrectly). It's this latter category that's the focus of my question. Some examples:   * _**persist_** (a verb, e.g., you 'persist' data by writing it to a RDBMS);   * _**instantiate_** (invoke a function which creates an object bound to a variable);   * _**deprecate_** (e.g., replace an old feature with a new one, and leave the old feature in the language temporarily to preserve backwards-compatability) A colleague and i recently finished writing a book largely directed to programming though the intended audience is mostly (but not exclusively) non- programmers (for instance, marketing managers and other people who often wear ties). Our _editor_ does _not_ like words like these in the text. In particular, she feels strongly that terms like the ones i just recited should be replaced with a short descriptive phrase that's more consonant with the conventional business lexicon. We argue that fidelity to the language of the relevant community is what's most important--i.e., most of the concept we are trying to explain in the book are embodied in these specialist terms, and if the reader doesn't learn those terms then the book will have very little if any practical significance for them because they won't be able to communicate with the specialists who are required to implement the systems described in the book. In addition, we contend that by providing a glossary or endnotes, the reader can easily absorb the unfamiliar terminology. Arguing from the details though doesn't appear ever likely to persuade either 'side,' and so I would very much appreciate the higher-level views from this community.


Exactly what language do I (we) speak?

As an American, and a particularly myopic one, I am a bit confused to the language that I speak. I understand that we were once a colony of England, where English was/is spoken, but do we in the present still speak English? Or, since the language has evolved so much (on our part) can it be considered that we Americans speak American English. I understand the root is the same (Angle/Germanic), but again, and after visiting England for periods of time, specifics in language are so different that a lot of words have entirely different meanings. Even, in some cases, syntax is different. I am just wondering if it is correct to say that I (we) still speak English?


How to use "know" and "realize" correctly

Are they just actually the same? Especially as in the following examples: > I realize then whom I love.   >  I know then whom I love.


What is the word for a person who never listens to other people's opinions and ideas?

There is one person I know who never accepts other people's opinions and ideas, even if those opinions and ideas are worthwhile. What single word might describe such an attitude?


When an author lets you decide what happened?

Is there a word to describe when an Author doesn't fully explain a particular scenario, and leaves it rather ambiguous, so that the reader may decide what happened? **SPOILERS** for Mockingjay and Life of Pi (mouse over to see): > For example: In Mockingjay, was it Gale who killed Prim?   >  Life of Pi: Was the whole story fake, with Pi substituting humans as animal > form? So yeah... The word for when an author leaves an ambiguous ending... Is it just called that? an 'ambiguous ending'?


What's the meaning of "what gets put where"?

I came across the following sentence: > **What gets put where** determines the particular type of the architecture. What's the meaning of the phrase in bold?


Is this a example of parody of Shakespears play

Is this an example of parody "A-Midsummers-Nights-Dream " http://www.scribd.com/doc/233474857/A-Midsummers-Nights-Dream-erotic-poetry These are the reasons I think it is parody I am interested whether you agree parody "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing" why "A Midsummers Nights Dream is a parody of Shakespeare play "A Midsummer Nights Dream" The title of poem plus its setting at midsummer eve and the use of Puck highlights to the reader that this poem has something to do with Shakespeare's play 1) altering the name "Midsummer" to Midsummers is a humorous and satirical touch to a person not hung up with sexual issues the poems is humorous it takes an over the top view of love/sex to point out how ridiculous it all is 2) by depicting Puck etc having unrestrained sex is a humorous satirical use of the plays notion of "true love" enotes.com/homework-help/what-does-midsummer-nights-dream-seem-saying--388473 "The course of true love never did run smooth" is one of the play's most famous quotes, though, when you look at the action of the play itself, it's clear that "true love" is a rather problematic context. also deans poem parodies sex/love in that it is of the moment same link above "Well, I'd argue one of the few things the play does say about love (and sexual love, one of its key focusses) is that it is changable: it depends on the moment - and, like "dreams" as a whole, its pleasure doesn't last forever. 3) deans poem parodies Shakespeare notion that love is connected with life by extending life to procreation and fertility ie the girlies be screwed and fertilized by Puck etc then fertilizing the flowers http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-does-midsummer-nights-dream- seem-saying--388473 "The famous quote from this play, "The course of true love never did run smooth," has lasted for centuries because it is a universal truth. Love experiences many highs and lows as it grows and matures. Love is connected to life, and life is unpredictable; therefore, so is love." if you disagree with these points then please give us examples and argument not just assertions that they are wrong ie why the poem is not parody


Replacement phrase for "in that"

When writing I find myself using the phrase _"in that"_ when tying together an opinion or point of debate. I am needing some alternative phrases that have the same meaning to spice up my writing. Any suggestions? Example: > The same can be said about Twinkies; in that over-consumption can lead to > obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.


Use of "exist" in "Can there exist an uncountable planar graph?"

> Can there exist an uncountable planar graph? This usage of _exist_ bothers me. In this context, my understanding is that it is used as a replacement for _be_. That looks very strange to me. However, I found it in the writing of a person who is very good at teaching and explaining, and I guess it might be actually correct. Is it? EDIT: This is actually a title of a Mathematics Stack Exchange question.