What word describes putting oneself in reach of the law

The title isn’t great and I couldn’t think of something more appropriate. I'm looking for a work that can be used to indicate that the next phrase may put the writer at risk of being within the reach of the law. The context might be something like: > At the risk of {something} myself, I have to confess, I always steal the > table sauce at restaurants The word that came to mind was ~~“inditing”~~ “indicting” but searching for the meaning of the word, it seems to mean something different than I imagined.


Synonym for discovery?

I'm working on a backend product and the term "eDiscovery" is overused in my industry. What's another appropriate word that has enough resonance to be marketable? _Discovery_ in this context does not seem to be appropriate.


Explanation of the proverb "Beauty is only skin deep...."

Can someone help me understand the following proverb? > beauty is only skin deep but ugliness cuts clean through to the bone I know it means something like true beauty is on the inside, but I want to understand it more "deeply"


Need a word that has the opposite meaning of "nominal"?

I'm looking for a word that has the opposite meaning of the word _nominal_ in the sense of _in name only_. Here's an example (fill in the blank). > Brian was in charge of scheduling in his [    ] role as Project Manager.   >  He was often expected to carry out Project Management duties, even though > his business card identified him as a programmer. _De facto_ sort of works, but I feel like the connotation of (in my example) having the role by tradition or default doesn't fit what I am trying to say. I am essentially looking for a term that means _we don't call it that, but in practice it really is_.


"Through" or "throughout"

In the conclusion of an essay, which fits better? > **Through** this experience, ... > > **Throughout** this experience, ... It sounds better to me with _throughout_ , but I really do not know why. Any explicit example will be greatly appreciated.


I'd rather not [do something] vs I'd prefer not to [do something]

In this question the issue came up as to whether there's any difference in the level of politeness/correctness involved in _I'd rather not say_ as opposed to _I'd prefer not to say_. My own gut feeling is the _prefer_ form is a bit more "formal" (and thus arguably more correct/polite). This NGram shows that _I'd rather_ occurs far more often than _I'd prefer_. Partly that's just because the _rather_ form is more common, but the difference is far less marked with the more formal I would rather/prefer. I take this to mean _rather_ is more suited to casual use/conversation when used with this meaning. It could be lots of verbs besides _say_ , and I don't think the _not_ is necessarily relevant here either. But usages vary for certain alternatives - for example, _go blind_ only seems to work with _rather_. That's just my opinion. Does anyone have arguments/evidence/sources to either back up or refute the proposition that _I'd prefer not to say_ is more formal than _I'd rather not say_?


What can I call other students if I am also a student?

I wonder what I can call other students, if I am also a student? For example, if I am talking to a professor, and want to mention other students just like me. I know I can use "classmates" if we are in the same class, but how about if we are not in the same class? Can I say "fellow students", or is there anything better?


Meaning and usage of "Gentlebeing"

I wonder what _gentlebeing_ means and how it is used, especially when compared to similar phrases like _Ladies and gentlemen!_ I saw _Gentlebeings!_ being used at the beginning of an email. Is it a formal or informal word, and does it have any sarcastic or humorous connotation to it?


"What an idiot!" in plural form

There is a phrase "What an idiot!". How should it be used for a group of people? Looks like "What idiots" doesn't have same emotional meaning.


Human Face Divine

I recently read that there is a grammatical construct known as a _Miltonic Structure_ , after John Milton. It said that the structure consists of an _adjective + noun + adjective_ , like "human face divine" from Paradise Lost, book III: > "Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine;" I searched but found no singular construct such as this called Miltonic Structure. Are you familiar with this structure? Is it called this? Does it have another name?


Using the FANBOYS "for" in a series

I have a sentence that is constructed the same as this one: > She bought food **for** a black cat, a white horse, a red dog, and a green > frog. However, I feel the comma does not give enough pause for what I want to convey. Instead of a series for which the comma is used, I would like more separation between each item when the list is read aloud. That is, each item is more important on its own than in the series. So I wrote this instead: > She bought food **for** a black cat, **for** a white horse, **for** a red > dog, **and for** a green frog. I use _for_ (from the conjunction mnemonic FANBOYS) in addition to the comma to create the pause I want. Is this so incorrect? Should I just stick with the commas, or is there a better way to represent a longer pause?


"Snag (a chance, an opportunity, etc.) for "seize/snatch" in AE

Does "snag" have any currency in modern day AE to say "snatch (or seize) (a chance, an occasion, etc.), and can it be used just about interchangeably with the latter? Or, is there a subtle difference to it? Consider these sourced examples: > We snagged the chance to ask him a few questions. source > > Talking about the program, she happily acknowledges that she snagged the > chance of a lifetime. source > > Photographer David Goldman thought he had snagged the opportunity of a > lifetime. source > > I had snagged the opportunity to design costumes for an Off-Broadway show. > source


What's the function of this "as"?

In http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/what-exactly-is-piracy/ > Spoo avoids rehashing the labyrinthine history of the work’s publication > **except as** it bears upon his larger point. What is the function of "as" in _except as_?


Who does the verb "argues" and preposition "to" refer to in the following sentence?

> At least **to argues** E.Pessen in his iconoclastic study of the very rich > in the US between 1825 and 1850. I don't quiet understand both _to_ and _argues_. Does _argues_ refers to _E.Pessen_? Can anyone please turn this sentence into the normal form, such as "E.Pessen argues XXX"?


"Just another random thoughts/thought"

Which one is correct? > Just another random thoughts. or > Just another random thought. I'm writing a blog post about recent musings.


Is the sentence correct?

> I called on your mobile just now, but could not reach you. Is the construction of the sentence correct?


How is SQL pronounced?

When I was learning SQL, I remember reading that it should be pronounced just like the word _sequel_ ; however, I worked with a bunch of techs who seemed to prefer S-Q-L. Is there a proper convention for this?


Difference between 'turn up' and 'turn out'

This occurred to me when I was drafting an email. I wanted to mention in the email that something that I had estimated earlier to take 5 days was not as complex, and I could finish it in 1 day. Which of the following is correct?   1. It turned out (to be?) much simpler that I had thought.   2. It turned up (to be?) much simpler than I had thought.


Does the use of present perfect continuous with a time reference in the past imply an intention to finish, and if yes, how to avoid it?

I guess the question sounds a bit intimidating, but the real-life example I am referring to should be easy for a native speaker. I am proofreading, or rather copy editing, a research paper intended for an international conference. Neither me nor my co worker who wrote it is a native English speaker. I managed to set lots of grammar straight, but there is a sentence I find extremely tricky. She writes "The framework is developed since about eight years". As far as I can tell, the grammatically correct form of this sentence is "The framework has been in development for about eight years". To me, this sounds as if we want the framework to be finished at some point, and it has taken so terribly long to develop and is not yet finished. We don't want to make such an impression, as this is an ongoing project which already has finalized, usable versions, but it is also still being developed because we are continuously improving it and expanding it. Is my interpretation correct, or am I just confused by some similar structure in some other language? And if it is correct, how can I change the wording (without making it significantly longer) so it reads just as the mentioning of the starting point of a process expected to continue for an indeterminable length of time in the future?


Meaning of "Would you value the ethics of consequence over means?"

I've been reading a book for a while and I've stumbled on the following sentence, which I didn't quite understand: > Would you value the ethics of consequence over means? The context is the following: Person A steals a valuable book and doesn't tell his superiors (In the book, this is punishable by death, since he's hiding information and this act caused a war earlier), person B is As friend and doesn't do anything about the book (person B is religious). The mentioned superiors find out about the book and thus, person A is sent to court, where person B is a witness. Person A asks B to lie, but him being religious, isn't able to do so. Since B didn't lie in court, but did nothing before the act of hiding the information was found out (aka "I'm all good with it until there isn't something for me to lose), is called a hypocrite by person A, so he goes through a psychological drama, before talking to person C (person C being a priest and a good friend of person B). During the discussion, person B lets C in on his drama and gives the aforementioned question as answer to his person Bs psychological drama.


study comedy "at" or "in" the XYZ theater

> I will study comedy at XYZ theater Sounds more intuitive. Which one is grammatically correct and why?


A word for obligatory but not relevant activities

Suppose that your job is an academic, then you may need to: 1\. perform the research, 2\. apply for a research grant. The tasks of the first kind contribute directly to your becoming a better researcher. The tasks of the second kind have to be performed otherwise you will not have funding to conduct the research, however, applying for a grant does not make you a better researcher, hence acts more like a distraction than as a relevant part of your research. What are the names for the first and second kinds of activities? I thought of words: 1. main, 2. support. However, these two words are only a bare extraction of the meaning to be expressed, moreover their meaning may be even misleading in the context I descri


Meaning of "If gold rust what shall the iron do"

My teacher ask me to write an essay on this topic, but I have no clear understanding of this phrase. Can someone explain in more simple words? > If gold rust what shall the iron do.


In an Australian context, should "Aborigine" be capitalised?

When referring to an Australian context, as opposed to Aboriginal Canadians, or indigenous people worlwide, should "Aborigine" (and "Aboriginal") be capitalised? I tried googling, but the hits I found were usually from government or advocacy websites about aborigines, and may reflect political biases rather than expert English knowledge, rather than websites about the English language.


Order of universal and existential quantifier

In mathematics we use the universal and existential quantifiers (represented symbolically by ∀ and ∃, respectively) to make our lives easier. We can also use them in English. From a logical standpoint, these two sentences mean different things: > **1.** _There exists a car for all people such that condition A is > satisfied._ > > or > > **2.** _For all people there exists a car such that condition A is > satisfied._ (Sentence **1** specifies the existence of one (not necessarily unique) car for the whole world satisfying _A_ ; sentence **2** means that each person can find a (possibly different) car satisfying _A_.) However, when I use these constructions, I find that people either misunderstand me or do not understand the difference between the two. It seems that these types of sentences are often fraught with ambiguity in real-world communication, as I have discovered by reading these questions. Nonetheless, this is an important distinction! For instance, a relativist might say " _For all people there exists a god that they believe in_ " (meaning _everyone believes in at least one god from the set of gods_ ), but she would likely disagree with the idea that " _There exists a god for all people that they believe in_ " (meaning _everyone believes in the same set of gods, which set has size at least 1_ ). **Question** : Is there some way to phrase these two sentences that emphasizes the difference between the constructions? The problem is that using _for all_ and _there exists_ is the proper way to express the desired meaning, but it is very confusing. (Just read the comments below to see how confusing it is!) **Idea** : I thought of clearly specifiying the "one"-ness in sentence **1** and to emphasize the "choice" in sentence **2** , but I don't know if that is clear enough.


Where does "incensed" originate from?

I was wondering whether the adjective "incensed" meaning "enraged" had any relation with the noun "incense" meaning "a product producing a smell when burnt" Can anybody answer this ? Maybe it has something to do with fire of being lit up ? What do you think ?


"Get up" vs. "wake up"

I am not a native English speaker. Whet I get up late in the morning, I get to inform my office that I am late for that particular day. And I am always confused if I should use "I just got up" or "I just woke up". Which one is it?


"Original design by"

I have a question. I downloaded a template from Internet. "James" created it (author: James). I edited this template and do fundamental change. Now I want add my name to the info box. What should I write there? (for example I should write "Original design by James, Edited by ME")


How well-known is the word 'wheelie'?

I'm curious how popular the word 'wheelie' is among native speakers. I'm a foreign citizen and came across it accidentally. For the curious, _wheelie_ means when you maneuver your bike/bicycle to roll on one wheel only.


Ending a note with "Thanks regardless"?

While wanting to properly close a question and thank its participants on one of StackExchange's other sites–the question had resolved itself–I started wondering if "Thanks regardless" is a proper way to end such a note. Also, feel free to correct me on any errors in the grammar or spelling of this question itself.


Some Chicken, Some Neck, what did Churchill mean?

I've been thinking about the following quote from Churchill > "The contribution of Canada to the Imperial war effort in troops, in ships, > in aircraft, in food, and in finance has been magnificent.....Hitler and his > Nazi gang have sown the wind: let them reap the whirlwind.......When I > warned them (the French) that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did > their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, 'In three > weeks England would have her neck wrung like a chicken.' Some chicken! Some > Neck." Canadian Parliament 30 December 1941 When he says "Some chicken", PMs start laughing, and when he says "Some Neck" they laugh again. I'm not a native English speaker. I miss the the joke of this. What does "some chicken, some neck" mean in this context and why is it funny? The video can be found here


I'm trying to translate this famous quote from Churchill > Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large > or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. > Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of > the enemy. Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School In order to do that I want to gain a better understanding of what he really means, so that I can translate it properly. It's hard because it's very deep, here is the video, I've listened to it like 100 times, it never gets repetitive it's like a poem. So I have some questions here 1- Is "giving in" the same thing as "giving up?", what's the difference? When you stop fighting in a war, are you giving in, or giving up? Is it in this context the same thing as surrendering? 2- What does "Never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense" exactly mean? Does it mean only give in when your honor is preserved, or for a good cause? If you wanted to say the same thing with different wording, what would it be?


Is there a term for a colony effect in language change?

I have heard it said (sorry, no refs for you) that when a colony is formed from a parent population, then the colonists 'freeze' in time with respect to language and accents, perhaps cultural aspects and values, and so on. An example is Australia - apparently the Australian accent is similar to a 'British' accent from some time near the early days of the colony (I know that there's no British accent; obviously there would be the influence of many: Irish especially). The parent (UK) changes and evolves, while the smaller colony does so at a much reduced rate.


"Mom and Dad" vs "Dad and Mom"

I'm curious if the order implies anything here. I'm pretty sure "Mom and Dad" is standard in English. The issue was hard for me to google, so I'm asking it here: Is using "Dad" before "Mom" incorrect, or is it just not often seen/bad practice? I see both, but "Mom and Dad" is far more prevalent. Edit: What puzzles me is that usually masculine comes before feminine. The given umich article on word order is quite instructive, and I have yet to read all of it. In Chinese and I think Spanish, the father comes first usually. Now that I think of it, I think German features "Mutter & Vater" more often. Probably carried over into English. Edit 2: Some power googling reveals that "Mom and Dad" is far more prevalent during 2005-2013. It can make a difference though, as in an example I found: "I became my girls’ Dad and Mom when one was four years, the other three months old." This is quite clearly in the voice of the father, as shown here.


The four words"weakness", "shortcoming", "demerit" and "defect" are four words shared with the similar meanings. In the dictionary, "weakness" and "shortcoming" have more to do with one's characer, while "demerit" and "defect" are used in a general sense. However, in this sentence, "The ___in David's character has hindered him from advancing in his character." Why the correct answer was said to be "defect" rather than the other three?


what is the most appropriate structure of this sentence?

I want to say that I banged my head against wall because some one said something stupid, how to put it in a sentence? Is               I banged my head against wall 'on' this stupidity?      or               I banged my head against wall 'for' this stupidity?


Should "guess what" be a question or command?

In other words: should it be _“Guess what?”_ or _“Guess what!”_? Or does the correct usage depend on the context and intent of the speaker?


Word meaning "without my asking"

There is a specific word meaning 'without my asking' and I cannot seem to recall it whatsoever. Used in a sentence: "she told me all about her personal life 'without my asking."


"Excuse Me"... Is it polite or just a terse way to ask others to step aside?

I often hear people saying "excuse me" when I open a door and someone else is entering/leaving from the other side. In spite of the fact that I may be the first person to have opened the door and making my way out, the other guy would say "excuse me" in a way as if I should make a way for him first. What do you think it means—a polite expression or a curt way of asking me to step aside?


Alternative Meanings of "Don't waste time with..."

Consider the phrase "Don't waste time with American literature." Is it legitimate to interpret it as meaning, spend your time cautiously while reading American literature, and don't spend too much time read it? A definition of the word waste is "use or expend carelessly, extravagantly or to no purpose," which lends some credence to the second interpretation. But, idiomatically, "don't waste your time" in my experience always means "don't spend any time on." Am I properly understanding the idiom? Or can one simply use the words "waste time" outside of an idiomatic context, valuing their denotations separately?-- thereby making the above phrase a caution against spending time poorly, rather than not spending any. What would most listeners or readers understand the phrase to mean?


What is a term for a genre that is not sci-fi or fantasy?

I need a term to distinguish movies such as _Die Hard_ or _Taken_ from the likes of _The Lord of the Rings_ or _Minority Report_. Broadly speaking, they are all action movies. But what do I say when I want to exclude genres like sci-fi, fantasy and superhero? What would I call a movie set in the real world with human characters, one which doesn’t include mythical or superhuman characters or settings?


Are These Words Interchangeable?

"The man was _hung_ at dawn." "The man was _hanged_ at dawn." Are "hung" and "hanged" entirely interchangeable?


What's the term of "omission" in phonetics? Omission has a special term.Please help me. Apheresis , hypheresis , and apocope are all kinds of omission or elision , but I want to know the name of this group. Thanks


'quoted to you' or 'quoted for you'?

Which is correct? > The price we quoted **for** you or > The price we quoted **to** you I often stumble with this. I'm not sure how to use _for you_ and _to you_.


"The dead" vs. "the dead people"

Which one of these is correct: >   * The dead were buried near the village. >   * The dead people were buried near the village. > I tend to think that both are fine, however in my test I chose second option and got 0.


Are there cases where a possessive pronoun is omitted?

Are there cases where the possessive adjective is omitted in a sentence, or is it always used? For example, in a sentence like "Susan was walking with her hands in her pockets", is it necessary to say "her hands", and "her pockets"? In Italian, we don't say whose hands, or whose pockets if not in a sentence like "Susan was walking with her hands in Michael's pockets". I was wondering if the use of the possessive adjective is strictly necessary in cases like these.


Is "yay or nay" an acceptable alternative to "yea or nay"? I have seen it several times in recent weeks, enough to make me wonder whether it is an emerging usage or just a common typo.


What are some good ideas to practice /s/ sound in conversation?

I have been learning English for seven months. I know the basic grammar rules of final /s/, for example, she like* _s_ * ..., he love* _s_ * ..., and so on. In Thai language, we don't have /s/, /k/, /t/, and other sounds that flow the air out of the mouth. My problem is during conversation. I usually forget to pronounce final /s/ and sometimes /s/ at the middle of the word. Even I read aloud to my teachers, I still drop those sound. I want to break this habit. I would like to know some good ideas to practice and retain final /s/ and /s/ at the middle of the word.


Is it possible to use a noun as an adverb? Would that be stupid?

I'll create some random examples: "I'll take the **elevator** to go to the 12th floor." "I'll take the **lift** to get up there." Now, let us use the same sentences treating the noun as an adverb: "I'll go **elevatorly** to the 12th floor." "I'll get up there **liftly**." I'm pretty sure that this would be well understood in a trivial context, but **would that be stupid?** Is there a real example of this in the english language? A last and more stupid example: "The witch flew **broomly** through the skies." haha


Is “man” the opposite of “woman”?

I heard someone today say that _lad_ is the opposite of _lass_. And we picked up a debate on whether _woman_ is actually the opposite of _man_ , which led me to question whether nouns can have opposites at all. So can we say _man_ is the opposite of _woman_? Can nouns even have opposites at all?


Difference between “matter” and “concern”

What’s the difference betwen these two phrases? >   1. It’s **a matter for** the politicians >   2. It’s **the concern of** politicians. >


Using "neither" without "nor"

I'm trying to improve on the last part of this sentence: > Mirabeau pointed out that the text was not his, **although he did not > provide the names of its authors, either.** My first instinct is: > Mirabeau pointed out that the text was not his, **although he neither > provided the names of its authors**. But something feels wrong here, and I can't explain why. Any ideas?


Where did "snuck" come from?

Ages ago, I remember typing _snuck_ into a word processor and being surprised to see it flagged as not a word. My current computer seems to be okay with it and my local dictionary has this in its listing for _sneak_ : > sneak -- verb (past **sneaked** or informal **snuck** |ˈsnək|) So _snuck_ made it into the dictionary as an informal variation of _sneaked_. A cursory search at Etymonline revealed nothing relevant.


Homograph challenge

My friend said the other day, "I hate when a sentence starts with the word polish, because you don't know whether they mean polish or Polish."               polish (v) - to make smooth and glossy     Polish (a) - originating from Poland      I'm trying to think of a sentence where either word in the same spot would still make sense, but due to them being 2 different forms of speech I'm at a loss. Better yet, could it be the first word of the sentence? Edit: both words can take noun form, I knew that but for some reason didn't think of that before/while posting. Obviously this is in the context of reading, so spelling is most important.


The old couple told the police that they were watching T.V. at the time of the break in

In the following sentence: > The old couple told the police that they _were_ watching T.V. at the time of > the break in why aren't we using 'had been': > The old couple told the police that they _had been_ watching T.V. at the > time of the break in Or are both correct? I know "were" is appropriate here, but why not use "had been" since the robbery is in past perfect? Or is it "optional back-shifting" here with an option that is?


Reward vs Award

Can these two verbs be used interchangeably? Or do they imply different meanings? > "My employer rewarded me a trip to Hawaii." > > "My employer awarded me a trip to Hawaii."


Where do the words for daughter, son, aunt, uncle, mother, father, cousin, nephew, niece come from?

Please see Title. I'm not specifically referring to which language they came from... but if they come from something else. In other words, do they come from words with other meanings. For example, do words for children come from a word that means "being that comes from one's loins" or something.


The origin of the "free cash" idiom

Thinking of how I've finally paid my loan, I told myself that from now on, I'll get extra "free cash" each month. But this idiom always made me curious. The fact that both words contradict each other gives it quite a comical effect, to which it is often used. How and when did the idiom "free cash" come to be? **EDIT:** It seems one corner case is not addressed by the actual answers. if the terms is related to taking money from an ATM or taking a loan without interest, why does some comics or cartoon character use the idiom when finding some money that they didn't earn (i.e. found on the street, in the house of the neighbour, given as a reward,...). Unfortunately my foggy memory can't replace it in context.


"The" for superlative referring to more than one object

Which one of these sentences is correct? >   1. The best countries to live in are ... > >   2. Best countries to live in are ... > > **EDIT:** The reason this question is being asked is that this Wiktionary article says the definite article should be used _with a superlative, it and that superlative refer to one object: that apple pie was the best._ Now, what about _those apple pies were the best?_


How can a puppy drop down while he is already laid?

But I hardly saw or heard these things, for I ran at once to my little darling, and snuggled close to it where it lay, and licked the blood, and it put its head against mine, whimpering softly, and I knew in my heart it was a comfort to it in its pain and trouble to feel its mother's touch, though it could not see me. Then it dropped down, presently, and its little velvet nose rested upon the floor, and it was still, and did not move any more From a dog's tale by Mark Twain


Punctuation for and clarity of repeating verbs

Suppose I conduct an online survey and am reporting the findings to all those who were expected to respond. Consider this sentence: > All of you who responded opined that backups are an essential overhead.   1. What should be the punctuation around the repeated verbs (responded and opined) in this sentence?    2. Is this construct clear enough for non-native speakers?


Explain something: anything

_Any_ seems synonymous with _some_ in some examples, such as "Is anyone home?". And _any_ seems synonymous with _every_ in some examples below, and definitely not in others. **On the internet I encountered a German who asked me what the difference is between "some" and "any". I didn't have a really good answer. What I have after thinking about it further is only a bunch of examples (see below). How might one best explain "any" to a foreigner learning English?** >   * **Any** six-year-old can do that >   * **Every** six-year-old can do that > >   * The answer to that question can be found in **any** book on geology. > >   * The answer to that question can be found in **every** book on geology. > These are more-or-less synonymous. So _any_ might appear to mean the same thing as _every_. > If any member is absent, the meeting will be canceled.   >  If some member is absent, the meeting will be canceled. In this pair of sentences, _any_ is more akin to _some_ than to _every_. "Does anyone believe that?" This is somewhat like "Is there someone who believes that?". It certainly doesn't mean _every_. Similarly "Is anyone home?". > There was never any doubt about that. I suspect _not any_ , _never any_ , and any number of negative words seem to play a role that must be included in the account of the use of _any_. (And that means it must be included in **_every_** such account— another instance of _any_ appearing to mean _every_.) >   * She can order anything on the menu. >   * She can order everything on the menu. >   * She can order something on the menu. > and >   * You can cash this check at any bank. >   * You can cash this check at every bank. >   * You can cash this check at some bank. > In these cases, _any_ , _every_ , and _some_ have three quite distinct meanings. >   * You cannot cash this check at any bank. >   * You cannot cash this check at every bank. > The first of these examples is like the "never any doubt" above. "Anyone can do that" might mean "Everyone can do that" but "Can anyone do that?" means "Can someone do that?". >   * Any remembered instance of the old custom is mistaken for a monstrous > accident. >   * Every remembered instance of the old custom is mistaken for a monstrous > accident. > The first sentence above is quoted from a book by C. S. Lewis. _Any remembered instance_ seems to imply (among other things) that he's being deliberately non-committal about whether there even is any remembered instance. >   * Does anyone know a good mechanic? >   * Does everyone know a good mechanic? >   * Does someone know a good mechanic? > It could be anywhere.   It could be everywhere. He arrived 30 minutes earlier than any other guest.   He arrived 30 minutes earlier than every other guest.   He arrived 30 minutes earlier than some other guest. If any citizen so wishes, the council will make that information available.   If every citizen so wishes, the council will make that information available. I will vote for any candidate who opposes the incumbent.   I will vote for every candidate who opposes the incumbent.   I will vote for some candidate who opposes the incumbent. How to convince anybody of anything.   How to convince everybody of everything.   How to convince somebody of something. This is worse than anything that could happen.   This is worse than everything that could happen.   This is worse than something that could happen. Such an affront would make an enemy of anyone.   Such an affront would make an enemy of everyone.   Such an affront would make an enemy of someone. If you find anyone who knows the answer to that question, let me know.   If you find everyone who knows the answer to that question, let me know.   If you find someone who knows the answer to that question, let me know. Learn any language in two weeks!   Learn every language in two weeks!   Learn some language in two weeks! The government wants the power to shut down any web site.   The government wants the power to shut down every web site.   The government wants the power to shut down some web site. >   1. A Wikipedian is any person who edits Wikipedia. >   2. A Wikipedian is every person who edits Wikipedia. >   3. Any person who edits Wikipedia is a Wikipedian. >   4. Every person who edits Wikipedia is a Wikipedian. > Notice the distinct difference in meaning between sentences 2 and 4 above: the second one is nonsense; the fourth is true.


What is the term for an item/entry in a compendium?

> A **compendium** is a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of > knowledge. Source: Wikipedia What then would I call an entry or item of knowledge that is contained by a compendium? Is there a general term for what a compendium is made up of?


Is there a word for payments made to freelance workers such as designers? Obviously, it is not the same as a wage or a salary. I can think of "payment", but that seems too general. "Commission" is another word that comes into my mind, but I'm unsure if that is right. Is there one word that specifically refers to payments made, say, by a patron to an artist?


A single word that means "to push yourself"

I'm looking for a word that means "to push yourself". Endurance sort of fits, except that it means enduring a situation where one can't change things. I'm looking for someone pushing themselves when they have a choice to stop or back out. (In case you're wondering- I want it for the caption of a motivational poster) ETA: I'm looking for a word that would fit more in the context of "to push yourself to continue when you're bored with what you're doing" rather than "to push yourself when things are physically / mentally challenging".


Using "such" and "as", together and segregated

Here are two variations:   1. I would like you to buy such fruit as apples and watermelon for me.   2. Can you buy me some fruit such as apples or watermelon? Is there any blatant difference or a fine one that we should know related to their usage? can both forms be used in place of each other?


What type of question is "He's right behind me, isn't he?"

This sort of question _He's right behind me, isn't he?_ is popular on comedy TV shows. It's usually said by somebody just after they've been poking fun or talking badly about someone to group of other people. The group of people are all laughing at the butt of the joke/abuse and then fall silent. At this point the ringleader notices that the group has gone quiet and asks _He's [the person being made fun of] is right behind me, isn't he?_ It's not exactly a rhetorical question because the ringleader doesn't know for sure but they are very confident that the answer is _yes_. I am asking if there is an English grammatical or linguistic categorization for this type of question. I'm not asking about the use of this type of question on TV or film or stage. I now know what a _tag question_ is, and this is a tag question but I would like to know if it also another type of question It is very close to a rhetorical question but it isn't because it _does_ matter what the person being asked replies. I don't think it's a leading question because it's not really encouraging anyone to give either a _yes_ or _no_ answer that suits the person asking the question. My question is: what category of question is this?


Relative clause introduced by an adverb

> “Your employment at Chent will terminate **directly we find** a suitable > replacement.” (John Brunner, _Quicksand_ , 1967) This sentence is said by a highly formal and stuffy character. I guess this use of “directly” where it would be more common to say or write “as soon as” is formal and dated. Did it used to be more common? Is it still occasionally used in very formal contexts nowadays? Are there other similar constructs (an adverb introducing a subordinate clause with no conjunction, not even an elided _that_ or _who_ )?


Meaning of "on the same page"

Where on the scale from > We are talking about the same thing to > We are in agreement / We see it the same way is the phrase > We are on the same page?


"Credulous" - Formal Use

What is the basic meaning of **Credulous** , in which context it will be the best to use instead of "willing to believe" ? How formally we can use **"Credulous"** ?


What's the difference between 'resolve' and 'solve'?


What's the meaning of the phrase "to name others"?

> By using this behavior, you can change some of the default settings for this > provider like the connection string or whether the instance should be > removed from the database after its completion, **to name others**.


What is the difference between Seventh Heaven and Cloud Nine?

Just as the question asks, what is the difference between Seventh Heaven and Cloud Nine? I know that both mean extreme pleasure or joy, but I'm wondering if they have different meanings when used in the same context.


Where did the idiom "giving a heads up" come from?

I know _giving heads up_ means to inform someone, but how does that relate to the literal meaning i.e. giving heads up? What's the background? Where did it come from?


When is a person called a "lightning rod"?

I am aware of the lightning rod used to protect buildings and structures. But, what does it mean to refer to a **person** as a **lightning rod**? Also, when is it appropriate to use and when should it be avoided? See this NY Times article for example, which is titled _James Franco’s 2 Roles at Yale - Scholar and **Lightning Rod_**.


Simple present used to describe past events as a list of actions?

In relation to you not meeting me at the train station yesterday: 'I wake up early, travel all that way, wait for you in the rain, and you don't meet me!' Is this not the simple present being used with a past meaning?


"Done" vs. "did" & "seen" vs. "saw"

I am trying to find a logical way to explain how/when to use "done" vs "did" and "seen" vs "saw". The person I'm coaching uses the terms in the following manner and I just don't want to correct him, but would also like to give him the rationale so that he understands how to use these terms in the future. "I done the letter and sent it on Monday". "I seen a boy running down the street" or "I seen that movie". My pupil is a mature person who is generally bright, but poor usage habits are hard to break and even harder to explain!


What is a fund?

Google definition defines _fund_ as > A sum of money saved or made available for a particular purpose. However, while I was looking up the definition of a trust fund, Google definition states it is, > A fund consisting of assets belonging to a trust, held by the trustees for > the beneficiaries. So is a _fund_ merely a sum of money, or can also be assets/properties?


Be it that,were to, and should - what were the differences between these conditionals?

>   1. Be it that John ask me, I shall answer him. >   2. Should John ask me, I will (or should? or would?) answer him. >   3. Were John to ask me, I would answer him. > When writers used the foregoing constructions, how, and according to what rule, did the meanings of the other three differ from one another? Thank you. -Hal


What does "Cowhide can take the man-hide" mean?

In the fourth episode of Sons of Anarchy's second season, there is a scene where Bobby is wearing chaps and all the guys are making fun of him. Then he says: > Cowhide can take the man-hide. I can't figure what it means! I would appreciate it if someone would explain the meaning.


How do you pluralize "cuirass"?

I've had a hard time finding the plural form of the word "cuirass". I know it's a Latin word, but is there any common English (or Latin) pluralization?


"Haven't" vs. "hadn't"

Are there any differences in meaning between the two sentences? >   1. We hadn't left the place yet; we will be there in 10 minutes. >   2. We haven't left the place yet; we will be there in 10 minutes. >


Is "Actor Peter Fonda found dead body inside car" correct?

"Actor Peter Fonda found dead body inside car" - that's the title that Yahoo first chose for its news article confusing so many people Is this kind of title correct? (They just changed to "Police: actor Peter Fonda finds dead body in car").


I sent vs I sent out

Which one is correct and why: > I **sent out** the inquiry to the support team vs > I **sent** the inquiry to the support team Even though the question is specific to " _sent out_ ", please verify the correct usage usage of articles.


Is a ship's biscuit a biscuit or a cake?

Cakes go hard when they are stale. Biscuits go soft when they are stale. So, what about a _ship's biscuit_?


Meaning and usage of "Make me"

Sometimes the literal translations of "slang" sentences just don't make sense, so after reading a "Make me" answer (which I consider slang, due to its informal use, if I'm not wrong) to a request I started to wonder it's exact meaning, starting with the useful Urban Dictionary, containing some examples of usage, but not clear (for me at least) about the exact mood of the answer (I'm quite sure it always depends on the context). So, to the direct answer: what is a valid equivalent of "Make me" when answering to a request? Is it considerable a short form of "Try to make me do it, if you can" as a challenge meaning you will not do it and the person who required the action will not be able to enforce it? Is it valid both as rude answer and friendly answer if the context and relation between the involved people are right?


"Bear market" / "Bull market" : what relationship those animals have with economy?

I know that a _bull market_ is a upward trend and a _bear market_ a downward trend, but how those animals ended in the financial terminology?


Neutral term for a person in the same organization

Is there a neutral term for a person who belongs to an organization to which I also belong, not implying a personal relationship? Inside a business, one might use _colleague_ or _peer_. Business to business, one might use _partner_ (or _customer_ or _vendor_ or _supplier_ to indicate the direction in which the business takes place). But in my case this is not a business relationship. There are other special purpose terms. If it is a fraternal or church organization, one might use _brother_ and _sister_ , but in my case they won’t do. _Co-participant_ is neutral but seems to connote more a common activity than a common organization, and it is awkwardly long. _Confederate_ , on the other hand, conveys a common organization but seems to have a negative connotation. _Fellow_ might also do, but it seems to have an elitist or learned connotation. I am not looking for a word that means _friend_ , such as _companion_ or _comrade_. That connotes a personal relationship which does not necessarily exist between members of an organization. _Comrade_ also brings in the leftist political alignment. Which one is your favorite, or do you have another idea?


As good as it gets- grammar

I do know what "as good as it gets" means (in my language, we say "it will not get any better"). However, I do not understand the grammar here:   Firstly, does the " _get_ " mean a change of state here?   Secondly, why the present tense? It can get better in the future, can't it? Could I say "as stupid as he gets?" What would that mean? EDIT: I have found this one: _I was expecting there to be more people at this dance party, and I was hoping there would be more nice ladies/gentlemen for me to meet. Is this as good as it **WILL** get?_   If this is a permanent concept, why that person use a future tense?


What is the origin of the term "screw" in the case of a prison guard?

The term _screw_ can refer to a prison guard. An example of this is seen in the folk song _The Catalpa_ :               So come all you screw warders and jailers     Remember Perth regatta day     Take care of the rest of your Fenians     Or the Yankees will steal them away      My question is, where did this term come from? I have found this page which provides an explanation, but there are no citations as to where it got it's information from. There is also this page which provides two different explanations, both of which have sources. Which is correct and are there sources to back it up?


Word for "A symbol that means a word/phrase"

This article about using Ћ to stand for _the_ made me think about how different symbols represent words or phrases. For example: @ means _at_ ; % means _per cent_ ; # can mean _pound_ or _number_ ; ♥ can mean _love_ , as in "I ♥ NY". It seems right to call these _abbreviations_ , but:   * Abbreviations can include non-symbols, like AZ for _Arizona_   * The symbol may have characters not found in the word (like $ has an _S_ shape in it, even though _s_ is not in _dollar_ ), contrary to some definitions of _abbreviation_ One word I found was _ligature_, which seems to describe & and the proposed Ћ well. But:   * _Ligature_ does not describe some symbols shown above (like #)   * _Ligature_ describes symbols that do not mean words (like æ) The symbols listed above are what one might see in informal (but standard) shorthand, and it's these I want to describe. Mathematical symbols (like using = to mean _equal_ or _the same_ ) can be in the same category. Alphabetic symbols, like X or O to mean _kisses_ or _hugs_ , may be included too. Is there a name for (and only for) symbols like these?


As in title. Is construction: "I'd rather not want you to meet him again" correct? The meaning is supposed to be the same as in "I don't want you to meet him again".


Is there a word for exceptional writing?

Is there a word to describe the gift of exceptional writing? Or, what would you call someone whose writing is well above average?


Punctuating participle phrases

Are there any firm rules for separating a participle phrase with a comma? I rarely place a participle phrases close to the noun it modifies and wonder whether a comma is required. Do either of these sentences require a comma? > In their dressing gowns, Rose and Martin stand by the window (,) watching > the scene unchanged from the night before: the storm continues. Rose and Martin watch the storm, not the window, but I think that would be understood. > They view the top of the cliffs where scores of youths are positioned (,) > using the advantage of height for an aerial bombardment of rocks. Here there is no object or indirect object, so I think the comma is unnecessary.


Can I use the term "project platform"?

I'm currently creating a web application for specialized projects. They can be added, edited, graded, published in a database etc. We were looking for a name for this app and thought that "Project Platform" would fit. Now I have some doubts because we came up with it from its German version "Projekt-Plattform". I'm not sure if the word "platform" can be used in this meaning in English.


Detection of dangling modifier

Sentence that needs correction : > " ** _For building_** vocabulary skills, students should try to speak and > write new words in appropriate contexts, rather than merely memorizing > definitions". How is "for building" a dangling modifier?


Is "to circuit" a common verb in colloquial language?

My boss asked me to have a look at a presentation he'll be giving next week; checking if he didn't forget anything.   While skimming over the document, the following sentence was somehow bothering me: > ... in order to circuit the problem. The use of _circuit_ as a verb seemed odd to me. I first checked Merriam Webster's and Oxford's Learner's Dictionaries but they don't have listed _circuit_ as a verb. The advanced editions of both dictionaries define the verb. Neither the Corpora of Contemporary American English nor the British National Corpus has an entry on using _circuit_ as a verb, but 10k and 2.5k, respectively, uses as a noun. I incidentally mentioned to my boss that I'd chosen _to circumvent_ , _to handle_ or _to deal_. Subsequently, he asked a colleague who's native English whether she would understand the meaning of _circuit_. She agreed. Surprisingly, she didn't say that _circuit_ would be an odd choice. Well, I think I had posed the question in a different way, namely not asking about "being understandable" but rather about "is it natural to use _circuit_ as a verb". Is _circuit_ acceptable as a verb in ordinary language or is it - as corpora are suggesting - an uncommon verb?


the difference or not between 'incentive' and 'inducement'

I have a speech in a play that goes: > " . . . I wouldn't leave mine a penny, and I'd tell him so - too much of an > inducement for an overdose!" My character is speaking about her doctor. I feel that the correct word is 'incentive' but my fellow cast members disagree - what do others feel?


Word for 45° rotated

We are writing a mathematical article. We are describing objects (unit squares) rotated only 0° and 45°. For easier use we call 0° rotated "axial". What should we call 45° rotated? Using just rotated could be misleading as arbitrary rotated. Oblique seems best to me. Diagonal is something else. * * * Edit: Sure we are going to define it. But imagine causual reader who looks in the middle of the article and see "rotated square". It is neither obvious that this square is 45° rotated nor there is some definition. "mitred square" does not sounds familiar and reader will see the definition.


What algorithm decideds whether to retain a word or drop it while downsizing a dictionary?

One approach I can think of is eliminating most of the words that are very commonly used in spoken English(since a prospective reader is likely to know meaning of most frequently used words, or he/she can get the meaning of those words from his/her peers) But when I look at pocket dictionaries this does not seem to be the case. How is it actually decided which words to retain and which to drop ?


The meaning of "Nothing much seemed to dent this vision of corporate hegemony squeezing out all but the most profitable trash"

I came across this sentence while looking up the meaning of the word _hegemony_: > Nothing much seemed to dent this vision of corporate hegemony squeezing out > all but the most profitable trash. It doesn't make any sense to me. The second half of the sentence ("squeezing out...") is particularly the part I find incomprehensible. Although each half of the sentence seems to convey a meaning on its own, the sentence as a whole is very difficult to understand.


How would you say (write) "Where are you going?" in a Yorkshire dialect?

I think that this might be close to: Wɪər ðæ gɔːwɪn? This would roughly be _Wi-er tha gaw-in?_ In this example, the first word would be the two words _where_ and _are_ put together _Wɪər_ , but somewhere in my memory, I have maybe heard an _s_ find its way in to give something like _Wɪərs ðæ gɔːwɪn?_ (Wi-ers tha gaw-in?), but I am not not so sure about this. Now I know that Yorkshire is a big place with many different regions and dialects, but I'm sure we can keep this topic peaceful. (No Lankies allowed)


What's "Cantor's Sign"?

In David Foster Wallace's _The Pale King_ , in the context of a list of medical ailments reference is made to "Cantor's sign (dextral)" and "Cantor's sign (sinistral)". Does anyone have any idea what this is referring to? I assume it has something to do with the hands, but found no mention of it anywhere on the internet.


Term for when consecutive events are "broken"

This is the use case: > "...5 doughnuts to be awarded each consecutive day you visit the shop until > the ???? is broken." I'm thinking it's going to be along the lines of consecusion or consecutivity....??? But these are of course not real words. For more clarity: I don't want to have the term bound to any misleading _things_. The use case I gave was an example but this term needs to be abstracted due to the nature of the real problem as it relates to software. i.e. String, chain, etc.


Alternatives to "this last point"

What alternatives are there to the expression "this last point"? I'll give an example of a sentence that I wrote recently, referring to the Jane Austen novel Pride and Prejudice: > The dialog and narration is written with a fluency and accuracy that allows > Jane Austen to make remarkably fine points. This last point is of particular > interest to me, as I often find myself unable to convey the exact meaning > that I would wish.


What's the difference between latch and lock?

I know what a lock is. But what is a latch? It seems that it is similar to a lock. What's the difference?


Citing editor's footnotes in MLA style

I wish to cite an editor's footnotes in an annotated copy of Milton's Paradise Lost. I have no idea how to go about this. I'm not sure what either the in- text or complete citation look like. The citation for the book is below, so all the relevant information about the book is at your disposal. > Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Kerrigan, William et al. New York: Random > House, 2007. Print.


It is difficult to overestimate

Could someone tell me the meaning of this following sentence: "The importance of A is difficult to overestimate." I am uncertain whether it means A is really important or means A is unimportant.


Synonym for "ad-hoc" that conveys rigor

The term _ad hoc_ can convey a lack of rigor, for example one of the synonyms is _to improvise_. Are there synonyms that do not convey this lack of rigor? For example, 'ad hoc' is used to refer to reviewers of scientific manuscripts; the Journal of Immunology states > AD HOC REVIEWERS: The Journal of Immunology would like to thank the many > scientists who reviewed manuscripts in a conscientious and objective manner. > The continued high quality of The JI depends upon the dedicated service of > all of these individuals.` Here is an example of a use that I would like to replace 'ad hoc' with a word that does not have casual connotations: > When I want a particular type of widget, I go to the store and get one. If > the particular widget that I need is unavailable, I create one ad hoc.


such as something vs. such something as

The original one: From the view point of **outstanding teachers such as John...** From the view point of **such outstanding teachers as John ...** From the view point of **outstanding teachers such John as...** Do they mean the same? if no, would you please change the _order_ of the words -without change any of the words in the bold parts- in such a way that they mean the same thing?


"I bicycle" - "I ride bikes" - "I bike"

What's the best way to say it? "I like to ride bicycles" is correct but pretty lame sounding... Is "I bicycle" correct? Or is it too obscure to be good usage?


Noun for somebody that is eloquent/a good public speaker?

What would you call somebody that has a strong way with words, especially in terms of public speaking?


Translating irresponsibility

"I had forgotten" can be translated in two different ways in both Spanish and French. One could say:   * "J’avais oublié"   * "Había olvidado"  Or — and this is the point I am getting at — you could use a turn of phrase that tramsits the idea that you are not quite responsible for your forgetting things.   * "Ça m’a échappé"   * "Se me olvidó" Is there a similar construct in English?


What exists between tolerant and enthusiastic?

The use of tolerance comes with varying degrees of indifference to something, with often unstated or deliberately understated degrees of disapproval for that thing. For example, _"While I'm tolerant of those that eat meat, I don't personally do it."_ Enthusiasm, on the other hand, conveys endorsement. _"I'm excited that people are eating meat, though I don't personally don't do it."_ _Ambivalence_ immediately comes to mind, but that negates any inclination toward the subject, be it positive or negative. What word indicates _"I think that's fine, but it isn't for me"_ , without the sort of negative connotation that _tolerance_ lends, yet lacks implied or enthusiastic endorsement? What word exists between tolerance and enthusiasm for something?


What is the term for saying something like A is B,and B is A?

Watching an ad about a mobile network operator that recently changed it's brand name:   **Tunisiana is ooredooo, and ooredoo is Tunisiana** is there a term for this kind of statement?   another example: **One for all, and all for one**


Does "eff" mean to describe in words?

If one dissects the word "ineffable", there are three main roots   * `in` \- not   * `able` \- able to be done   * `eff` The meaning of the root `able` implies that some part of the word before it must refer to an action. Given that `in` is solely and adverb in this case, that would, by default, make `eff` a verb. Knowing that `eff` is a verb with a meaning antonymic to the word as a whole, I assume that it means something to the effect of "to describe in words" However, I have not yet found a dictionary that acknowledges this. They have acknowledged "effable",but not "eff". Is it simply a quirk of our language that the word is never used, or has my logic failed me somewhere?


Are these default questions about events correct grammatically?

As you can see below, I created some default questions which are supposed to ask about events that either have happened or will happen in future(the gaps will be filled by different events such as "New Year" or "First World War" etc. ). **Are any of the following questions poorly-formed** , provided that the ellipsis represents an event? > Is ... an event? > > Where is ... started? > > Where has ... taken place? > > Where is ... finished? > > Who has participated in ... ? > > Who has organized ... ? > > For whom was ... advantageous or disadvantageous ? > > When is ... started ? > > When is ... finished ? > > What happens in ... ? > > What major events happened at ... ? > > What reasons made ... happen ? > > What type of facilities have been used in ... ? > > Which group of people have participated ... ? > > Which is the best source to gain more information about ... ? > > Why has ... started ? > > Why do we have to know about ... ? > > How long is ... ? > > How someone could take part in ... ? > > How many people have been involved in ... ?


"the boy Sam and Tom" or "the boys Sam and Tom"?

I do not know the grammatical terms for this kind of usage. I can only give an example. I want to describe two boys called Sam and Tom. Of course I can just say > Sam and Tom are nice. But I want to be a bit clear about their gender. But instead of the a bit verbose > The boy Sam and the boy Tom are nice. I would like to factor out _the boy_. Then I am not sure the result would be which one of the following three: > The boy Sam and Tom is nice. > > The boy Sam and Tom are nice. > > The boys Sam and Tom are nice. An answer that comes with the grammatical terms for such usage will be highly appreciated.


Is saying "who cares" impolite or rude?

Two people are talking about what tasks should be finished on time, and what tasks should be put off until later. The conversation was like below: > A: I don't think those tasks are important. We can put it off for a month. > Let's focus on the remaining tasks, they are the most important!   >  B: Hang on. If we don't finish those tasks, some customers will not be > satisfied with our software.   >  A: How many users?   >  B: Roughly 200 - 300.   >  A: 300? Who cares? It is less than 0.001% of all customers we have. Let's > focus on 99% and we will deal with those 300 later. The second situation is about culture — picking your nose. > A: Why are you picking your nose in public?   >  B: I have boogers in my nose.   >  A: You should go to a restroom and do whatever you want. It's socially > unacceptable.   >  B: Who cares? In these contexts, is saying "who cares" impolite or rude? Does it show your ignorance or bad behavior? Is saying "who cares?" OK or commonly used in everyday conversation?


Word for a public place where people frequently come in contact with one another

Is there a word for a place where people frequently come in contact with one another? This is like an intersection but in the context of general habitable places. For example, > [...]as I was running up and down to calm down my stupid dog so that he > won't go out and bite people and/or bring bring back a piece of raw flesh > and/or throw up a massive vomit somewhere **___ _**.


The _New York Times_ article of this past July 29th titled, “The D.O. Is In Now: Osteopathic Schools Turn Out Nearly a Third of All Med School Grads,” features the growing popularity of the Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine in Harlem, Manhattan among would-be doctors, and introduces the following episode: > “Gabrielle Rozenberg, in her second year at Touro, remembers the **Ur- > moment** that would lead her to this somewhat unconventional path in > medicine. Growing up on Long Island, she suffered from chronic ear > infections. Her doctor recommended surgery. But before committing to an > invasive procedure, her parents took her to a D.O. In several visits, he > performed some twists and turns of her neck and head, and within days the > infection cleared up.”   >  ― _New York Times_ , “The osteopathic branch of medicine is booming”, 29 > July 2014 I surmise “Ur-moment” means a decisive or eureka moment in retrospect. But I don’t find this word in any English dictionaries at hand. Is “Ur-moment” a normal English expression? Isn’t it “Ah! (or something else)-moment”?


What does "a man among men" mean?

The phrase: "A man among men." We have been having a debate about whether this means:   1. unexceptional, common, like all others, ordinary   2. a superior example of one in a class We have found examples of both uses. Does anyone know where this term originated and what it meant when first used?


Heavy usage of synonyms in English or not?

I am a native German speaker and in German it is considered very bad style to use a word more than once in a sentence or even in close proximity. So you usually have a big list of synonyms in your head and you always cycle though these words while writing or even change complete sentences so you will not have to use the same words. I always automatically assumed that this is also the case in English. Now someone told me that this is actually nothing you have to be concerned about. (This sentence is actually a good example for this. I could have written: "Now someone told me that this is actually not the case in English." but I already used "the case in English" in the sentence before that and such repetitions are considered to be extremely clumsy writing in German.) Could someone please comment on this?


Term for something that appears complex but is actually very simple

The Japanese have a term for something that appears simple but is actually very complex in detail: _Shibui_. It should be said that this is only one aspect of _Shibui_ , as with many Japanese words/concepts. Is there a term for the opposite: something that appears hopelessly complicated, but in actuality is quite simple, whether this is because it follows a subjectively unknown pattern, or because of the subjective perspective of the person?


Why does the multi-paragraph quotation rule exist?

The answer to this question clearly explains the standard rule that when you have multiple quoted paragraphs, each new paragraph starts with an opening quotation mark, but only the final quoted paragraph has a closing quotation mark at its end. This Wikipedia article on Quotation Marks agrees: > Quotation marks are used for multiple-paragraph quotations in some cases, > especially in narratives. The convention in English is to give opening > quotation marks to the first and each subsequent paragraph, using closing > quotation marks only for the final paragraph of the quotation [ . . . ] However, neither explains **_why_** this is the standard practice. What good does it do? What is it trying to avoid? What harm would occur if it were ignored and people put both opening and closing quotation marks on each adjacent quoted paragraph?


A proper name for Microsoft software

I've been doing some research and experiment with Microsoft software such as SQL Server 2010, SharePoint 2010 and Exchange 2010. Now I have to write a report on what I've done. I need a proper name to refer to such software as a whole. The first one coming to my mind is **production tools**. I decide to use this one if no one could come up with a better one for me.


What is the specific nuance of "ask against"?

English is not my native tongue. I am helping another non-native to translate as precisely as possible a sentence that comes from an astrological reading: > indicating that the **question is asked against an awareness** that the > mother has recently been afflicted by illness I'd interpret _against_ in this case to mean _in presence of_ ; that is, the person asking is aware of the illness and is probably influenced by this knowledge in posing his/her questions to the astrologer. Is this correct? When would you use _ask against_ , and what precisely is it used to communicate?


What do you call activities you do to keep your curiosity alive?

Is there a single word for activities which you engage in to keep your curiosity or interest in a certain field alive? I mean is there some word that conveys the idea that the series of activities was intentionally and purposefully undertaken to stay interested in a certain area.


Is it "consumer savings" or "consumers’ savings"?

> In the previous year, consumers' savings had decreased. or > In the previous year, consumer savings had decreased. Which one is valid and why?


Antonym(s) of pleonasm

Specifically words like succinct and concise. While not exactly the antonym of pleonasm, I would especially like to find a word that implies someone who speaks just enough, perhaps due to wisdom. The opposite of impulsive, excessive speech?


with "for" or / and without "for"

> A. We have been friends **for** 10 years now. > > B. We have been friends **[ ]** 10 years now. Is **B** a new trend in contemporary English? Or is it restricted only to colloquial English? In short, I would like to know when precisely **B** is used and, most importantly, what language registers it is used in.


"word counts to stay within"

Which, believe me, is frustrating when you have word counts to stay within. _Word counts to stay within_ makes no sense to me. Am I dealing with an idiom here? Because if I am, I would like to know which that idiom is. Hard as I tried, I could find no such idiom anywhere I could look it up in.


Is there any real difference between "to" as a preposition and "to" as an adverb?

I'm really in doubt. On the free dictionary I read this concept of "to" as a **preposition** : "1. (used for expressing motion or direction toward a place, person, or thing approached and reached): Come to the house." Right below I read this concept of "to" as an **adverb** : "18. toward a point, person, place, or thing." For me, there's no difference. Is there any subtle thing I cannot see that makes the difference? Thanks. source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/to


What word means "the changes of a place"?

I am looking for the closest word which refers to the changes that occur in a place, such as a town or city, over time. The word "development" is often used, but that seems to imply that the place is expanding or modernizing, when I need a more general term which does not have this implication. A professional term, such as one used in the field of urban planning, is preferred.


What's the difference in being extemporaneous,being spontaneous and being impulsive?

What's the difference in being extemporaneous, being spontaneous and being impulsive? Or, when, where, - in which situation - would you rather use them?


"A member of" vs. "a member at"

Which one is correct? For example: >   * I am a member **of** Riverside Tennis Club. >   * I am a member **at** Riverside Tennis Club. >


Origin of "to have an axe to grind"

Where does the idiom _to have an axe to grind_ come from? To have personal, selfish reasons to do or say something.


Which of the following two sentences is correct and/or better?

Which one? > "Why, being only a child, have you come to a place so far away like > Greece...?" Versus... > "Why have you, being only a child, come to a place so far away like > Greece...?" ...Or maybe some other phrasing (that is and/or sounds better to you) ?


Is the adverbial in sentence on a right place?

> The institution name I used was "Institution name". Is the "I used" on the right place in sentence? Moved to ell.stackexchange.


'the cleanest' vs 'cleanest': article-containing adverb phrases?

We have two phrases structures:   1. 'the nicest in my school'   2. 'the cleanest in my house' These phrases can act as nouns or adverbs:   1. 'He is the nicest in my school.' - noun phrase.   2. 'She cleaned the cleanest in my house.' - noun phrase -or- adverb phrase. Meanings (noun phrase: `"She cleaned the cleanest [omitted thing] in my house`; adverb phrase: `"She cleaned most, comparatively, [to the other omitted things] in my house."`). So these are the disambiguations I suggest:   1. 'She cleaned cleanest in my house.'   2. 'She cleaned the cleanest, in my house.'   3. 'She cleaned the-cleanest-in-my-house.' Isn't 1. a better disambiguity to simply say she, herself, is the best cleaner? Because in 2., 'the cleanest' can also be a noun phrase and in 3. 'the-cleanest-in-my-house' is in emulation of another person? About 1: 'in the house' is a location set by the adverb so there is an ambiguity; however, when setting groups by the adverb (i.e., 'of my house'), 1. is sufficient, right? ## Update Additional disambiguities:   1. She cleaned, the cleanliest in my house. - Uses allusion to suggest that the subject, herself, is the cleanliest person.   2. She cleaned [the] cleanliest in my house. - Shows that 'the' is unnecessary. Perhaps, for example, it is added for euphonic purposes.


Matching verb tenses when starting a sentence with "this"

The phrase in question is "This allows his arms to naturally accelerate through the bottom of his swing and unleashes a lot of power on the ball." My question is about the proper tense of the verb, "unleashes". I'm unsure if it's supposed to match the verb "allows", as in "this allows... this unleashes", or the verb "accelerate", as in "his arms accelerate... his arms unleash". Either way illustrates the point I'm trying to make. I suppose the verb tenses are clear if the sentence didn't start with "This". It could be rewritten as "His arms accelerate... and unleash...". I wanted to start this sentence with "This" to refer to the point I made in the sentence before.


Why do some people say "Happy New Years" with an "s" at the end of "years"?

Why do some people say "Happy New Years" (with an "s" at the end of "years")? Here are some examples on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/search/%22happy%20new%20years%22 It seems like "year" should be singular, because there is only one new year.


Plural of "syntax"

What is the plural of _syntax_? Would it be _syntacies_? What rule would govern this kind of construction?


What's the word for "adjusting" to keep up with a change

I can't for the life of me remember this word... It's used heavily in the Star Trek series for when engineers have to make live adjustments to keep up with some changing variable. It's a verb and would fit into this sentence: > The font sizes were increased, so I adjusted the label placements to <blank> I have associated the words "accommodate", "recuperate" and "adjust" with it


The use of "though"

I'd like to know why the use of _though_ in this sentence is wrong. > Besides this he just gives money to the man and lets him walk away though of > his bad injuries.


How to "spread some words about" or "spread some word about"?

Sorry for the dumb question. If I have couple of sentences that describe my idea, should I use the first or the second phrase or neither of them ;) Any insight and grammar references are very welcome! **Context** > My friends and I are doing this service. We use it every day and want to > spread some words about. I want to help you to understand the main idea of > the service and give an insight on how to start.


What does the idiom/phrase "but I digress" mean?

Okay, so I know _when_ to "but I digress"; I use it when I'm talking about something and then stray off topic and talk about something else, so in order to get back to the topic, I say "but I digress". But the dictionary says that **digress** , a verb, means "to stray off of something, to wander from a path, or to turn aside, etc.". So when I say " **blah blah blah, but I digress** ", it's like I'm saying " **blah blah blah, but I stray off topic.** " So when I say that, do I mean: > blah blah blah, but I'm a person that usually goes off topic, so let's get > back to the main topic. Or do I mean: > blah blah blah, but I'm straying off topic, so let's get back to the main > topic. I'm pretty sure this (the second one) is what we mean when we say "but I digress", but shouldn't the correct English be " **but I am digressing** " or " **but I digressed** "?


Why is "no" used in a phrase like "this is no big deal" instead of "not"?

The following is the full sentence: > One could argue, convincingly, that this is no big deal and that I'm just a > whiner.


What's the word for apparently feeling better when lied to?

A word used when patients say they feel better when they have been lied to. Not necessarily lied to, but told they have been given a drug or undergone an operation which would supposedly make them healed, which was not actually done.


Word/phrase for "last minute love confession"

I want a word or a small phrase which can be used in place of "last minute love confession". I specifically use "last minute" for when the confessor and the confessee are going away from each other, like the last day of college. I think it's unlikely that english has such a construct. But any help is appreciated. EDIT: The best phrase I got for my requirements from the answers here is a "parting love note"


How to spell [ʒʊʒd] and what does it mean?

I heard this strange word in American Dad over a year ago and it's been bugging me ever since. Not only do I have no idea how it's spelt, I have no idea how it could _possibly_ be spelt. My only guesses were _zhoozhed_ and _zhouzhed_ but there appear to be no such words. The script goes like this: > Roger _(entering the room in a pink suit):_ Ta-da! How do I look? Employable > or _very_ employable?   >  Francine: Is that my pantsuit?   >  Roger: Yeah, it's a little drab, but I [ʒʊʒd] it up with a white belt. > _(opens the shirt and shows a white belt)_ From the context, I am guessing that _to [ʒʊʒ] up_ means something like _to spice up_. But still, this word is a complete mystery for me. I asked my English teacher (who's lived half her life in GB and the other half in the US) and she had no idea. Maybe someone here could help shed some light on this word? Note that I'm pretty sure that I hear what I hear. It's really [ʒʊʒd]. Well, maybe it's [ʒu:ʒd], but even if it is, I believe it shouldn't be of any consequence.


Difference between article, tutorial, how-to, course, track

I find these words(keywords) article, tutorial, how-to, course, track...etc some what same but CS people always use them (even my tutor) in different ways.. Don't assume this is about the programming context, I am asking this in any context possible or applicable but most of these words are used in coding sites like code.org I really think of how these words make difference..


Meaning of "education level"

I am filling in a CV and I have to choose my "level of education". I am on the third year of university education (junior), and I wonder if "level of education" means the education I have already got (high school diploma in my case), or the education I am getting now (Bachelor's degree in my case).


Does "Much of the work towards this end" sound natural?

Would the following sentence sound natural to native speaker? If not, what would be the modificiation?               Much of the work towards this end focused on [some concept].


How do you pluralize abbreviations of metric names (e.g. "kilo")?

Metric names are sometimes abbreviated, e.g. Kilogram as kilo, megabyte as mega and nanosecond as nano. Is it correct to add an "s" as suffix to the plural form of abbreviations? For example: > The total weight is 10 kilo. (as kilo is here an abbreviation of kilograms) OR > The total weight is 10 kilos **Note:** The questions is restricted to the abbreviations, not the metric symbols. It's clear to me that symbols like km (for kilometers), s (for seconds), etc. do **not** end with 's' in plural. * * * **EDIT** The first comments and answers here brought to my attention that 'mega' and 'nano' are not really common abbreviations. Moreover, they are probably incorrect. I'm sure I've heard them already, but it's possible that it was always from non-native speakers like me. Correct common abbreviations (besides "kilo" for "kilogram") are "meg" for "megabytes" and "gig" for "gigabytes".


What does "off to" mean?

There is a book titled _Off to a Flying Start: Horsing Around the Language_. What does _off to_ mean? I did some research on it and I feel it means _going to do_ , but I still need your confirmation.


What is the term for police officers in command positions?

Members of the military who hold command/leadership positions are referred to as "officers." The same is true of firefighters. However, when it comes to police, the term "officers" refers to all members of a department (excluding civilian support staff and other special cases). What is the term -- assuming one exists -- for police officers who hold non- entry-level ranks (e.g. lieutenants and chiefs)?


A month of Sundays

In a month of Sundays is used to emphasize that something will never happen. But this one, A month of Sundays in Paris, this is not the case. How can this be` understood?


Proper answer to "excuse me"

What is a proper reply for _excuse me_? Like for _thank you_ , you can say _no problem_ or _welcome_. I don't know what a proper reply for _excuse me_ would be.


Referring to "the assertion made in the US Supreme Court's majority opinion"

I want to refer to an assertion that is part of the written majority opinion in a particular case, put forth by the US Supreme Court's majority for that case. Question spurred by my attempts to do this in a comment to Non-religious mentions of God (or religious concepts) in the American English language . How can I say this succinctly and correctly? I'm assuming that there may be legal terminology and journalistic conventions I should be aware of. I don't think "the Court's majority opinion's assertion" is especially desirable, for instance.


Are "final decision" and "last decision" interchangeable?

Looking into a dictionary entry for _last_ , I come up with: > 1) Final, ultimate, coming after all others of its kind.   >  2) Most recent, latest, last so far. Looking up _final_ : > 1) last; ultimate   >  2) Conclusive; decisive Now I'm wondering what's the difference between _final decision_ and _last decision,_ were one to be strict and pedantic. My theory: _last decision_ \- ambiguous - may mean "final decision" or "most recent decision in a chain of decisions yet to follow   _final decision_ \- not ambiguous - means only "final decision" Am I correct here or am I somehow mistaken?


What's the difference in usage between "install" and "instill"?

Is there actually any difference between the words? I feel like I am perfectly capable of _installing_ a healthy fear in someone.


What do you say when a person/an idea/... is crazy to your mind?

What does one say or do if they think that a person's idea, behaviour, etc. is crazy to their mind? For instance:   In Germany, when someone dangerously passes you, you will show them by tipping your finger on your forehead(or temple) that they " _has a bird_ " (literal translation of "einen Vogel haben"). This action is called " _jemandem den Vogel zeigen_ ", literally translated: "to show someone the bird". I found the phrase "bats in the belfry" which has a similar meaning to the German phrase. I haven't heard it before, and I'm not sure if this phrase is in common use. What do you usually say? Do you also have a gesture like tipping your finger on your forehead/temple? And is it insulting by law? * * * I'm interested in both American and British phrases and gesture. Just as side note: In Germany it is highly controversial if it is an insult by law or not. There were several court decisions pro and contra.


Word to describe subconsciously retaining value judgments from rejected worldview

What is a single word or short phrase that means the following: the human tendency to make a judgment from a perspective one considers false? Or perhaps to make a judgment with values one does not know one has? For example, say that one half of the world has blue grass and the other has green. John is from the side with blue, but his culture falsely promotes the idea that the grass is greener on his half of the world and that the other side has yellow grass. One day, John discovers that the grass here is blue. He concludes that green grass does not exist because, as _everyone_ knows, the other side has yellow grass. I understand that this might be a strange question, but I have noticed the tendency of people to accept certain pieces of information promoted by a particular worldview as beyond dispute, so that even if the person rejects that worldview, he or she still judges various aspects of the world from the rejected perspective. I am trying to come up with a word to describe that tendency on a psychological level and not a logical level. There are several logical fallacies that could describe this. **EDIT** : The following is to provide an example that will be more easily understandable to everyone. Please do not take it as an attack on any particular worldview... Jane is reared in a certain religion tradition which teaches that the material world is evil and the immaterial, otherworld is good. When she is 18, Jane rejects this religion and consequentially stops believing in the existence of the 'otherworld', but subconsciously retains its judgments. Her subconscious thought process is this:   1. Heaven is good. Earth is bad.   2. Heaven does not exist.   3. Earth is bad. Clearly, she maintained a premise (value judgment) she should not have even though she rejected the 'facts' of her religious tradition. Keep in mind, I see the logical fallacies that could apply but I am looking for a psychological description.


Why is "charge" uncountable?

> He shall give his angels **charge** over thee, to keep thee. Why is _charge_ uncountable here? > God gave Joshua a **charge**. In this case, it is countable. I can't find authoritative sources.


Why does the letter ‘o’ appear in the word ‘people’?

My two daughters demanded to know this. I speculated that it was artificially inserted, perhaps in the 17th-18th century, perhaps to make the word look more like _populus_ , somewhat similar to the way the spurious ‘s’ was added to ‘island’. I later learned that the Middle English spelling was _peeple_ or _peple_ , which I think tends to support this hypothesis, but I don't know. The picture is further confused by the existence of the Old French form _people_. Perhaps the ‘o’ was dropped, and then the older form was revived? I consulted several dictionaries before posting this, including the Online Etymology Dictionary, and did not find any with a definitive answer. Is anything specific known about the introduction of the ‘o’?


Do women sometimes refer to men of lower social status/men they've professionally emasculated as ''girls'' to tease them?

I've heard this is the case from numerous sources.


'Financial' vs. 'economical'

Which of these is the right usage?   * John's _financial_ situation is not good.   * John's _economic_ situation is not good. When is the usage of _financial_ justified over _economic_ and vice versa, given their similar meanings?


Meaning of "know life for what it is"

What does _know life for what it is_ mean? Maybe it means something like _know what life is really like_? > Always to look life in the face and to **know it for what it is**.


What's the literary term for an instruction to the reader at the beginning or end of a book?

Books and other texts can have a _motto_ at the beginning (or at the end), or a _dedication_. But they sometimes include a command, directive or instruction to the reader as prologue or epilogue. It could simply be “ _Go and spread the word_ ” or “ _Every time you see X, think about Y_ ” or “ _Keep Z in your prayers_ ”, or something quite a bit longer. Is there a specific word for this?


What does "top half" mean in "There are only two seeded players left in the top half of the draw"?

> There are only two seeded players left in the top half of the draw. I only know 1st, 2nd, etc. half, when we are talking about matches. I believe that "draw" here means a set of matches. What does "the top half of the draw mean"?


Is the noun "liar" considered offensive? Would it be offensive to use it with a proven liar?

Is the noun _liar_ considered offensive? Would it be offensive to use it with a proven liar?


How to express this idea on formal occasions

everyone. I was making an application for iPad. It's a music game that you can record and play your tracks by touch the virtual piano keyboard on screen.But in the manage view,i want to remind the player "There is no items on the list" if the list is empty. But i really didn't know how to express it. "There is no items here." or "There is no tracks." or "No tracks,please record one." or something else? Please help me,it drove me crazy. And sorry for my bad English :-)


Word for preventing unnecessary action: “you don't need to bother…”

If I say to someone "do not X", I have (say) “prevented” them from doing X. If I say “you don't need to bother doing X”, how do I express saving them from the unnecessary work of doing X? Is there a better word than "prevent"?


Why do we use the suffix “‑gate” when referring to a scandal?

I see a lot of times when something is a politically-oriented scandal that the suffix _‑gate_ is added to the end of the word the scandal revolves around. Examples include:   * Watergate   * Weinergate   * Valijagate (Spanish for “suitcase-gate”) I believe that it originated during the Watergate scandal, but I don't know why the suffix _‑gate_ was perpetuated to other scandals. Is there a name for this literary mechanism of using part of previously popularized term to elicit a comparison or similar connotation?


"Change" or "changes"?

Say you corrected a few typos and grammar issues. Is that considered as one change? Or several changes? Would you say "I like my change to the story" or "I like my changes to the story"?


"Without reason" or "Without reasons"?

Do we say "Without reason" or "Without reasons"? (e.g. _She started laughing without (apparent) reason(s)._ ). Is "reason" countable or not? Can we ever use a plural noun after "without"?


What do "brave" (adj) and "courage" (n) really mean?

For me, if someone is brave, it has always meant that they face certain dangers or situations, even though doing so is something that scares the living daylights out of them. For instance, if a normally timid person, one who would normally run away from danger, were to risk his life to save a child being attacked by a dog, I would consider that person (usually considered a wimp) to be very brave. **Merriam-Webster** defines brave: > having or showing courage A rather weak definition. But, it defines courage: > mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, > or difficulty Which tends to agree with my original premise. But, **Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary** defines brave: > showing no fear of dangerous or difficult things Which I think is silly, because a lot of people I would consider brave, did their brave acts despite having fear. **Random House Dictionary** defines brave much the same as M-W, but defines courage: > the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, > danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery. Which means that to be brave, one cannot have fear. In direct opposition to M-W, which says (in a roundabout way) that withstanding fear is brave. So, this has lead me to be confused as to whether or not I use the word "brave" in the same sense as others. What do the words "brave", and "courage" really mean?


"Pissed" vs "Pissed off"

In Australian English there has always been a distinction between "pissed" (intoxicated) and "pissed off" (angry, irritated). I've noticed a trend towards the American usage where "he was really pissed" is now much more likely to mean the latter. I'm aware of the futility of resisting the natural evolution of language, particulary the juggernaut of American language imperialism via films and TV, but it seems a shame that "I did it because I was pissed" is now ambiguous. Is this a trend in other English speaking countries where the Australian usage was common?


What does "going forward" mean?

In more and more podcasts and presentations I hear sentences such as this one: > That is our strategy going forward. What meaning does _going forward_ add to the sentence? That is, how is it different than saying: > That is our strategy. (I listened to two software podcasts recently: in the first _going forward_ was used once, and in the second it was used twice and _moving forward_ once. I have to say it connotes a slight sense of _we have a team working hard on this, lots of motion, lots of action_ , but it could have been dropped in all four cases and no meaning would have been lost. In any case, people currently really love to use it!)


Word for attaching blame to inanimate objects

In a recent court case in Darlington, a man was convicted of destroying a door with a machete. He was sentenced to some trifling inconvenience, but the magistrates were careful to order the destruction of the machete; clearly they have identified the real culprit, and have ensured no further offences will be possible. The same thought processes were embedded in English law up to 1846 in the notion of the deodand, some object that caused a death and was therefore forfeit to the Crown. The fellow who tripped over his shoelace and destroyed some crockery was quick to blame his shoelace; having just converted Ming vases worth £500,000 to fragments worth £diddly he was probably rather shocked and thinking in an instinctive way. This thought process is sufficiently old and common to have a name. Does anyone know what it is? (I don't think animism quite covers it.)


Avoiding repetition — "hallway"

In many forums, I have seen people keep saying to avoid repetition of the same word in a paragraph. But in the sentence like below, how do you avoid the repetition? > Suddenly, the dog stands up and stares at something in the hallway. A shadow > of something enters the living room from the hallway. The dog continues to > stare towards the hallway. I have to repeat the word _hallway_ three times, and see no way to avoid it. Why and how should I avoid?


What do you call feeling what someone else feels?

I am looking for a word that describes: A) When you are spinning, someone else feels dizzy B) feeling full watching someone else eat C) feeling happy watching someone else be happy. My first thought was _sympathy_ , but that only applies to feelings of "pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune" (Google).


leave that behavior in the background

Explain please the meaning of this phrase in the title. Macroeconomic models do not deal with the optimizing behavior but leave them in the background. I don't understand. The source is the book "Macroeconomics" by Gregory Mankiw. The context: Yet the model does not focus on how these microeconomic decisions are made; instead, it leaves these decisions in the background. Similarly, although microeconomic decisions underlie macroeconomic phenomena, macroeconomic models do not necessarily focus on the optimizing behavior of households and firms, but instead sometimes leave that behavior in the background. Thanks in advance!


The opposite of "magnum opus"?

According to the online Oxford English dictionary, a **magnum opus** is > a work of art, music, or literature that is regarded as the most important > or best work that an artist, composer, or writer has produced. Does there exist an opposite term (in the sense of the least important or worst work ever produced by someone)?


Ways to refers to two people who were about to marry or just married

I wrote the following: > A bright red carpet ran all the way from the entrance to right beneath the > altar. Enclosing it on both sides, were two rows of long benches—each of > them with a tiny ribbon shaped as a wedding dress. Together they looked like > a gathering of ancient souls; spirits who had come from the past to > congratulate the **newly committed lovers.** > > * * * > > “And now you may kiss the bride,” the priest finally said. The groom nodded, > and then turned to look at his **new wife**. Are **newly committed lovers** and **new wife** good enough for those passages? Or is there a better way to refer to the bride and the groom? (I don't want to use _couple_ because I already used it too many times).


What part of speech is "Returning" in this title "Returning to Earth."

How does "Returning" function in this title "Returning to Earth" thanks!


progressive forms: participle or gerund?

Progressive forms of verbs consist of a form of to be + participle. At least that is what most English grammars say or they are imprecise and speak of ing- form. My question is what follows after the forms of to be? \- I'm working in the garden. Is working here a present participle or rather a gerund? I asked myself this question long after I had left school, simply because one accepts what grammars say without much reflexion. But the longer I am thinking about this problem the more I tend to answer it is a gerund. I stumbled upon this through a curious way of speaking in German dialects. Normaly we don't use progressive forms in German, but some dialects make extensive use of forms such as \- Ich bin am Aufräumen - word-for-word translation: I'm at tidying up. Normally in English a prepoisition such as in "at tidying up" is omitted and it becomes: \- I'm tidying up. In another forum, a German one about the German language, we made a study where in Germany dialects make extensive use of such forms as "beim/am Aufräumen" - and we found that these forms are in extensive use in areas along the River Rhine from Switzerland to the north, but also in the east of Germany and in the south. So it is reasonable to ask what form is used in English, participle or gerund. In Germany it is a gerund, a participle would be unusual. So it might be the same in English, but as participle and gerund have the same form it is really difficult to decide which form it is. I derive the progressive forms from a formula with "in the act of doing": \- "I'm working in the garden" means "I'm in the act of working in the garden." When you omit "in the act of" you get the normal progressive form. I have placed this question earlier on another forum and could not convince the participants of that forum. Now I would like to hear the views on this forum.


Why use 'about them' in this sentence?

Why use 'about them' in this sentence? > I appreciate every kind of person, most notably those who have a good sense > of humour, a positive outlook on life as well as a good energy **about > them**. Do not just write without "about them"? > I appreciate every kind of person, most notably those who have a good sense > of humour, a positive outlook on life as well as a good energy.


This year I actually was interviewed as Sigmund Freud

This is a letter which I received. I keep coming back to Freud because I have always been interested in how people make sense of the past. This was Freud's great subject. I don't go to his work for answers, but I still find his answers "good to think with." Some years ago I curated an exhibition at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. (which traveled internationally) that attempted to make sense of Freud within cultural history. You can see much of the material of the exhibition here. In the exhibition there are film clips that show the impact of psychoanalysis on popular culture, and there is a voice recording of Freud made at the end of his life (in English). This year I actually was interviewed **as** Sigmund Freud at a program at New York’s The Jewish Museum. I even got to see a cigar box from their collections! The writer of this letter emphasized the 'as'. I suppose he intended something. But I don't know. Besides, I don't know what it means that 'he was interviewed **as** Sigmund Freud.' Does it mean that he was interviewed from interviewer **as though** he was a great psychologist like Freud? I would be much obliged if you help me.:)


"The likeliest problem" vs. "the most likely problem"

_The likeliest problem_ vs. _the most likely problem_ :   * are they both correct?   * do they mean the same thing?   * is one preferable over another?


When should we say 'Thanks' and when, 'Thank you'?

While I'm communicating with my colleagues and clients, I used to say 'Thanks' and 'Thank you'. I normally use 'Thank you' when I want to express it to a single person usually through e-mails, otherwise I use 'Thanks' generally. To improve my communication methods, I just want to know explicitly when I should use 'Thank you' and when, 'Thanks'. Or, which is better professionally?