Usage of the word "head"?

Why is the word "head" used in the following context? > Daddy he once told me 'son you be hard workin' man'   >  and Momma she once told me 'son you do the best you can'   >  but, then one day I met a man who came to me and said   >  'Hard work good, and hard work fine, but first take care of **_Head_** '   >  Smoke Two Joints - Sublime (perhaps they didn't originally write the song, > but whatever) First of all, is this related to the usage of "head" in "headshops"? I couldn't even find a clear answer on why this is the case, the wikipedia article on headshops says Jeff Glick opened "Head Shop" in New York, but does not explained why he called it that. Some other explanations I saw floating around were "because drugs make your _head_ feel good", "because it's for pot- _heads_ ", and something to do with the Grateful Dead and "dead- _heads_ ". These all sound plausible, but does anyone have the definitive story behind the use of "head" in this sort of context?


Do you agree with these intermediate gradations between “frank” and “evasive”?

While consulting the version of the _New Oxford American Dictionary_ provided with Mac OS, I came across the following “word spectrum”, which its says “show shades of meaning between two polar opposites”. While I generally appreciate its notes such as “The right word”, I was surprised by this spectrum: ![Word spectrum](http://i.stack.imgur.com/4pO0F.png) Some of the words in there appear next to one another, which I would truly treat as synonymous, like “honest” and “truthful”. However, I am surprised by the ordering of some other words. For example, I would have classified “upfront” even higher than “frank”. Also, I would classify words like “taciturn” and “of few words” as neutral on this scale, as I don't feel they convey any negative connotation. So, my question is (and I'm sorry it took so long to get to it!): **is this spectrum corroborated by usage in your experience?** That may depend on local factors, of course, which I'd be happy to be referred to.


"Protein-coding" or "Protein-encoding"?

The reason I am asking this is the following. Some time ago I performed proofreading of a book, and there was a phrase containing "Protein-encoding genes". I wrote a post on my blog, detailing why this is wrong, according to the assumption that "to code" means to write something in a given standard representation (like "I code a program" in the sense that I write a program in a standard representation of a programming language). Another example is Huffman coding, which is an algorithm for compression. To encode, on the other hand, means to transform something into something else, for example, base32 encoding transforms binary data into text, so it is possible to send it via email. Now I am not really sure about it anymore. What I can say for sure, is that genes do not perform any operation, they just store information, so to me "Protein-coding genes" makes a lot more sense than "Protein-encoding genes". I don't understand, in particular, the exact grammar of suffixes like "-coding". Is it a verb, an adjective, or something I'm not aware of ?


Complements and adjuncts

> Paul Austen’s novel sold immediately to the author’s eager readers. In the above sentence, which part is the _complement_ and which is the _adjunct_? I am confused as to whether the adjunct should be _immediately_ or _eager readers_.


Origin of the word “bootleg”

What is the origin of the word “ _bootleg_ ”?


What's the difference between "I must help her" and " I have to help her"

To me "I must help her" sounds wrong. I feel that I would rarely say this. On one website they say that 'must' is more for personal obligations (e.g. I must help my mother.) and that 'have to' is for external obligations (e.g. my boss says I have to finish the report.) Is it that simple (and vague)? Or does anyone have a better explanation?


“Let's burn that bridge when we come to it” – is this sort of idiom mixing considered a pun, and if so, does it have a specific name?

I couldn't come up with a short title, but the upside is that there is not much needed to be said in the body of the question! * * * For @dmr (and others), it mixes “let's cross that bridge when we come to it” and “burn one's bridges”.


Does one say "conciliate with death" or "conciliate death"?

I am trying to say that he came to terms with death but in a more formal way. How can I put it? Is conciliate the right word to use?


Achievement Verbs with the Progressive Aspect

I was reading a grammar and saw this. * * * Achievement verbs describe actions that occur instantaeously.   * He solved the problem.   * He spotted the airplane. These verbs fall into two classes - one is 'punctual', and the other 'change of state' (..cut..)   * Change of state - find a solution, cross the finish line - This involves a preliminary activity that culminates in the act denoted by the verb. Thus, a person searches before finding the solution, and runs toward the finish line before crossing it. (..cut..) With change of state verbs, progressive aspect may or may not be possible, **depending on whether the activity leading up to the achievement is treated as being the same activity** For example,   * 'His train is arriving at noon.' is acceptable   * '* She is recognizing the thief.' is not acceptable. * * * I feel that 'She is recognizing the thief.' is strange, but as I don't understand the bolded part, I can't get the reason. Would you help me with this?


Need help simplyfying sentences containing economic information

I am not very knowledgeable about economics and am trying to reword these two sentences: > In 1964 the CDC 6600 cost around $7 million USD, though some sources site > prices of up to $10 million. Given the relative value of the dollar in > today’s economy, the machine would cost very much more; depending on the > economic formulas used could cost $700 million. All prices are in US dollars. The point I'm trying to make is that $7 million dollars was a lot more in 1964 than it is today, but this is hard to convey because even today $7 million is a lot. According to here " $7,000,000.00 from 1964 ranges from $39,900,000.00 to $166,000,000.00." today. When writing money is it correct to write the first part of the number using digits, followed by the word? For example $10 million vs $10,000,000.


Difference between "smart" and "clever"

What is the difference between _smart_ and _clever_? As far as I understand the latter is offensive. But the Cambrige Dictionary gives similar definitions of _smart_ and _clever_.


"Lots and lots of...two different uncountable nouns"

I'm writing a story for little children and would really appreciate some help with the following sentence: > "There was lots and lots of red, and lots and lots of blue." Is that correct? Or should it be "there were"?


Meaning of "appeal" and "at the expense of reason"

> Sentimentality originally indicated the reliance on feelings as a guide to > truth, but current usage defines it as an **appeal** to shallow, > uncomplicated emotions **at the expense of reason** I cannot understand this sentence. What's the meaning of "appeal" in this sentence? And "at the expense of reason"?


Correct sentence ending: X asked, “Y?”

Is it correct to use sentences in the following format? > X asked, “...?”. That is, a simple interrogative sentence enclosed within quotes followed by a period. Which is the correct sentence? >   * He asked, “How do you do?” She colloquially responds, “NM.” >   * He asked, “How do you do?”. She colloquially responds, “NM.” > Are there any alternatives to the above sentence?


What do you call stand up comedy when not performed to a live audience?

Live comedy is often called stand up. What would you call a comedy video not performed to an audience? This could be characters performing a story, someone talking to a camera, or someone more abstract.


What does the line, “If there was a mistake made, it was probably ever doing one,” mean, and what is the implication / function of “ever”?

Today’s (October 26) New York Times reported that a spokesman of GOP presidential candidate, Rick Perry suggested possibility that Mr. Perry might not participate in all of the upcoming debates. According to the article titled “Perry May Curtail Role in Coming Debates”, Mr. Perry told Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, “It's pretty hard to be able to sit and lay out your ideas and your concepts with a one minute response,” and added, “So, you know, _if there was a mistake made, it was probably ever doing one,”_ As I’m not got used to the usages of “ever,” I’m not clear with the exact meaning of “it was probably ever doing one.” What is the implication and function of ever? Does this line mean “I may repeat the same mistake again”? Is the subject (it) in the subordinate clause the whole antecedent clause, or “mistake”? If it is the latter, why an inanimate object, “the mistake” can take “do one (mistake)”? Structure-wise, this line doesn’t seem to me to agree with grammar. Can you explain what this line exactly means, and if the line is grammatically acceptable or not?


many hours is? or are?

Time, distance, weight are treated as singular, like "3 hours is too long." Then, in this instance, "How many hours of sleep is/are needed to keep fit?" Is "is" correct?


Word for "other people who have the same issue/problem as I have"?

This is for a tech support or customer support case. I need a single-word tag labeling other people who share my issue.


What is the origin of "A cat in hell's chance"

What is the origin of the phrase: "A cat in hell's chance"? I understand it to mean "not a chance", but it seems a very curious saying and I wonder how it originated. > e.g. > > Bob: Do you think Liverpool will win the title this season. > > Geoff: Not _a cat in hell's chance_.


When there are several appendices, what is that part of a book called?

If a book has one appendix, it is `The Appendix`. Now consider a book with three appendices (or, if you like, appendixes), named `Appendix A`, `Appendix B`, and `Appendix C`. The part of the book, which is formed by these, is called   * still `The Appendix`, because it is that part of the book, composed of the "chapters" `Appendix A`, `Appendix B`, and `Appendix C`.    * now `The Appendices` (or, if you like, `The appendixes`), because there are three of them and that calls for a plural.    * something else (what)?


Free stuff -  "swag" or "schwag"?

My company gives out free promotional items with the company name on it. Is this stuff called company _swag_ or _schwag_? It seems that both come up as common usages—Google searching indicates that the bias is slightly towards _swag_. Can anybody provide any definite proof of the root of the word and which one is more correct?


Is "make no mistake" a mistake?

Is "make no mistake" proper grammar? Isn't "no" being used as a quantifier? Aren't quantified nouns supposed to be plural when the quantity is none? For example, I was taught to say, "one egg" and "zero eggs". So, I might conclude that "make a mistake" and "make no mistakes" is also correct. What am I missing?


Using "at odds with" and "akin to" in the same sentence

I am trying to use "at odds" and "akin to" in the same sentence but I am not sure if the sentence below is grammatically correct: > "I only heard in the past that this city was at odds with the other city's > eccentricity and more akin to this third city, in its interest in education > and culture"


Can you use "later on" to replace "next" and "then"?

Example: > At first, I though it was a star, but then I realized it was an UFO. Can I use "later" to replace "then" and keep the meaning more or less the same? > At first, I though it was a star, but later on I realized it was an UFO.


"You got it" vs. "I got it"

When I watch TV drams or movies, I sometimes come across the expressions “I got it” and “You got it” meaning “I will do as you ask”. I am wondering if there is any semantic or pragmatic differences between them. I think that “You got it” is often used when a man accepts the order from the boss. Is my guess correct?   1. > Hotchner: Take pictures as many as you can.   >  El: You got it.   >  — _Criminal Minds_ , S1E2 (00:14:36) >   2. > Mrs. Crawford: I would like a tiny bit of help, Mr. Crawford.   >  Mr. Crawford: You got it, Mrs. Crawford.   >  — _Criminal Minds_ , S1E7 (00:00:52) > >   3. > Cole: Get me out there!   >  Crewman: I got it.   >  — _Days of Thunder_ (01:37:56) > >   4. > SIMON: It has a proximity circuit, so, please, don't run.   >  McClane: Yeah, I got it.   >  — _Die Hard with a Vengeance_ (01:00:17) > >   5. > Beaver: Jonesy, don't try to lift that stuff.   >  Henry: I got it.   >  — _Dream Catcher_ (00:14:00) > >


Is there an English dictionary that distinguishes words as either abstract or concrete?

The words that express the tangible and visible things of our experience, such as _sand_ or _sea_ , are all nouns, as are those expressing intangibles such as _love_ or _idealism_. Also, some nouns, like _field_ or _grain_ , can be imagined both as tangible and intangible. People, generally, refer to these nouns with the terms _concrete_ (tangible) and _abstract_ (intangible). That being said, my question is, is there an English dictionary that--as well as identifying a word as a noun--additionally identifies the noun as either “abstract” or “concrete”? Are there any other resources that do this?


"The machine" when referring to vending machine as source of candy

In an episode of Seinfeld, when asked where he got the Junior Mints he's eating, Kramer answers "from the machine". Would it be correct to say that in this case, "the machine" refers to all types of vending machines in general, and not to the specific vending machine that he happened to dispense it from? Thanks.


Should the phrase "Man up" be considered offensive?

Liverpool Football Club have recently released a list of banned phrases, that they want the fans to avoid using. (Read the story) One of these phrases is " **Man up**". Why is this phrase considered offensive, and who is likely to take offense?


What's the difference between "has had," and "had had?"

I was writing an essay for my school project, and I stumbled upon this type of grammatical situation and thought if anyone knew the answer to it? I've searched all over the internet but nothing satisfied my needs. Any help? Thanks!


One term for completed/cancelled and another for its counterpart

I have a task to design a filter panel for an application to filter out and list workflows. The main two categories for workflows are the ones that are running and those that are not running. Now, I have some problems finding the suitable term for the ones that are not running since that category includes workflows that are completed, cancelled, expired etc. I started out simply using the categories   * Completed   * Incomplete But if you're looking for a workflow that you previously cancelled it wouldn't feel correct to search for a workflow in the "Completed" category. I would like to have the categories described with one word, like _Completed_ and _Incomplete_. So suggestions like _Running_ and _Not running_ I'm trying to avoid. Does anyone have a nice suggestion on what I could call these categories?


Is there a hypernym for "horizontal" and "vertical"?

If I want to speak of _North, South, East, West_ in a general sense I could, for example, use the term _cardinal direction_. Which term is appropriate to sum up _horizontal_ and _vertical_ in the same manner?


-est vs. -st verb endings in Early Modern English

I've been Googling for a little while tonight, but I can't seem to find any rules on this. Irregular ("strong") verbs seem to be pretty set in their endings: goest, dost. But when I get to something like "bring", it seems almost like "bringst" and "bringest" are equally valid, and I can't find any examples to lead me to one sort of rule or another. If anyone could shed some light on this, I'd appreciate it.


Determining pronoun antecedents

What is the antecedent of the relative pronoun _who_ in the following sentence? > Hector Berlioz is one of those French composers who is famous for his > operatic music. Is it _one_ or is it _composers_? I vote for _one_ which is in the nominative case; _composers_ is in the objective case as the object of the preposition _of_. Does the nominative case take precedence over the objective case in this instance?


Etiquette of using the wrong sign-off in a formal letter?

I just sent a formal business correspondence to a company via email. The letter starts with "To Whom It May Concern", but I rather clumsily used the wrong sign-off (Yours sincerely). How much of a breach in etiquette is this? Will it make my whole letter seem unprofessional? The company in question is based in the UK. I would really appreciate some help!:)


Origin of the phrase, "Up close and personal"?

What is the origin of the phrase, "up close and personal"?


What’s the difference between “line” and “row”?

I’m not exactly sure under which circumstances is _line_ or _row_ the more suitable term. In Portuguese, they both translate to the same word _linha_ , which can be used for both a drawing line or for an item in a table.


Why does “klick” mean kilometer in US military slang?

Wiktionary says it is either likely a pseudo-condensed pronunciation of kilometer or onomatopoeic of the sound of a military odometer. > Though kilometers are not commonly used to measure distance in the USA, > “klick” is commonly used by the US military, which uses the metric system > almost exclusively in order to facilitate communication with allied forces. Here’s an example of the word being used in the film _Apocalypse Now_ : > We’re going up river about 75 klicks above the Do Lung bridge.


Can we use "RSVP" interchangeably with "RRSP"?

I received an email with the "RRSP" abbreviation. > "RRSP by 1 Nov 2011 to Willy Milly." Upon checking with Thesaurus.com, it is a synonym of "RSVP". Can one use "RRSP" and "RSVP" interchangeably?


What does the single letter 'P' in email mean?

I notice that many of my emails have this single letter 'P' beside a sentence and that sentence is usually about protecting nature. Example:               P Print Only When Necessary      What does the P mean? Is it just a typo error? **Update** The P is not "Please", it is a icon The icon can be find under the letter P in the following link: http://speakingpowerpoint.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/symbol-fonts-full- page2.jpg


Object or Complement

The professor wants to retire. Here 'to retire' is used as object or complement?   Also, in "The man gave Amy some good advice" Is 'some good advice' an object or complement?


Usage of verb "hang"

I'm reading a grammar book. The book has a section to determine the right subject and verb. In an example they use > From the ceiling hung the chandelier. Well, the verb is _hung_ , and the subject is _chandelier_. But I'm a little bit confused about the usage of the verb _hung_ in this sentence. Shouldn't it be > The chandelier is hung from the ceiling. From my Oxford dictionary, _hang_ means _to suspend or be suspended from above with the lower part not attached_. Obviously, the chandelier can't suspend itself. So there is a need to use the passive voice and omit the subject. In this case, the subject is not the chandelier, but the person who suspended. Or may be I'm missing something?


Smug know-it-all, but not quite

So there's this guy I know. And sometimes he acts in a particular way that I hope there is a word for (or at least a phrase). Let me describe: Situation: Dog bares teeth at his girlfriend, which is obviously a problem, but this dog would never bite, it's just his way of saying fuck off at the moment. (every attempt is being made to lessen this behavior) His response is: Discipline the dog, which is fine. But then, 24 hours after the fact (when the dog has completely forgotten the event) and without seeing the dog since the event, continues to say things like "Bad Dog" and make the dog feel shameful, even though it has no idea why. This is obviously not good training (any trainer would agree). When asked what the dog did he says: "I'm still mad from last night. The dog needs to be disciplined." And even with a discussion about the dog not possibly remembering the offense, he persists in a smug know-it-all kind of way. As if "I have all the answers, even though I have no experience in this, and the way it's being done is complete bulls***. So what I'm going to do is, without any consistency or discussion (and even though it's not my dog), implement this action as I see fit" So that's just one scenario, but there are several others. I'm less worried about the behavior of my friend (he knows about it and apologizes when he gets like that), but would like a concise way to describe it when it occurs. I feel like it kinda falls somewhere around "smug know-it-all", but that isn't quite it. The smug part is correct, but the know-it-all is rather more like an idea formulatted once by the party of concern then believed as gospel afterwards (they'll defend it to the death, though a second before it wasn't even a thought)


Is there a passive for the sentence "Be quiet."?

How to say "Be quiet.", which is a command, in passive voice?


A word for someone trying to make people underestimate him

If someone is trying to make people underestimate him for some purpose, what would be a word for this kind of person or action?


"Sofa bed", "hideaway couch", "hide-a-bed", "couch bed", "sleeper sofa", "day bed", and "studio couch" in AE

Which of these terms is (or are) more typical of AE to designate a convertible consisting of an upholstered couch that can be converted into a double bed?


Is a badly-written book a book [which has been] badly written?

This question is prompted by the earlier question Should I use a hyphen after -ly when modifying a verb in the past participle verb? Please don't close this as a dup unless there's a later answer there that answers my _specific_ question (or another relevant question that I haven't been able to find). My hypothesis is that adjectival " **-ly adverb + past participle** " combinations are more likely to include a hyphen when they occur _before_ the relevant noun. But my Google-fu is inadequate to the task of establishing whether this is true or not, and my knowledge of formal grammar certainly isn't good enough to know of any "rules" that might be involved here. Note the [optional] element in the example usage forming the question title. I don't see why... > _Coffee boiled is coffee spoiled._ ...should be grammatically any different to... > _Coffee boiled is coffee which is spoiled._ ...but I'm prepared to be disabused on that point. * * * Is the hyphen in my question title any more justified in the first **_badly written_** than the second? * * * EDIT: In case I haven't made myself clear, I'm _not_ asking for answers telling me that the hyphen is _never_ justified. Unless they're accompanied by evidence (not opinion) showing that in fact my hypothesis is untrue anyway, so it's meaningless to ask _why_ the phenomenon occurs.


Is "unsane" a word understood by a casual English speaker?

I have heard it used by some people e.g. Jacque Fresco. For example here: http://youtu.be/COei3ga-HH8?t=6m14s I know that people understand the meaning of the word "insane", but what about an average Joe and his understanding of the word "unsane"?


The grammar restriction of dash and parentheses

This is a follow-up to my previous question. The answerer mentioned that when parentheses are used for inserting contents in a sentence, the grammar flexibility is assumed to be higher. If that is true, what sort of flexibility is applied to other punctuation, especially em-dashes? Are parentheses and em-dash considered to be "universal" for this matter? Another question: is it recommended to assume such flexibility in formal wiring?


Which usage of the word "Gravity" came first?

The link between the two definitions for the word _gravity_ (a generally downward acting force, and a sense of danger/seriousness) seems obvious. However, I'm curious as to which usage came first. Was the word _gravity_ first coined to describe Newtonian forces and later used in a figurative sense; or perhaps physicists named the force using a metaphor based on the emotional weight connoted by the term? Anyone know?


Name for words that are counterparts to each other in some context but not antonyms?

What is the name for words that are contrasting counterparts or near opposites to each other in some context, but are not generally strict antonyms? Some examples with word1 word2 (example context):   * boys girls (sex or gender roles)   * man machine (discussion of technological division of labor)   * data control (standard digital hardware architecture)   * plants animals (high-school level cellular biology)   * shoes socks (standard layers of footwear)   * weapons armor (two distinct types of equipment in a game)


What is the difference between transplant and transplantation when they are used as noun

transplant is used as verb in a normal sentence. In particulary, transplant is used as noun in some sentence. Is there any reason why we should use 'transplant' as noun form although we have already noun form, 'transplantation'? What is the difference between transplant and transplantation when we use them a noun?


Verb for "recreation"

Is there a verb that specifically means _enjoy some recreation_? I heard today (TV reference) a boss tell an employ to take a vacation, to "relax and recreate" (pronounced as the beginning of recreation). I've never heard this used before, and never really considered it a word. A couple online searches have yielded what I expected - recreate only as meaning "to create again", or "to re-enact". If this is not actually a word in this sense, is there a single verb meaning to _enjoy/experience recreation_?


Which phrase shall I choose, "take part in the project of or process of"?

Although it was compelled to enter the modern world by the Western countries, now China is taking part in the project of modernization more actively and has completed many great achievements in the domain of economy. In this sentence will it be better to say "take part in the process of modernization"? or should I say simply say "take part in modernization"?


what does "Needy-Greedy" mean?

Hi I was watching a online video and the lecturer mentioned "here comes the needy-greedy detail of this lecture" after the introduction. And I am not quite sure what does the needy-greedy mean here? lots of information which cater the audience's appetites?


Merry Easter to all of you!

It may sound strange, but why is _Merry_ not used with Easter? Is there a reason why its usage has been so firmly fixed with Christmas?


Noun for "identifying with someone"

What is a noun for _identifying with someone_? In Hebrew there is quite a good word for it. I'm not looking for _sympathy_ or _empathy_ , but a proposed definition of _sympathy_ does reflect my intent although the use of the word seems misleading: > Agree with a sentiment or opinion or > Sharing the thoughts of someone (not with someone)


Capitalization of the word "municipality"

When I am referring specifically to the Municipality of Durham, for example, and I write the following sentence: > The Municipality has approved Article 5.3 of the meeting agenda. Is the word "municipality" capitalized? Because I am referring to the Municipal Council. I am asking this question because I am under the impression that when we refer a governing body, as opposed to a region, the word should be capitalized.


a word like "visual", "auditory", except for touch

for smell it would be "olfactory". What is it for touch?


Is "many a times" correct?

I've been doing proofreading on a beta site and there appears to be a typo. Is there any usage of "many a times" that is correct, or is it always wrong to apply a singular "a" to a plural noun?


Difficulty v. difficulties

Which form of "difficulty" should I opt for in the following sentence: > They have immense difficulties easily accessing the texts. or > They have immense difficulty easily accessing the texts. I am inclined to say "difficulty," but I am editing someone else's work and they had originally put "difficulties." Am I wrong, or is he?


Meaning of "give someone intuition"

I learn English as a foreign language, and I recently found in online training videos phrases like > Let me **give you some quick intuition** ... In my native languages (Ukrainian and Russian) you can use intuition, you can trust it, but you cannot _give_ it to someone. Can anyone please give me some information about this specific use of the word?


Creating nouns from verbs

Is there a general rule for creating a noun based on an action? In the example below, there are two actions.               "Press button when you've resolved or gave up."      I'd like to express it using nouns like so:               "Press button upon resolution or XXX."      Is it as simple as " _giving up_ " or is there a better way (in this particular case of " _giving up_ ")? Can that suggestion (if any) be made general?


'a bit of' vs. 'a lot of'

I am confused about these two sentences: >   1. That's a **bit** of a difficult answer to give in a few words. > >   2. That's a **lot** of a difficult answer to give in a few words. > > Which sentence is the correct one?


What is the etymology of "the"?

I was just having this conversation with a friend. Where does the word "the" come from?


Was Christian a proper name before Pilgrim's Progress?

I was going to ask this on Christianity.SE but it's not really a Christian Doctrine question; hope it fits here. I was reading John Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_ where almost everyone is named for a virtue or a vice except the protagonists (Christian and Christiana). Were those names common at the time of Bunyan or was he the first to use them as a proper name?


Can I call me Anti-Anti-SpamBot or how?

Will it be comprehensible to take a nickname calling me Anti-Anti-SpamBot to convey the idea that communication on internet (like commenting in blogs, registration and posting in forums, etc.) became practically impossible without tools facilitating posting, like spam bots?


Which is the correct idiom: "Force of habit" or "course of habit"?

Which is correct, "course of habit" or "force of habit"? (This question is inspired by this post on the woot forums.)


What's the difference between an adjective and a past participle?

I'm really confused about the object > the doctor specialized will help you or > the documents required How can I tell in the future, if I have to use the past participle or the adjective? And what's the name of this structure?


use of caps for zip code

I would like to know which of "ZIP Code" or "ZIP code" is correct. One of our contributors has alerted me to the fact that the term is a registered name owned by the Postal Service, but, to my mind, it has become a generic term over time. What is the majority view?


Is a movie played in a theater or at a theater?

Do we say a movie is being played _in_ a theater or _at_ a theater?


"He walks as if he is drunk." Grammatically correct ? Any difference in meaning from "...as if he were drunk."?

Is it grammatically correct to use an indicative verb after "as if", or "as though" for that matter? > I've heard someone say: "He walks as if he is drunk." Would there have been > any difference if he had said "He walks as if he were drunk."? A second example might be: >   * It looks as if it is going to rain. >   * It looks as if it were going to rain. >


What does "evaluate" mean when used in Mathematical problems?

When solving Mathematical problems, I usually come across with titles like: > Evaluate the expression below.   >  Evaluate this: ∜[(log2(48 / 3) + 1)2 \- 9]   >  Evaluate the following integral. When I look up at dictionary, it says: > _to evaluate_ :   >  1\. to determine or set the value or amount of; appraise: to evaluate > property.   >  2\. to judge or determine the significance, worth, or quality of; assess: > to evaluate the results of an experiment. I looks like to be a sophisticated word from commercial terminology. Why don't they use a simpler an more common verb instead of it? Like these ones: > ~~Evaluate~~ Find the value of the expression below.   >  ~~Evaluate~~ Simplify this: ∜[(log2(48 / 3) + 1)2 \- 9]   >  ~~Evaluate~~ Solve the following integral. Is there a reason for preferring this verb over its alternatives?


Pronunciation of "-" sign, particularly in Unix commands

While talking about commands for command-line interface, I sometimes need to pronounce how command should be typed, like this one:               nc -l -p 1234      I used to pronounce `-` sign in this context as a "hyphen", or "dash", or probably "minus". But recently I got the video in which woman pronounces it like "tak" (starting from `3:00`). I tried to explore the dictionary for words like "tack", "tuck", etc, but still can't find anything what would mean the `-` sign. So, what is this word? And, what variants of pronunciation would be actually correct in this context?


Can you have more than one 'best' of something?

For example, can you say 'I have more than one best friend' and is that grammatically correct given that these friends are equally good?


The usage of ... number(s) of

Here we wish to make sure the usage of ... number(s) of ..., which one below is correct? * * * An even number of people An even number of cards Even numbers of people Even numbers of cards * * * An odd number of people An odd number of cards Odd numbers of people Odd numbers of cards * * * Six numbers of people Six numbers of cards Six number of people Six number of cards A six number of people A six number of cards


"A reality" vs "reality"

Which one is correct? _help [something] become **a** reality_ or _help [something] become reality_ What would be the reason to use / not to use the article?


When can a metaphor become a double entendre

I've been engaged in debate for some days now, about a discussion in a panel of a Captain America comic book. In the comic book, Bucky, his sidekick, says that "you have been running a mile a minute since you got the super soldier serum". Given that Captain America can (occasionally) run that fast, some people are of the opinion it is a double entendre. I am of the opinion that it is purely a metaphor, given that the context doesn't show him running and seems to be purely referring to how hard he has been pushing himself, regardless of what speed he can run at. Here is a link to the scan. Is there a way to tell if "running a mile a minute" in the example above is a metaphor, or a double entendre? If it is a double entendre, what makes it so as opposed to being just a metaphor?


Comma after or before "parenthetic" and?

> After showing me the house, Nana led us to the living room, _and with > Mongai's Take Me Somewhere Nice playing ~~on~~ in the background_, we > started on the Scotch we'd bought at the 7-Eleven. The dim light and the > soft Is the comma correctly positioned before the italics in the example above? Or I should place the comma after _and_?


Space before computer storage abbreviations

Forgive me if this has already been asked, I could not find it via search. My question is this: what is the proper way to append computer storage abbreviations to a number? For example, a 500 gigabyte hard disk drive will usually be spelled as "500GB" on web sites, with no space, but occasionally I see "500 GB", with a space between the number and the unit. Putting a space between the number and the abbreviation makes more sense to me, but since even Apple does not put a space between them, I am not sure. Which is the proper way?


Is there some guideline that I can point to about the overuse of bold and underline?

I am getting really tired of getting emails and PowerPoint presentations in which half of the words bold and underlined. There is also excessive use of exclamation points, all caps, and overly strong wording. I would like to send them a link to someplace authoritative that states that their writing style is tacky. Is there anything like that out there? I would even settle for a blog post somewhere so long as it argues the point well.


Question as a Retort?

I'm a huge Pulp Fiction fan, and the following is one of my favorite scenes, but it also irks me. (source: IMDB) > Jules: [Jules shoots the man on the couch] I'm sorry, did I break your > concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue, you were saying > something about best intentions. What's the matter? Oh, you were finished! > Well, allow me to retort. What does Marsellus Wallace look like? Can a question be a retort to something? I see retort defined as (dictionary.reference.com): >   1. to reply to, usually in a sharp or retaliatory way; reply in kind to. >   2. to return (an accusation, epithet, etc.) upon the person uttering it. >   3. to answer (an argument or the like) by another to the contrary. > All the above suggest some sort of a reply. But can a retort be a question, or even a counter-question ?


What is a communication breakdown caused by two cultures/societies trying to adapt one another's mores called?

For example, in Japan I often encounter this paradox when it comes to addressing friends. In Japan, it's generally rude to call someone by their first name unless you're really close friends. You'd generally refer to them by their last name followed by -san. Most of the young people that I meet in Japan have a good knowledge of American culture, and understand that for us calling someone Mr. (last name) means that you're not friends at all, and are interacting on a very formal level. So many people whom I've met have said "we're friends, please call me (Tetsuya, Katsuhiro, Yoshida, etc.)", even though we haven't known each other nearly long enough to be on a first name basis (by Japanese standards). On a similar note, I often want to talk Japanese to my Japanese friends (because I know that they speak Japanese and I want to practice/impress them), but they often want to speak English to me (because they want to practice/impress me). Is there a word or a term for this phenomenon? edit: To clarify, I'm specifically looking for a term that summarizes the communication breakdown caused by two cultures trying to, out of politeness or respect, accomodate each other's cultures?


"Bust a cap" meaning and derivation

I've always believed that the phrase "bust a cap in yo ass" was AAVE for: > To shoot an individual with a gun. Whilst trying to figure out what the _cap_ actually meant, I ran into this alternate definition/footnote: > This is not a new phrase as much of the Rap culture would like us to > believe. Instead it is an old phrase to shoot someone. Reference to cap is a > word for powder cap used in percussion guns popular in the old west. This > phrase is used in the 1969 movie titled "True Grit" with John Wayne, Glen > Campbell, Dennis Hopper and Robert Duvall. > > Line by Ned Pepper (played by Robert Duvall) " _I never busted a cap (bust a > cap) on a woman or nobody under sixteen. But I'll do it_." Ned Pepper's line can be confirmed via Wikiquote. Additionally percussion **caps** appear to have primarily been in use during the 1800s and were phased out in favour of primers. The events in True Grit are set in the 1870s. I'd like to know where this expression came from and how it made its transition into AAVE. Did _pop a cap ..._ also make the same journey? Is the phrase still in use today by other Americans?


"Without selection" vs. "without a selection"

>   1. W is the complex-valued transformation of the original signals x and y > without selection of the window length with respect to time t. >   2. W is the complex-valued transformation of the original signals x and y > without **a** selection of the window length with respect to time t. > Which is correct?


How do I pronounce "can't" with a British accent without it rhyming with "punt" or "paint"?

How do I pronounce " _can't_ " with a British accent without it rhyming with " _punt_ " or " _paint_ "?


What is the difference between a chest and a trunk?

Is a "trunk" more likely to have a "flat top" and a "chest" more likely to have a "rounded top"?


Correct verbs in sentence

Assume that I am advertising that a payment will be asked only if we actually execute a given job right, and I say: > "if we don't do it right, we have been working for free" > > "if we won't do it right, we have been working for free" > > "if we don't do it right, we would have been working for free" Can you tell me what is the most effective and correct way to express (advertise) the idea (especially the correct choice of verbs), and are the above sentences wrong ?


"Bob's your uncle" ... no he's not!

What is the origin of the phrase "Bob's your uncle"? Is it used internationally or is this just a term used in the UK? I have often heard an extension of this phrase: "Bob's your uncle and Fanny's your aunt", can anyone shed any light on this variant? An example of how it is used: "Put it in the oven for 20 minutes and Bob's your uncle, your dinner will be done".


Using the expression "the same" for a previously mentioned item

I frequently use "the same" as in the following sentence. > I need the details of XYZ project. Could you please send me the same as soon > as possible? Is this grammatically correct? I have not been corrected till now, but I have not seen the usage from native speakers very much either. Update: Seems like my example sentence was ambiguous. Hope the following sentence is better. > I need the documents for the meeting. Could you please send me the same as > soon as possible?


What's the difference between "recall" and "remember"?

As an example, in a legal setting: > Do you _recall_ what color the car was?   >  Do you _remember_ what color the car was? Which would be more appropriate?


Word for "someone who talks too much"

What is another word for a person who likes to talk too much. I was thinking _bigmouth_ , but _bigmouth_ could mean "somebody who likes carrying messages voluntarily".


What's a word meaning "related to pressure"?

Is there an analog to "electrically isolated" but related to pressure (or more specifically, air pressure) instead of electricity? Perhaps "pneumatically isolated"? I don't think "hermetically isolated" has the proper meaning. I also considered "manometrically isolated", but I think that seems to refer too much to manometry. I just want to express that two different rooms are not isolated from each other in terms of air pressure. Perhaps "piezo-isolated"? I can't find any precedence for this specific phrase, but it seems to express the correct meaning.


"Brought Forward" and "Pushed back"

During a conversation with a colleague about the time I had received an automated email, I noted that it had arrived 20 minutes late. I then checked the email schedule software and said: > The scheduled time has moved forward 20 minutes for some reason. To which he replied: > You mean moved back The discussion carried on with me arguing that the time had indeed "moved" forward. Time moves forward after all, and it was supposed to go out at 16:00 and went out at 16:20 instead. The time moved forward. Now I completely understand his argument, and I realise that the standard way people generally talk about time in relation to meetings etc... is to say "It's been pushed back" or "It's been brought forward". But he wouldn't concede that my choice of words was a completely valid way to express what had happened. This left me wondering if I was actually correct, and also why exactly we say "Brought Forward" and "Pushed back"?


What is the meaning of the business jargon "big hitter"?

I want the meaning of the business jargon that says "big hitter".


In my example, do I need parentheses?

(ϕ_1 ) ̂ is the first stage (the estimated effect of the MLDA on alcohol consumption). (ρ_1 ) ̂ is the reduced form (the estimated effect of the MLDA on either overall deaths, motor vehicle fatalities, or drinking fatalities). Or, can I just put a comma instead like in the following: (ϕ_1 ) ̂ is the first stage, the estimated effect of the MLDA on alcohol consumption. (ρ_1 ) ̂ is the reduced form, the estimated effect of the MLDA on either overall deaths, motor vehicle fatalities, or drinking fatalities.


What is another word for share in the context of a blog?

What is another word for **share** in the context of sharing a blog article on twitter, facebook, etc..?


Meaning of "When you're a guy, and a dad,.. and all the jokes about being a Kept Man are worn away, the word is 'vasectomising'"

> Though sure, there's no denying that the money stuff hasn't helped the > marital stuff. "When you're a guy, and a dad," I told Freddy's scarecrow, > "and you have to ask your wife to put £5,000 of her bonus into the joint > account so that the garage won't refuse your card, **and all the jokes about > being a Kept Man are worn away, the word is 'vasectomising'**..." > > Garden time swallowed me up, because the next thing I knew, Lorna was > calling me from the patio. > > -- David Mitchell, _The Massive Rat_ In the above text, what does the bolded part mean? I do know the meaning of both _vasectomising_ and _kept man_ , but I don't understand how the two sentences linked here. I don't know why the author suddenly says, "the word is 'vasectomising'".


Why do we use "awfully" as an intensifier?

First, consider this sentence: > We lost the game because we played awfully. Since "awful" means "very bad," it makes sense that "awfully" means "very badly." Now, consider these two sentences: > 1) Google is an awfully good search engine. > > 2) Bing is an awfully bad search engine. In the second example, regardless of the adjective's connotation, "awfully" just acts as an intensifier - it simply means "very." _Why do we use "awfully" this way? How did this form of the adverb come about?_ I'd be awfully grateful if someone could enlighten me.


Nuances/shades-of-meaning online?

Is there an online reference resource devoted to commentary on the finer points of usage, connotation, and word choice in English? (E.g. what nuances/shades-of-meaning/usage considerations would inform the choice between "firmament", "(the) heavens" and "(the) heaven"? or between "spry" and "lively"? etc. etc. I'm thinking of something in the spirit of the usage notes sprinkled—sparingly, unfortunately—throughout the M-W's Collegiate, but more extensive and up-to-date.)


What is the correct positioning of "Please" in a sentence or indeed is there one?

>   * **Please** can you help me with this question? >   * Can you **please** help me with this question? >   * Can you help me with this question **please**? > Is there a correct place for _please_ in this question or is it just a matter of choice?


Are commands complete sentences?

This question seems to indirectly ask the question, but the upvoted answer says "the actual sentence is...". So my question is this: Are commands considered to be grammatically sound, complete sentences in the English language? Some examples: > Go. > > Add a note. > > Do work.


When and how did "pretty" enter English as an intensifying adverb?

Today I saw an idiomatic road sign: "Pretty Muddy". I found this lack of strict English on a road sign unusual (on par with my "Dead Slow" official speed limit sign in Leeds, pic below), but as it turned out it's a charity race and the signs were merely directions. This got me thinking however, how do words like "pretty" and "dead" as intensifying adverbs end up in English? Taking "pretty" as an example, when did this first appear? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/M7Ndk.jpg) _I wonder how fast you have to be going before they stop you. How would this hold up in court?_


What is "I'm gonna serve it to you" trying to convey?

Though there is no dispute that songs may have nonsense lyrics, the song "Seven Nation Army" by the White Stripes actually have very coherent lyrics. However, one line stands out as some type of idiom that I cannot decipher: > And if I catch it coming back my way I'm gonna serve it to you. I infer that this is some type of threat, both by the "I'm gonna ..." and also by the context of the rest of the lyrics. But what is "it", and what does "serve" mean? Perhaps "serve" is to "return the (it) back to you"? Surely Jack White didn't just throw in a single nonsense sentence to an otherwise very coherent and well-focused work.


What do you call an "atheist" who might believe in an afterlife?

Is there a term for someone who proclaims they don't believe in an afterlife but they are not sure whether the supernatural exists? I don't mean _agnostic_. Atheists don't believe in a deity, but an atheist could believe in an afterlife.


Is it compensation

For example, someone’s house is in a plan to make new highway. Then he/she will have to move another land when construction starts. In this case he/she take money from the government to buy a new house and move. What do you say this monetary help?. Is it compensation? Or is there another word especially for use as regale term?


Meaning of goat-footed nature gods play in the fields and woods

There,shepherds play their pipes and sigh with longing for flirtatious nymphs and goat-footed nature gods play in the fields and woods. How can I understand this sentence? And does "play pipes" mean play some music instruments?


Do things use apostrophe for indicating possessive?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is using the possessive 's correct in "the car's antenna"? If someone owns something I would say: _Mom's car_. But if the owner is not a person, does it actually own it according to English rules or common usage? Which phrase is right? >   * The house windows. >   * The house's windows. >   * The windows of the house. _(Or something like that.)_ > (Feel free to modify this question so it would be clear for other people.)


"The dog's tail" vs. "the tail of the dog"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is using the possessive 's correct in “the car’s antenna”? When talking about animal body parts, which of the following is the right one (or could both be possible with some difference in meaning)? >   * The dog's tail. >   * The tail of the dog. >


Can we say "the problem's"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is using the possessive 's correct in “the car’s antenna”? Can we add apostrophe S, **'s** , to a word for an inanimate object as in the phrase > the problem's underlying assumptions to denote possession? Would it be natural and grammatically correct?


Possessive form of inanimate subject

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is using the possessive 's correct in "the car's antenna"? Is it "role of the FRG" or "the FRG's role"? I know that although the FRG is not a person, people do say, for instance, "America's role in ..." Please help.


Meaning of "To be"

What is the meaning of "to be hiered" ? Whether it means the person is hiered or he is yet to be hiered?


When using multiple verbs that typically use different prepositions, which do I choose?

This is the sentence I wrote: > It is as simple as adding or removing an item to/from the list. Now I'm wondering if I should use "to" or "from" or "to/from" in:   1. Written English,   2. Spoken English.


Preposition use: multiple prepositions to the same noun

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How to combine in a sentence two verb + preposition pairs that have the > same object? Which of the following sentences is correct? >   * I listen, go, read and learn from experts. >   * I listen to, go with, read and learn from experts > I talk here about prepositions ( _to_ , _with_ , _from_ ) related to the word _experts_. What is the best use?


Is "expect lie from you" grammatically correct?

> I don't expect a lie from you Is this sentence grammatically correct? If not, how could it be corrected?


All of us, including "me" or "I"

Which is better in this case, "me" or "I"? > All of us, including me, have made mistakes. > > All of us, including I, have made mistakes. It seems that "I have made mistakes" makes more sense than "me have made mistakes." But on other hand, "including me" makes more sense than "including I." While typing this out I thought of a better way to phrase it so that it doesn't sound odd, but I would still like to know which is correct: > All of us have made mistakes, including me.


What is the meaning of "a trouvaille, mon cher"?

I was reading _A Model Millionaire_ by Oscar Wilde and came across this line. Can someone explain it to me? > "An amazing model?' shouted Jain at the top of his voice; 'I should think > so! Such beggars as he are not to be met with every day. A trouvaille, mon > cher; a living Velasquez! My stars! what an etching Rembrandt would have > made of him!'


How did Americans greet each other before "Hi"?

I had assumed that "hi" was a somehow abbreviated form of "hello," but though both of these words appear to have originated from a noise to attract attention, _hi_ actually predates _hello_. These words both appeared in the mid- to late 1800s, and seem to be primarily American usage. Does anyone know what Americans used for greetings prior to this time period? _Update on 9/10/11_ : Although I have come to feel that "how do ye" and its variant "howdy" are most likely the common greetings in the early days of America, part of the difficulty in assessing this is the lack of recorded everyday speech. I was also unaware that "howdy" was used anywhere other than the US South prior to the 1800s, but the OED begs to differ (if someone has the citation for this, please feel free to link it). There was considerable discussion in chat about the problem of researching common conversational speech, and during the course of that discussion, I realized that probably the best place to look would be plays, since they involve dialogue that might represent a "natural" conversation. After a lot of searching through early American plays, I came across "holla" used as a greeting in the early American drama _The Contrast_ by Royall Tyler. It was written and performed c. 1759, and its setting is contemporaneous New York City, therefore this greeting is probably an example of natural speech. Interestingly, I did not find any instances of any other greetings. However, finding plays that were actually set in America in the 1700s and were also written around that period proved difficult.


I need a word in the sense of “to category”

I need a word that fits this case:   I have a book; and any User may apply some tags to it, like 'dark' or 'happy' [..]   Anyway, how would I call this action, using a _short term_?


"Literally" and "Decimate" misuse

Recently I've heard American TV commentators say "[a person] was literally decimated" and "[a Senator] was literally thrown under the bus". In the first case I think the person was not actually 10% killed, but in the second, I believe they meant that 57 members of the US Senate carried #58 onto Constitution Avenue and threw him under a (hopefully moving) bus. Are usages like these normal or acceptable now? I find them grating, myself.


Use of the word "literally" in the definition of literally

Recently, the word _literally_ has come to be used for emphasis, rather than to express that something definitely happened. If you look up the definition of _literally_ on Google, the second definition is: > used for emphasis while not being literally true. It feels wrong to me that the word _literally_ is in the definition. It seems like this could be interpreted as circular logic since we don't know which definition of _literally_ the definition refers—it could refer to itself. I am not aware of any such convention where if you use the word you are attempting to define in the second definition, then you use the first definition. It seems to me that it would be perfectly valid to leave out the word _literally_ from the second definition altogether, and everything would be fine, i.e.: > used for emphasis while not being necessarily true. Is it wrong that the word _literally_ has been used in its own definition?


What is the part of speech of a word that refers to the word itself

If I say: > Some words that I like are: "desk", "lovely", and "enticingly". What parts of speech are the quoted words? Used in a typical sentence they'd be: noun, adjective, and adverb respectively. But it doesn't seem right that this distinction should also be made in the sentence above. (This wikipedia page is as far as I got in my research: Use–mention distinction


Why is there a difference in the adoption of "Kindergarten" in American and British English?

As someone living in the US, I've heard the term "Kindergarten" used quite frequently. However someone from the UK was mentioning to me that the term is really not used that much in British English. Looking at the Wikipedia article on Kindergarten it states: > In British English, nursery or playgroup is the usual term for preschool > education, and kindergarten is rarely used, except in the context of special > approaches to education, such as Steiner-Waldorf education (the educational > philosophy of which was founded by Rudolf Steiner). I'd like to know why this variation in adoption exists.


What is the difference between "compound" and "complex" sentences?

And what is the difference between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions? Is one kind of sentence (compound or complex) characterized by either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction, while the other kind is characterized by the other?


Is it correct to write "a 5-mm-thick layer"?

Do I need hyphens? Should I use the indefinite article or zero article?


Is there a term to denote writing numbers in words rather than as digits?

Often when writing we would like numbers to be written out fully e.g. thirty rather than in digits e.g. 30. Is there a name for this kind of representation?


Where does the word "masochism" come from, and how did it work its way into popular usage?

We all know that The Marquis de Sade popularized the term 'sadist' via "120 days of Sodom" and "Justine" - as well as being exemplified by his own devilish lifestyle. How/why was the word 'masochism' popularized?


The Use of the Modal Verb "Would" in a Certain Passage

Please consider the following passage from my English textbook: > ... _The commander of the troops called on his men to gather together on > deck in proper drill order...Meanwhile, the lifeboats had been lowered. When > all the women and children had filled the boats, there **would be** room for > only a very few others._ This is a passage from the reading-text _Birkenhead Drill_. The lifeboats could only carry one hundred and eighty passengers in total, and there were one hundred, and seventy women and children. Hence, there was room for ten more passengers only. I'm confused as to the sense in which _would_ has been used in the passage, I have written that in bold. I consulted my Little Oxford English Dictionary to see the use of _would_ , and it describes it thus: > **would** (modal verb) - _expressing an opinion or assumption_. Can we use 'might have been' in place of 'would be'? I have read that structures such as might/may/could + perfect infinitive are used to express something that we are not sure about in relation to the past. I have also read that we use modals would, could for a hypothesis about the future. However, the assumption "..there **would be** room for only a very few others." is related to the past. So why has 'would' been used here?


Certain graduates of a class are donating money to place an ad in a booklet celebrating s school’s centennial. Their names will be placed in the ad. The intent of the ad (and sale of the booklet) is to raise money for the school. We have a choice between a one page ad and a two page “centerfold” ad. Some members of this group (and I) believe that the two page ad is somewhat ostentatious and belies the intent of the donation. My problem is to communicate to the rest of the group using diplomatic language that the two page ad tends to be ostentatious. Is there a better word or phrase for “somewhat ostentatious”? Dictionary.com gives several synonyms – none of which seem to fit a convincing yet diplomatic statement.


Does the word "simpleness" actually exist?

I always thought the word "simpleness" didn't exist and this was even confirmed by some American friends of mine. However, I tried to look it up on some online dictionaries and I was surprised to find out that some of them report this word while others don't. What's the story behind "simpleness"?


Macho for women

Is there a negative term to define women who are "overly" feminine, in the same way that "macho" is often applied negatively to certain male behavior?


Is there a word for a unique manufactured item?

Is there a synonym for "unique" that specifically applies to a custom-made or customized item - say, a car - of which only one copy exists? Something like "once-in-a-lifetime" but in the meaning of something like "only-one-in-the-world"?


Is there a word to call the second rainbow above the first?

As is known, a double rainbow is formed when there are two reflections inside a raindrop and a second rainbow, which tends to be fainter than the first, is distinguishable above the first. Since in 'Shakespeare's Non-Standard English: A Dictionary of His Informal Language' by Norman Blake I found that, as an instance, 'water-gall' means 'small rainbow which at sea precede a storm', I began to wonder whether there is also a word to call that second rainbow. Is there? Yes, I know that _second rainbow_ or _secondary rainbow_ or even _faint rainbow_ can be used, but I'm looking for an informal or slangy name. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/DMDrw.png)


in/on with dmy dates

When writing dates in prose in the dmy format (29 March 2014), is the correct preposition "in" or "on". I'm seeing it with "in" here, but that construction is foreign to me. > It was released **in 29 March 2010** on Steam for Microsoft Windows, and > **in 25 March 2010** on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. "On" would seem to make more sense, from what I know. Verdict?


"I didn't spend" vs "I didn't spent"

Which is the correct grammar? Which is correct?


Single word meaning 'filter out noise'/remove background sources

As noted in the title, I am looking for a single word, preferably short, that relates to filtering out noise/unwanted things/background noises.


Is there an antonym for “capitalize” (as in letter-case)

A word that starts with a lower-case (lowercase?) letter can be **_capitalized_** , but what is the converse action? Google has only one page in the top results that addresses this and the closest thing to a proposed answer is _decapitalize_ , which trips spell- checkers, so _de-capitalize_.


Is there a word that means the opposite of "to capitalize"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there an antonym for “capitalize” (as in letter-case) Is there a word, preferably _not_ from the realm of computer programming, that means the opposite of "to capitalize"? In programming, there are scores of (silly) ways to tell someone to undo capitalization: downcase that, shush that first letter, etc.


Rules of thumb on using the correct tense forms and auxiliary verbs

For example, when using "since", you should use "present perfect": > Mr Smith _ _ _ the company since 1990. > >   1. runs >   2. **has run** >   3. is running >   4. ran > Is there any reference on similar rules, guiding principles or hints? sometimes things get mixed up for me when choosing the correct form of verb tense (past/present continuous/perfect/simple...). Also any other rules on similar cases (other than verb tenses) are also welcome : ) I tried doing some research, but haven't found much, probably I am not using the right search terms. Any hints on this are also welcome, I will do my research homework. I have an English test tomorrow, English is not my mother tongue (you probably guessed). * * * Edit: _What I am asking for can be abbreviated to this specific question:_ **Is there any reference that contains rules on when and where should one use a specific tense/aux. verb over another?**


Is there an adverb for "simplified"?

This is what I'm trying to express > [Foo] can be _simplifiedly_ characterised as [bar]. However I am unable to find references for such as word as _simplifiedly_. What I want to say is that the following characterisation as [bar] is to be understood as being simplified for the sake of explaining [Foo] in the first place. How would you phrase it? I would prefer if the structure of the sentence would remain unchanged. But if there is no such word maybe this can be restructured without being too verbose. * * * Edit: It's not a question of rhythm or aesthetics, it's a question of meaning. I'm not trying to say that the characterisation I'm making is simple to derive, I'm trying to say that I'm making a characterisation that is simplifying the matter of [Foo], which is in fact a bit more general/complicated than its representation as [bar] might suggest. For me " _simply_ " has the taste of what I'm not trying to say (according to the above paragraph). Regarding the suggested " _more simply_ ", I have no gut feeling and will have to trust you as experts.


Is “Jack could get to work earlier” deontic or epistemic?

Please consider: > Jack could get to work earlier. Is this use of _could_ in the dynamic modality about Jack’s inherent ability, or is this the _could_ of epistemic modality about the speaker’s knowledge about whether it’s possible for Jack to get to work earlier?


What are the principles that make certain lists sound euphonious?

Has this ever happened to you: You write a question, include a list or two in the discussion, and then come back to edit that list because the order doesn't sound "right"? Off the top of my head, I can remember it happening to me twice here on English L&U: I changed _God, man, and nature_ to read _man, nature, and God_ when answering one question, and the tireless **kiamlaluno** edited a question of mine from _trunk...boot_ to _boot...trunk_. Why in fact do certain constructions of lists sound more pleasant to the ear than others? Why can't it be _child, man, and woman_ rather than _man, woman, and child_? All the principles I can think of, such as ordering by "natural" progression, ordering by length of word, and ordering to preserve internal rhyme, seem to have exceptions or be violated for some sayings. Does one principle have supremacy over the other? Are there any others I'm missing? And finally, how can we be sure what sounds pleasant isn't just historical inertia carried over from a first well-recognized coinage?


Name for a type of idiom with two things joined (like "raining cats and dogs", "bread and butter")

I had heard, a number of years ago, that there is a name for an type of idiomatic expression in which two things are joined to refer to one thing. An example of this would be “raining _cats and dogs_ ”. This does not mean that _cats_ is a metaphor for one type of rain, and _dogs_ another, but rather that the combined terms form a joint expression with a single referent. Likewise, “ _bread and butter_ ” could be used similarly, e.g., “they should waste their time trying to sell frozen steaks; jewelry is QVC’s _bread and butter_ ”. Is there a name for the specific type of idiomatic expression?


Using three examples with "range from"

When using _range from_ with two examples, it could be: > I should note that our current users range from juniors to graduates. But when using three examples: > I should note that our current users range from juniors, to seniors, to > graduates. It doesn't sound correct? What are the rules?


She had more experience than I, she having [...] or her having [...]

Is it > He had more experience than I, _he_ having produced more than 10 songs > already. or > He had more experience than I, _him_ having produced more than 10 songs > already. The latter sounds more natural to me, but the former seems more grammatically consistent--alas I don't know what the parts are called to delve further. The questions Is "all that he have" correct? and "He have a point" is this correct? were all I could find and didn't seem specifically relevant, AFAICT.


Is there a word meaning “disposed to correct one’s own behaviour quickly”?

What is the English word for a person who when they fail and realize their failure, they then regret and quickly correct their own behaviour without any wavering? Edit: I accepted an answer although the exact word I am looking for has not been found. I will change the answer should one be found. The closest matches are conscientious, repentant. To express exactly what I am looking for consider the scenario: You have had an argument, then you realize that what you did to your friend is wrong and he was correct. Without any thinking at that very second you run back to your friend saying: "I am sorry I have done wrong." asking for apology. It may take you 2 minutes to correct yourself - maybe you would go over your reasoning a few times to convince a good part of yourself to take over, and you would still be considered repentant and conscientious. But what I mean is a correction without a second thought once you realize you are wrong.


Do we have a term for knowing-oneself?

In many psychological, religious, and ethical theories it's been suggested that you **know yourself** , through contemplation, cognition, etc. It's like trying to recognize **who you really are deep inside** , and **why you do what you do** , stuff like that. But do we have a name for this **knowing yourself**? Update: I'm searching for a universally recognized name, and to clarify even more, if **theology** means knowing God, I'm searching for something like **you ology** , or to know yourself.


What is the collective noun for a collection of collective nouns?

murder : crows :: **_** : collective nouns Sorry, no multiple choice this time.


Shred off heat?

I heard a phrase which I'm not sure it's this but I liked it. It was a classical radio station in Southern California. It was a hot day and radio was playing a song about ice and snow, and the commenter said something like: "Now you can **shred off** some of the heat listening to this song. Can we use _shred off_ for heat? To mean "reduce the heat," for example, or a similar meaning?


What causes the pronunciation "nucular"

What is the name of the phonetic shift behind the common mispronunciation of the word nuclear (nucular)? Or, if the answer is "none", then I would appreciate learning the origin of the pronunciation.


What does the word "palpable" mean in this context?

From an answer on another Stack Exchange website (StackOverflow): > Given how rare this will be, that ugly hack could be palpable. It sounds like the author is saying that the solution might be viable? suitable? sufficient? I can deduce what he means from the context. I am confused because having searched for the definition of the word "palpable" I cannot find an applicable definition. I like the word and if the usage is correct I might like to use it myself. Did the author use the word "palpable" correctly? If so which definition is applicable?


Correct place for "constitutes"

> Substantial progress has been made in the last years in order to answer the > question what an optimal strategy for this network constitutes. > > Substantial progress has been made in the last years in order to answer the > question, what constitutes an optimal strategy for this network. Which sentence should I use, the first or the second?


In which cases is a comma/period placed inside or outside of parentheses?

Are there cases where a period is placed inside parentheses? In which cases the period (or a comma) should be placed inside the parentheses?


full-stop / period before or after closing bracket?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  In which cases is a comma/period placed inside or outside of parentheses? Is the convention (write something in brackets.) And start a new sentence. or is it (More like this). And the other confusing factor below. Is a sentence (like this?) Because the question mark belongs to what's in brackets. So (is this)? More wrong because you're de-questioning the bracketed-sentence? OK so some of those are decidedly bad english but you get the point. I hope?)?.?.


If parentheses close the sentence, where should period be?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  In which cases is a comma/period placed inside or outside of parentheses? Consider the following sentence: > Now, it is highly attributable that professionally I never had to write any > Swing code (or, for that matter, had a chance to look at Swing code others > have written) In this sentence, where should the period be? After the closing `)` or before opening `(`?


"Any ideas are appreciated" or "Any ideas would be appreciated"?

Lets say I'm asking a question on a popular question and answer website, and I want to close by saying that I will appreciate any submitted ideas. The first seems awkward because at the moment of writing there aren't any ideas yet. The second makes it sound like I would appreciate any ideas, if I wasn't a misanthropic sociopath that doesn't appreciate anyone. Edit: I suppose I could also use the verb "will", but what if it's a really unhelpful idea? Seems like the job for a verb that implies more committal than "would", but less than "will"... I'm probably over-thinking, but it bugs me!


More formal way to say "follow up"

I am writing a formal letter and want to say "I am following up with you regarding..." but I need to say it more formally.


"I'm free at around 7PM"

> I'm free at around 7PM. Is it correct?


When does thousand turn into thousands?

My boyfriend and I are arguing whether _thousands of miles_ means 1000+ or 2000+ miles. The first argument is that 1000+ is over 1000 and therefore 'thousands of miles' by rounding up. The other argument is that thousands are a unit, and if you only have one unit plus a fraction of that unit it is not 'thousands of miles', it is a thousand miles plus the fraction: therefore only 2000+ is really 'thousands of miles'.


What is the meaning of “Body Electric”?

Actually it's title of a song written by Lana Del Rey. **So what does Body Electric really mean when Lana says "I sing the body electric"?** And here is a link the the lyrics.


What does 'it is love' mean?

I have heard many times from many people saying 'it is love' or 'French is love' or 'Baltimore is love'. What does it exactly mean? Shouldn't they use lovely instead.?


"Are you hurt" vs. "Did you get hurt"

What should we use when someone is injured? > Are you hurt? Or it should be > Did you get hurt? I felt using the second one as improper. Please correct me.


Response when your boss thanks you

What should be your response when your boss thanks you for using his own resource allotted to you and you respect your boss and cannot respond him like _It's ok_ or _you're welcome_.


Difference between would and will

Thank you for your time reading this. I am from China and have learned British English for years from my middle school to undergraduate time. I normally take 'would' as the past form of 'will', though I know 'would' may also work as an auxiliary verb which could be used in subjunctive mood. Now I come to the United States and have got confused about 'would' and 'will' very much. In the past, whenever it came to something related to the future, I would use 'will'. Now in the USA, people use 'would' a lot. For example, if we are talking about MIT, some guy may say 'I would go to MIT someday'. For me, I prefer to say 'I will go to MIT someday and I will surely make it!' There are many similar examples. I know grammatically both sentences must be correct but I just can't understand the usage of 'would' here. I have looked up some information online. They helped a lot. For example, people say'would' can be used to express your desire or hope. However, from my memory of middle school, it is 'will' that could be used to express your willingness to do something. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, both words can be used to express a desire or wish. Then why people prefer 'would' to 'will'? I am totally lost! People keep using 'would' under those circumstances which I will use 'will' and this really annoys me a lot. Help!


"Denoted by" or just "denoted"?

In a mathematical context (explaining a formula just written) the following seems unobjectionable: "The set of unitary polynomials has been denoted by P". My question is whether it sounds right to skip the preposition "by", so that the sentence would read: "The set of unitary polynomials has been denoted P".


"Loviest-doviest" or "lovey-doviest"?

I know that this term in its comparative form would 'lovier-dovier', but somehow I can't decide whether it is "loviest-doviest" or "lovey-doviest" Which is the correct form?


What is the meaning and usage of the word "dense"?

I often come across people saying to each other: > I don't want to be too dense here, but… What does the term _dense_ imply in such contexts?


Why is "head over heels" used as if it were exceptional rather than commonplace?

Most people spend part of each day standing, and if they have normal anatomy their heads are over their heels in this position. Even sitting or lying down, the head is higher than the heels (if not over the heels). Yet the phrase "head over heels" is used in ways implying it is an unusual situation. How did such usage come to be, and why does it persist? Why is the more obvious "heels over head" not used?


"Technology" is to "technical" as "memory" is to what?

I'm writing a sentence about the job of the memory and am characterizing absorption with memory. How do I say "memorical absorption" correctly? _Memorial_ sounds like a noun...


Alternatives to "inside view"?

I want to describe in details how something works. It is good to say: > "I want to describe it from inside view" ? If not, what are the alternatives?


How do you pronounce "read receipt"?

Is it past tense (/rɛd/) or present tense (/rid/)? I can imagine rationale for either choice. Past tense because it's an acknowledgment that the message has been read, or present tense because it's an acknowledgement that the message has been _opened_ and the recipient is thus reading it.


To "strum strings" and "hit keys"

Is it correct to use a verb right next to its corresponding noun in this specific context? **I strum strings and hit keys for a living.** Thanks for your help.


Using "Thank you" and "Cheers"

Is it sensible to use both "Thank you" and "Cheers" in ending an email?   For example if I sign off. > Thank you, I am looking forward to receiving your response. > > Cheers,   >  (insert name here) would it's **simultaneous** use be **obvious** to most people as being redundant? (I can get rid of the "thank you" all together and leave the "cheers" to serve the purpose of a thanks and goodbye, but lets say I want to keep both - like " **over yonder** ")


Thieves' words for their victims

What words might a thief (of any variety) use to describe the victims of his theft? Con artists in film often use "mark", for example. Is there other jargon specific to the con branch* of crime? How about burglars? Muggers? Bank robbers? Politicians? Oh, sorry... Highwaymen? Pickpockets? * * * *We might call these words "con-specific". `:p`


How to interpret the negation in this sentence?

I have a question. What does the following sentence mean? Negation is so complicated here. > We are characters who do not exist in a story composed by no one from > nothing.


"To increase competitiveness in" or "to increase competitiveness on"?

Which phrase is the correct one? > to increase competitiveness _in_ the EU labor market   >  to increase competitiveness _on_ the EU labor market


Articles with general concepts

I have the following sentence in the beginning of a chapter: > This chapter lays down the fundamentals of distributed processing. It > provides the basics for data processing... I would like to ask why I need to have "the" before "fundamentals" and "basics".


Number agreement when using “(s)” for optional plural

I have a question about the following construction and which instance is correct. >   * Selecting an appropriate study topic(s). >   * Selecting appropriate study topic(s). > When it is both singular and plural due to the parenthesized optional part, should I use the _an_ because of thinking of what follows as being the singular (that is, _study topic_ )? Or should I omit the _an_ because of thinking of what of what follows as being in the plural (that is, _study topic **s**_ )?


What do you call a past participle+noun construction clause such as “No offense meant” “Your point taken,” “With that said,” and “Given that”?

In reference to my question about the usage of “No offense meant/taken,” I noticed that there are a lot of shortened forms like “No offense meant/taken,” “Your point taken,” “That said,” and “Given that” used in place of statements like “I don’t mean to offend you / I don’t take it for your offense,” “I’d take your point (correctly),” “As I said that,” “Under the given situation (condition, statement, fact, story, and so on).” .” When did these shortened forms come into currency or vogue? Did they surge because the tide of modern time requires speed and shortened form of expression? Is there specific grammatical terminology to describe such a “noun+past participle (or passive verb form)," or vice versa contracted construction clause?


Why is "xxxx doth not a yyyy make" considered valid English?

> Reading doth not a writer make. This sounds all wrong so why it is acceptable to use?   The word order looks to be all out sequence (Object-Subject-Verb).   It should be "reading does not make you a writer" (Object-Verb-Subject). And if this is Shakespearian, when and how did the word order in English change?


Proper usage/origin of the generic phrase "[action phrase] does not a [noun] make"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why is "xxxx doth not a yyyy make" considered valid English? I occasionally come across a sentence formulated in a manner similar to the following: > Reading a book does not an expert make. I realize the grammar is quite irregular (I'm no grammar expert, so I'll just call it Yoda-speak), but I've heard this structure used a number of times in the colloquial. My questions are:   1. Is anyone else familiar with this sentence structure?   2. What's the origin?   3. How should I use it properly?


Unusual word order in a sentence

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why is “xxxx doth not a yyyy make” considered valid English?   >  Proper usage/origin of the generic phrase “[action phrase] does not a > [noun] make”   >  “Two films don't a revolution make”: is this sentence grammatically > correct?   >  “Dazzling images do not a shining nation make”   >  Is employing hyperbaton correct in English? The following sentence is from the book "Practical Common Lisp": > A single record, however, does not a database make. It sounds somewhat strange because of the word order: Subject-aux.verb-object- verb. Instead of this order I would expect the following: > A single record, however, does not make a database. Is this a common practice? Does the first order alter meaning in any way? Maybe it mimics some other text or a way of talking?


"Two films don't a revolution make": is this sentence grammatically correct?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why is "xxxx doth not a yyyy make" considered valid English?   >  Proper usage/origin of the generic phrase “[action phrase] does not a > [noun] make”   >  “Dazzling images do not a shining nation make” I came across an article in _TOI Crest Edition_ about black-and-white films. It had the following sentence, which looked dubious to me: > Two films don't a revolution make, and it would be even more simplistic to > suggest that these two films are a reaction to the increasing use of CGI, > motion capture and 3D in films today. It is about the two recent black-and-white movies 'The Artist' and 'Good Night Good Morning'. Is this sentence grammatically correct? Why?


How much of the English language comes from each of its influences?

I was watching a video linked in this answer and it made the following claim: > [...] like most words in English is derived from German. That got me thinking. While I know that Germanic languages have greatly influenced English, so have the Latin and Celtic ones (and various others to a greater or lesser degree). Is it true that more than 50% of the English vocabulary is derived from Germanic roots? More generally, can someone point me to data on this? I imagine attempts have been made to quantify the contribution of different languages to English, what were the results? What percentage of the language comes from each source? Ideally I would like to see this expressed in terms of % of words but I am aware that, at least to some linguists, attempting to quantify vocabulary is anathema (to give a simple reason, _all_ languages that allow number construction have an infinite vocabulary by definition), so alternative approaches to quantifying this are also welcome.


Past vs Past Perfect

While writing a paper for my English class, I couldn't decided whether past or past perfect tense was needed. It's basically about how a guy whose house is destroyed because the government wants to build a freeway over it: > Walking towards where my house was built, I see that only my mailbox **had > survived** the wreckage, while I try to salvage all I **could**. Looking > through my mail, I see a letter from the government telling me kindly that > they are going to build a freeway where my house **had once stood**. > Attached is a sum of money reimbursing my devastating loss, but it **could** > not account for the number of generations who **had once lived** there. Basically, I can't decide if there following are correct. It's supposed to be in present tense. (The guy is currently standing at the wreckage.) 1) "had survived" 2) try to salvage all I "could" 3) where my house "had once stood" 4) but it "could" not account 5) number of generations who "had once lived" there Please provide some sort of explanation. Thanks!


Consumer goods question

What is a better definition, the consumer business industry or the consumer goods industry?? And also, is there an acronym?? I am in between those two, would really appreciate your help


"Skipping rope" vs. "jump rope"

Well it is summer time and I have to lose some weight so I have chosen the cardiovascular activity to do that jumping rope. While digging on some information I have asked myself a few questions: Why do they call the jump rope skipping rope in England? Do they call it skipping rope or jump rope in the States as there are World Rope Skipping Federation (WRSF) and The United States Amateur Jump Rope Federation (USAJRF)? What is the etymology of "skipping rope" as you are jumping not skipping? What is most common to use nowadays as I have heard both? See this NGram.


Is it 'bye from now' or 'bye for now'?

I often hear it in the end of the radio programs. Are they saying 'bye from now' or 'bye for now'? Some times they say 'bye from/for me' if there are more than one person. What do they mean?


Alternatives to "He is of the opinion"?

Are there alternatives to "is of the opinion ..." in the following sentence? > **He is of the opinion** that there is a something upon which we depend. Because I am not an English native speaker, the expressions like "is of + noun" are ambiguous a little bit.


Word wrapping rules

Are there any rules or recommendations on word wrapping in English text? For example, consider the following sentence wrapped on two lines: > The tragedy of the commons is an   >  economics theory by Garrett Hardin. I believe that the article _an_ cannot be left on the first line. So the following wrapping seems better: > The tragedy of the commons is   >  an economics theory by Garrett Hardin. What about the short word _is_? Should I leave it or is it better to move it to the second line as well? (Note, that I am not talking about the line lengths here!) I believe this is more typographical question rather than linguistic one. Nevertheless, are there any recommendations/rules on this topic?


Word meaning coincidence of reference to the unusual

Most of us have had the experience of stumbling over a new fact or bit of knowledge and then finding several more references to it in the near future. For example, you see a strange word which you're forced to look-up and then the next day the same word appears in the headline of your local paper. There's a term for this phenomenon but I've been unable to track it down. Can anyone help?


Phenomenon of learning a new word that you've never seen before, and then seeing it being used

On Wednesday my wife came across the word **atavism** in Out of Africa that she did not know the meaning of. I did not recognise the word and did not know what it meant. So we looked it up and found out. Then on Thursday I was reading an article on the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/23/worship-children-brings- misery-suzanne-moore) and saw the word **atavistic**. I cannot for the life of me recall seeing this word ever before, and here it pops up shortly after finding out what it meant. I am sure this phenomenon has happened before - where I learn something new (usually the meaning of a word that I have never seen before, or name of a place or person) and then the very shortly afterwards see it being used. (This also happened to me this year with quinoa.) Is there a name for this phenomenon? Or is it just me that this happens to?


Use or omit "the" before profession?

> This image-stabilising system for a hand-held camera, developed by cameraman > Garrett Brown in 1973, offers (...) Wouldn't it be more correct to write "the cameraman Garrett Brown"? Is omitting the "the" generally acceptable (outside newspaper headlines)?


Term for when someone gets overly pepped up and thinks he/she can do anything

What is it called when someone gets encouraged by people around him/her or gets pepped up by the atmosphere around to the extent that he or she gets a wrong impression about his/her powers and capabilities (physical or mental), and probably gets out of control and starts doing crazy things in an effort to do the job right. For example, I'm looking for something similar to filling in the following sentence: > Don't get/be **_** , you can't drink all that in one go" If there are various related words or expressions to be used in different situations, I would like to have all of them with appropriate examples. Thanks.


What should be done for making this sentence more clear?

"About the scenario, there are insert transactions on every 3 seconds. In a busy day, about 3000 rows for big table, another 100 for medium table and around 30 for small table." There is a question for this sentence "1 row every 3 seconds? Or many rows (3000) every 3 seconds? Very unclear" So what can be done prevent vagueness here ? And what did you understand from that ? Edit: Extra info for those who didn't familiar with computer databases. Topic is related to an internet server database. About the transactions, they don't related with marketing. Simple explanation from wikipedia "A transaction comprises a unit of work performed within a database management system against a database, and treated in a coherent and reliable way independent of other transactions." Inserts are also about entering data to database. An insert can contain only 1 row or it can contain multiple rows: http://www.w3schools.com/php/php_mysql_insert.asp


Analogue of "most recent" for events in the future

In the context of a listing of events that are time-based, it is common to use "Most Recent" to describe a listing of events ordered by date, in descending order, with the upper limit being today's date (or perhaps yesterday's date, since an event happening today would be a "current event"). Is there a similar, compact, title ("heading") that is appropriate for future events, ordered by date, where the event whose date is closes (in the future) to today's date would be ordered first, and events farther in the future would be ordered next? "Upcoming Events" is often used, but doesn't convey the specificity of the ordering in the same way that "Most Recent" does.


How should I correctly repeat possessives?

>   1. planning of mine, the student and the company >   2. planning of mine, the student's, and the company's > Which is correct/better, and why? I would assume 2 is correct, but is 1 incorrect?


What's the correct way to cite the name "King James I" in an MLA works cited page?

I'm writing a paper on _Daemonologie in Forme of a Dialogue_ , and I was wondering how I should cite King James I in my works cited page. This is King James I of England who was also King James VI of Scotland, and at the time he wrote this book, he was king of Scotland, but not yet king of England. Since he is now more well-known as James I, I was leaning more towards citing him this way: King James I. _Daemonologie in Forme of a Dialogue_. Edinburgh, 1597. Should I specify that he is King James I of England, since there was another King James I who was king of Scotland prior to this James's kingship? Should I cite him as James I? I've searched my MLA handbook, which states that titles of nobility should be omitted in works cited lists, but doesn't state whether or not the same should be done for royal titles.


Use of "groin" as a verb

I came across this line when reading Owen's _Strange Meeting_ : > It seemed that out of the battle I escaped > > Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped > > Through granites which Titanic wars had **groined**. What does the last line really mean? Going by the dictionary, _groin_ as a verb stands for 'to form the line of intersection of two vaults', but with this I am unable to bring **Titanic wars** into the picture.


Is this sentence of "mixed construction"?

In English class, we've discussed the following sentence and considered if it is of mixed construction: > The increase in the number of times his name appeared on such lists after > the poem was published was enough to make him famous. Is this sentence ok, or is it mixed construction?


Using "and" twice in a list

About using _and_ , I've learned it is usually used in lists, between the last two items. For example: > I like movies, traveling _and_ going out with friends. Please tell me if the use of _and_ twice in this next example is correct. The first _and_ is used between the last two items of the list, and the second is used to combine two things in the second part. > I am a software developer who has permanent residence, Bachelor degree > **and** 4 years experience in .net for developing new software **and** doing > enhancements in existing once.


"began" vs "begun"

What is the difference, and when should I use which?


Term for the time set aside by company for self-directed projects

Some companies set aside a few hours or maybe a day for employees to work on projects apart from their assigned team workload. This is atleast known in technology & IT sector, a description of some of these arrangements are in this LifeHacker article. Is there any standard word or phrase to describe this? I was thinking of flex week, but I believe that is something else entirely, implying allowing telecommuting etc. but not necessarily self-directed projects.


What does "ever" mean in this sentence?

I read this sentence: > Did that ever hit home! None of these definitions hits home. It's neither a question (in which it would perfectly match) nor a negative sentence. And it does not mean "at any time", and it's not constantly, because it refers to a single event in the past when something shocked him.


"Don't worry, ..."

> "Don't worry, it won't hurt much." Is the comma the correct punctuation mark to use after "Don't worry"? This seems to be the norm, but I feel like there almost two sentences there and that something more than a comma could be required. Though a full stop or a semicolon seems a bit much.


Crib: to Complain

People in India use _crib_ as a word for _complain_ as in 'Don't crib about it'. I always thought this was wrong usage, but I recently checked in OED online and found that sense 9b says > **b.** To complain, to grumble. _colloq._ Cf. _crib-biter n._ at **crib** > _n._ Compounds 2. > >> 1925 in E. Fraser & J. Gibbons _Soldier & Sailor Words_   >  1957 L. P. Hartley _Hireling_ xi. 90 She calls on the neighbours, she's out > half the time and doesn't answer the telephone, and when I start cribbing > she just laughs. Is this correct?


Word to call a person that works in a store

I seem to always have a trouble with this one; what do you call a person that works in a store? A clerk? A sales person? Neither of these sound right. Saying "person that works in the store" doesn't work that well either. Is there a general single word that I can use that represents "a person that works in a store".


The meaning of "hemorrhoidal sensations"

> The Swede, like the Frenchman, prefers in Poetry the light, the clear and > the transparent. The profound, indeed, he demands and values also; but it > must be a depth that is pellucid. He wishes that he may see the gold sands > at the bottom of the wave. Whatever is dark and muddy, so that it cannot > give him any distinct image — let it be as far fetched as it may — he cannot > suffer. He believes that > >> Th’ obscurely utter’d is th’ obscurely thought, > > and clearness is a necessary condition for whatever shall produce any effect > upon him. In this he differs widely from the German, who in consequence of > his contemplative nature, not only suffers, but even prefers, the mystical > and the nebulous, in which he loves to foresee something deeply thought. He > has more ‘Gemüth’ and gloomy seriousness than the Swede, who is more > superficial and more frivolous. This is the source of those mystical > feelings and **hemorrhoidal sensations (hemmorrhoidal-känningarne)** in the > German Poetry, for which we have no taste. > > Esaias Tegnér, quoted in _Fritiof's Saga: a Legend of the North_, by F M > Franzén, 1839 (my emphasis) What's the meaning of "hemorrhoidal sensations"? Does that mean that reading German poetry will produce bad feelings just like having piles?


Is there an adjectival form for "good etiquette"?

For example, when we say someone has **_good courtesy_** , we can say they are **_courteous_**. Is there an analogous word for having **_good etiquette_**?