"The clubs and societies enjoy boom."

"The clubs and societies enjoy boom." The meaning intended to convey is that the various clubs and societies organized in the universities are flourishing. The word "boom" can be used like this "there is a boom in something". Since "there is" to a certain extent indicates "having", so is this appropriate?


"Dabble" in a positive sense

Can the word "dabble" be used in a positive sense? As in, > A true "master of all trades", he has dabbled in several fields & > contributed to numerous scientific advances.


Is there a name for the type of noun is produced by adding the sufix 'ness' to an adjective?

Is there a name for the type of noun is produced by adding the suffix 'ness' to an adjective? For example: Greedy - greediness lonely - loneliness


"After given" or "after being given"

> **After given** the chicken feed, the crickets become big and strong. This sentence is wrong, isn't it? It should be > **After being given** the chicken feed, the crickets become big and strong. Is that correct?


How to punctuate spoken dialog with multiple levels of nested clauses?

I'm trying to do an audio transcription (for fun—I'm a complete amateur at this) and struggling with how to punctuate this part. Could anyone please help?               We've designed this around the functions of nature, so, at certain times, and it's very relevant we choose the right time—         more timing, not just technique—             strategy again coming in, another time element—     not when the rainfall is less than the evaporation—         if the evaporation is very high at that time of year, you leave the shade—             shade is better than mulch—     but when the rainfall is higher than the evaporation,     we can speed up this cycle.      I've put in em dashes (and indented the inner clauses) where they might belong, except that I'd be nesting them 2 or 3 levels deep, which I don't believe is allowed. In general, what would you do if you had 3, 4, or even 5 or more nested layers of clauses?


Is there a term or phrase for the one paying a bill that is later split?

Sometimes when splitting bills one of the group members has to pay the entire bill first to later be reimbursed by the other group members. Is there an English term for who that person is or _what the person does_? Simple situation example: > I can [...] if you pay me back tomorrow.


Using "utilize" instead of "use"?

My friend has been raising a ruckus about the abuse of the word "utilize" in place of the word "use." He complains that it just makes your sentences sound pretentious. **u·ti·lize** [yoot-l-ahyz]   * verb (used with object), -lized, -liz·ing. to put to use; turn to profitable account: to utilize a stream to power a mill.  utilize. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 06, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilize Today we saw this post which uses "utilize": > each app vendor may utilize unique policies for app pricing." He claims that this isn't a very good sentence to use "utilize" in. I don't disagree but what determines whether or not you should use "utilize" in place of "use?"


English words that are both nouns and "connectors"?

I am trying to solve a word puzzle and am stumped by something. The puzzle contains several sentences (two of which are below), and I have to figure out the missing words that are represented by " _W_ " variables (W1 - W3):               There is a W1 in the W2 W3 is near where the road bends which contains very important items.     For instance, the top of the W3 is on the counter.      What is stumping me is **W3**. The only words I can think of that would syntactically fit for the first sentence are " _which_ " or " _that_ ":               There is a W1 in the W2 which is near where the road bends which contains very important items.     There is a W1 in the W2 that is near where the road bends which contains very important items.      But neither of those are syntactically correct for the second sentence:               For instance, the top of the which is on the counter.     For instance, the top of the that is on the counter.      It seems as though **W3** is both a noun and a "connector" (not sure what the proper term is) word. It seems to be a noun because it apparently has a top- side (" _...the top of the W3..._ "). And it seems to be a "connector" because it can be used in a _similar_ context of which/that (which out of ignorance I am referring to when I say "connector word"). So I ask (specific question relating to the English language and its usage): **Are there words in the English language that fit this bill (both nouns and "connectors")? If so what are they called and what are some examples of them?**


Request for a natural version of "Whether you will succeed or not lies in the use you make of chance."

"Whether you will succeed or not lies in the use you make of chance." This sentense does not sound very idiomatic. Could you suggest a more natural expression?


What is the difference between these two types of negation?

What is the difference between:- >   1. Ali is rich,but he isn't happy. > >   2. Ali is rich, but he is unhappy. > >


"Trace" as a synonym for "trail" in AE

As far as AE is concerned, does "trace" mean just about the same as "trail" in "break/blaze a trace", and -- if indeed it does -- can "trace" be used pretty much interchangeably in every which literal sense of "trail"? > _It takes about two people to **break a trace** through the brush ahead_... > source > > _Only tortuous paths and **blazed traces** led over the Appalachians_... > source


bank cards: the same as debit card, or catch-all for debit and credit card

I've been asked by a student whether 'bank card' is a common synonym for debit card. I started by checking wikipedia whose article on bank cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_card) points towards it including both debit, credit and other cards. However, the article on debit cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card) seems to imply that bank card is indeed a synonym of debit card. While searching EL&U, I found an answer to the question (Is there a term which covers ATM cards, credit cards, and debit cards?) that clearly states that, at least in Canada, bank card is a synonym for debit card. So... Is bank card a general synonym for debit card, or is this true only in some English-speaking countries? And if so, which countries? In the countries where this is true, which term is preferred in everyday speech?


Is the usage of "I couldn't tell X apart" correct?

Example: > The forest was dark and the trees too many. I could hardly **tell shadows > apart.** Is the usage of _apart_ correct in the passage above? (I'm wondering about this because a Google Books search returned only one result).


Should I say "domesticable" or "domesticatable"?

What should I say to sound better, " _domesticable_ " or " _domesticatable_ "?


What does "be proactively available to help others" mean?

* Actively going to others to provide help even if they don't need it?   * Being available actively to help others whenever they need it?   * Or something else?


Why do we say "to be a laughing stock"?

I've come through the expression **" _to be a laughing stock_ "** to talk about a person who has done something stupid and who people laugh at because of that, and I've started to wonder about it. First of all, why do we say **_laughing_** using a gerund when this is normally used in active meaning, in the sense of someone/something which creates an effect (e.g. an _interesting_ book, a _cutting_ remark, a _boring_ person, etc)? It would make more sense to say **_laughed_** , as the past participle is frequently used in passive mode, thus underlining that we are the object of other people's laughter. Secondly, I've gone through the various meanings of the term **_"stock"_** (as in finance, animal raising, supply of things, food, punishment and other areas), but the only expression which seems to be partially relevant here is "stock" being used to indicate the degree to which someone is respected or liked by others, according to OED. However, the term in this meaning is indicated as uncountable. Does anybody know what **_"stock"_** stands for and what the origin of the expression is? And let's not forget about the grammatical side to the question, please...


"What just happened?" vs "What did just happen?"

I've always used "What did just happen?" because I believe we are asking about the object of the verb "happen" so I use an auxiliary and the infinitive. However, I've heard native speakers say "What just happened?", is this correct too?


Is this shorter phrase awkward?

In legalese, while describing a party which loses the capacity to perform certain obligation, is it awkward to say "During the course of the calamity, the performance incapacitated (or disabled) party shall ..." instead of "During the course of the calamity, the party who is incapacitated by the said event to perform the obligation, shall…"? I would be happy to know if there are better ways to convey the meaning succinctly.


Prepositions used with "renovation"

I've been asked to approve a bronze plaque reading "Capital improvements and renovation to this organ were made possible by...." The organ builders objected that "renovation to" is a barbarism. It seems to me that part of the problem is trying to use one preposition with two nouns, but in this case I'm not sure that the preposition works well with either of them.


Why do we describe a problem or experience as "hairy"?

I'm curious about the use/history of "hairy", as in _Golly Dan, that was a pretty hairy math exam, wasn't it?_ My dictionary sources identify two definitions unrelated to hair: the first can be summarized as "causing fright or anxiety", which I semi-confidently assume relates to "hair-raising"; the other is "difficult to deal with or comprehend" (from Merriam Webster). It's this latter that I'm curious about. How did we come to say that something difficult is "hairy"?


"Using Verb Tenses in Sequence"

http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/vbseq.html Here, what does 'sequence' mean? Does it mean 'multiple sentences'? Or it means 'a paragraph'?


What does this poem mean? "It's not the cough that'll carry you off It's the coffin they'll carry you off in"

What does this poem mean? > It's not the cough that'll carry you off   >  It's the coffin they'll carry you off in


What does "Hollaback Girl" mean?

Gwen Stefani says, "I ain't no hollaback girl" in her song. What does it mean?


How should I pluralise “as is”?

Let’s say I write: “ _Just send me these documents **as is_** ”. Is that correct? Should it be pluralised into “ ** _as are_** ”, which sounds so wrong to me? Or are they both incorrect, in which case I may write “ ** _as they are_** ”?


What does the American idiomatic expression "2 x 4" exactly mean? I've read a very interesting book by Father Donald H. Calloway, _No turning back_ (an autobiography and a conversion story), and chapter 10 is entitled "The divine 2 x 4". Could that mean the divine surprise, the divine intervention?


What is the word that means a person has confused two terms with one another?

Is there a better verb than "confuse" in this passage: > Joe has confused the terms A, B, and C. When describing B he used the > attributes of A. Also, Joe used attributes of C when discussing A.


What is the correct word for a person whom I am interacting with?

I need to program computer agents that interact with each other (for example they play a computer game with each other). Sometimes it happens that two agents are interacting with each other. I need to find a word to describe who they are to each other. I have the following options:   1. opponent   2. companion   3. partner My main requirement is that the word should be neutral (since the interaction can be of different kinds: cooperation, competition, fight). I am afraid that _opponent_ is a bit "negative" (in the sense that it assumes that two agents are enemies, that they are fighting). _Partner_ , in contrast, seems to be positive to me (assuming that agents cooperate with each other). What about _companion_? Or may be you can propose other words?


Is there a word for something which will run before and after an event?

If concurrent means two things running at the same time, is there a single word for something which will occur before and after an event? E.g. Running concurrently with the show will be a bar open for refreshments. / The bar will be open [before and after] the show for refreshments.


What's the difference between care and care about?

I want to know if there is any distinction between care and care about. For instance, I often say 'What do I care about?' rather than 'What do I care?'. I looked up the Merriam-Webster dictionary and it did not help. It seems care and care about are almost the same. Sure I know in care about, care is an intransitive verb. My possibly wrong guess is that care about puts more emphasis on the object that we care while care is very much focused on the verb itself. 'What do I care about' is really weird like you guys said. It should be 'What does somebody else care about?'. My bad :).


What are the historic definitions of the word dragon?

Today, the term dragon is universally used for mythical, non-existent creatures that resemble dinosaurs in some ways. I thought I heard once from someone quoting a dictionary from 1600 something that the definition was "A very rare, but still living creature". This implies that the author thought that dragons were a real thing. I don't expect there to be much overlap today from its ancient use because there is a lot of entertainment fiction written on the subject since 1900. I want to know how the word has been used in the past and if there were descriptions of what a dragon actually is/was from before 1850's, when the word "dinosaur" was coined. I am also particularly interested if the people of those times thought the creatures were real.


Expression for temporarily moving into a another place

I am looking for an expression that emphasizes moving into a friends place without having to paying rent. Only because your friend is doing you a favor. I am planning to using it in the line below. > I had to cut expenses by moving out of my place and 'right phrase' friends > apartments. This line can change though.


Are terms like "policeman" still gender-exclusive if they refer to one specific man?

I'm reading a news article about a male police officer and the author calls him a "policeman." This word seems unsophisticated to me, but is it still sexist if it refers to a man?


More appropriate word for a "shape" of environment

I am researching about exploration in robotics field, for example, how to make roomba (I hope you all might know this cleaning robot) explore more efficiently in an office room. For some cleaning robots, they try to use a shape of the room to decide the efficient path for the robots to explore and clean the room. Since this kind of exploration plans are not necessary limiting to only room. It can be any environment. For example, we want a robot to clean on the table, so here we use the shape of table's surface (which is usually square or circle ) to make effective path. So here comes the question. I want to use more appropriate word for "the shape of environment." Because "shape" can be more than 2 dimension and I want to mean only the draft line of shape of environment like the lines you draw on soccer field, basketball field, etc. What I am only thinking of now are "the boundary of environment" or "the outline of environment." Any suggestion would be appreciated.


Is there a "correct" way to perform scansion in poetry?

Is there a foolproof or "rigorous" way to accurately and repeatably perform scansion in English poetry? It seems highly subjective at times. For example, I can pretty easily grasp the iambic tetrameter in Frost's `Whose woods these are I think I know`, but can't follow the spondee / iambic / anapest / iambic in his `Two roads diverged in a yellow wood`. My understanding is that you can't just look up the words in a dictionary and determine which syllables are stressed and which ones aren't to perform scansion. The stresses in the line are relative to each other and "stressed" syllables in scansion may appear unstressed in a dictionary pronunciation guide. Is it really up to the reader to "hear" the poem correctly to perform scansion? Are there any linguistic computer algorithms that "hear" the words in order to perform scansion?


"Has much nature" or "is very green"

If we want to say that > Our college has a lot of trees and flowers in a somewhat abstract manner, which is better? > Our college has much nature. > > There is much nature in our college. > > Our college is very green. Is there any appropriate expression? According to a book, when _nature_ is used without an article, the word means _a wild nature_. Therefore, you should use _be very green_.


Meaning of the "rupt" suffix/prefix

I was wondering the other day about the word corrupt, found that the suffix "rupt" appears in many words and as a prefix for another set and decided to ask this question: What does "rupt" mean? corrupt - "core"(I assume) + rupt = broken core ? rupture - rupt + verb-type thing = broken then there's all of these , mainly (if not prefixed with a negative) meaning a (on some higher level) to break an existing state of being This is all very poorly phrased and I apologise, I'm just not entirely capable of expressing exactly what I mean, which is why I made the examples.


What do you call the sound produced when baying?

Hounds tend to "bay" rather than "bark". When a dog barks, you can say "he let out a loud bark". In a similar construction emphasizing the hound-ness of the creature, can you say "he emitted a loud bay that echoed through the chamber"? Or would it be a bark regardless?


How is a thought within a story within a story indicated?

If a story is being told within a story so that it is italicized and a character within this sub-story expresses a thought, something normally italicized, how is that thought conveyed? I would think that one would place that thought in quotes.


Can "x-percent in savings" mean "an x-percent savings rate"?

A PolitiFact article rating a statement by Newt Gingrich has the headline: > In Chile "they have 72 percent of the GDP in savings." That is immediately followed by the subhead: > Newt Gingrich says Chile has 72 percent national savings rate. This pertains to a statement from one of the recent Republican debates. A transcript of the event gives the full sentence as: > The result is in Chile , for example, 72 percent — they have 72 percent of > the GDP in savings. PolitiFact originally rated Gingrich's statement false because Chile's savings rate was nowhere near 72%. They later revised their rating to half-true after a reader pointed out that PolitiFact itself reported in 2009 that the Chilean savings plans assets were 65% of GDP. But in their conclusion, they put the onus on Gingrich: > Gingrich said that in Chile "they have 72 percent of the GDP in savings." > The number is basically right, but Gingrich erred in how he described the > statistic. On balance, we rate his statement Half True. However, when I read the statement, I cannot see how a rate of savings is implied. Using _have_ along with _in savings_ would seem to indicate the current state rather than an ongoing action. But PolitiFact employs professional journalists. One would assume they are very familiar with the English language. What is the proper interpretation of Gingrich's statement? Or is it ambiguous?


**What is the meaning of “heavier than heavenly”?** I googled that but I didn't find the meaning. Google said it's as same as “heavier than heaven” and it's the name of a 2001 biography of musician Kurt Cobain, the frontman of the grunge band Nirvana. So what's the meaning? I also found this link. According to that, it means **Not suitable for heaven (too good for heaven)**. Is this correct? ## Update By the way, I found this phrase in song called _On Our Way_ by _Lana Del Rey_. Here.


Would you tell me the difference between object and objective as a noun?

I am very confused. Could you possibly elaborate ( _in detail_ ) **the reason** why: > My object is to _improve_ my English as much as possible. [ _WRONG it should > be 'objective'_ ] > > My object is to learn English. [ _RIGHT_ ] > > The object of the game is to _improve_ children's math skill. [ _RIGHT_ ] So, why has Longman written the following: > **!** Do not use _object_ to mean 'the thing you are working towards and > hope to achieve'. Use _objective_ : We have not yet achieved our objective > (NOT our object). Is Longman here wrong? All of the expressions and examples which I have provided are extracted from Longman (see link below) and Common Errors from Longman too. http://www.ldoceonline.com/Grammar-topic/object_1


Is "A Project Guide to UX Design" correct grammar?

> A Project Guide to UX Design. This is the title of a book I got from Amazon. But I dont think the title makes sense. I did a Google search for the exact term "a project guide" and got very few results. Maybe a Project managers' guide, or a project guideline. UX stands for User Experience, by the way. But 'A project guide to' anything seems incorrect to me. Any thoughts?


A finger is a component of a hand, a hand is the X of a finger

I'm working with a set of relationships between things, relationships that need descriptors. > John is a _child_ of Susan, Susan is a _parent_ of John; a _parent-child_ > relationship. > > Milk is a _product_ of cows, cows are a _source_ of milk; a _source-product_ > relationship. > > A finger is a _component_ of a hand, a hand is the __ of a finger; a __ > _-component_ relationship. This gap could be filled by an unwieldy phrase like, "thing that is comprised of other things, such as", but I'd much rather use a single word instead. Is there a word that can fill the gap in my example sentence?


In a formal document, may the hyphen be omitted from "e-mail"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Email" or "e-mail"? For a formal document such as a CV, would it be acceptable to use the term "email", or is only "e-mail" acceptable?


How should I understand the word "bound" in this sentence?

The following is an excerpt from the book _100 Greatest Science Discoveries of All Time_ by Kendall Haven. > Charles Darwin entered Cambridge University in 1827 to become a priest, but > switched to geology and botany. He graduated in 1831 and, at age 22, took a > position as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle **bound** from England for > South America and the Pacific. There are more than 30 entries about the word " **bound** " in the Merriam- Webster Collegiate Dictionary. I am not able to tell which one is correct. How should I understand it in the excerpt above? **Edited:** Is this question too stupid? The problem is that I don't understand the part of speech for this word here. Furthermore I am not able to judge the pattern of the second sentence. **Edited:** This is a very common word in mathematics. However, it is difficult for me to pick up the exact meaning from bunch of entries due to my inefficiency in English when this word is of its uncommon (for me) usage.


What does "non-afirmated" artist mean?

I often hear this term "afirmated artists" or sometimes "non-afirmated artists", but I couldn't find meaning in the dictionary. What exactly could it be? See, for example, the International Festival of Student Theatre and Multimedia 2010 > Participants can be students, young non afirmated artists, professionals or > non professionals. Main criteria for selection will be, as it was in the > past, the quality of work, dedication in exploring your own creative > potential and social engagement that attributes artistic creations of > students (young people).


What do you call someone who decides to do something even though they know its wrong

Is there a word that described someone who decides to do something even though they know it's wrong?


Suspect and doubt + negative sentence

Could you tell me the difference in meaning between > I suspect he did not do it and > I doubt he did not do it ?


Meaning of "holloway"

Does it mean just "hollowed underground way" or there is something else? Word is taken from fantasy text.


A person who goes to gymnastics school -- a 'student' or a 'pupil?'

I am trying to find an exact answer of this question: Is a person who goes to gymnastics school a 'student' or a 'pupil?'


Questions on question mark with a certain type of sentence

Do you use a question mark when a sentence starts as a question but then turns into a statement? For example, "Can you explain this to me, because I don't understand the second part." Another example would be, "What did he just say, because I couldn't hear him over the noise of the television." I usually use a period but don't know if that is correct.


what's the meaning of "It is generally held that"? e.g. It is generally held that already during this period Egypt was losing some of its power and dominance


"Participate in" or "participate on"?

Which is the correct preposition in the sentence below? Why? > Participated **in/on** producing quality software solutions for leading > global insurance and reinsurance companies.


Can Neither-Or be used?

My friend was reading the book "The Fault in Our Stars" by John Green and she found what seems to be a grammar mistake. The following sentence is found in the author's note: > Neither novels or their readers benefit from attempts to divine whether any > facts hide inside a story. Isn't it grammatically correct to say "nor" instead of "or"?


"suffer" and "lack" can be used together?

Can I say: > The assets **suffer** from a lack of reliability. Is suffer an admissible word in this context?


What does "sq" mean when referencing page or verse numbers?

In the book I am reading (Patrick Fairbairn, _The Interpretation of Prophecy_ , 2nd ed., 1865), the abbreviation "sq." is used sometimes in referencing both Scripture and other books (as "Typology of Scripture, vol. i. p. 100 sq." or "Ezek xxvi. 7, sq."). What does "sq." mean in this context? (Instances of this abbreviation's usage may be found at Google Books here.)


doesn't worry about what others think, independent confident

How would you describe someone who doesn't worry about what other people think? Someone who has the confidence to think for themselves. It could be a quality or adjective. One word preferred


I found above mentioned sentence in a article is it some proverb? What does this mean? Below I am copying paragraph where I found this. May be this would be helpful to answer. > **Only a waning candle sheds its light around.** It is related that Abul > Hassan Ali, a jurist and friend of Al-Beruni visited him when he was > terminally ill. Al-Beruni requested him to repeat the mathematical problem > he was once discussing with him. Thinking that it was not an appropriate > occasion to talk about it, the jurist remained silent. Al-Beruni insisted > upon having a reply and said: “Is it not better to die with knowledge then > to die in ignorance?” Abul Hassan repeated that problem to which Beruni > listened intently and grasped it. A few moments later he passed away at the > age of 75 in 1048 A.D. and was laid to rest at Ghazna. Thus, he acted upon > the saying of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him): > “Acquire knowledge from the cradle to the grave.” **Note: I have googled but didn't find anything helpful.**


What is this form of humor called?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a name for this type of sentence structure: "She looks as though > she's been poured into her clothes, and forgot to say 'when'"? I'm providing an absurd example here, but bear with me. Consider the following "joke": > Some chick invited Tim Tebow to her senior prom which is just plain > ridiculous, everyone knows he won't put out. Now, the source of the humor in this is the implicit assumption that inviting Tim Tebow to a prom is ridiculous, however the author then says that this ridiculousness is for an entirely different reason, contradicting our (the reader's) initial assumption. This is obviously but inexplicably humorous. Is there a name for this mechanism?


What do you call such sentences?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a name for this type of sentence structure: "She looks as though > she's been poured into her clothes, and forgot to say 'when'"? Is there a term for sentences which are an altered form of a famous quote, the alteration being a change in the second part of it for humor? Examples: > To err is human, to forgive is not a company policy. > A bird in hand might sh*t on your wrist. > People living in glass houses should use public restrooms. > If you can keep your head when everyone around you are losing theirs, you're > probably the executioner. I remember there was a term for such sentences but cannot recall. What is it? **EDIT** : I also remember: It's not just with famous quotes — any sentence which sounds normal at first, but has an unexpected ending to it which compels you to re-read the first part, is also classified as the same thing.


Is it normal in English to talk about oneself in the third person in these cases?

A Japanese person said that it is often normal to talk about oneself in the third person in English. This is what he wrote: > For example, when you write a CV or an introduction of yourself, the formal > way is to refer to yourself in third person. The same is in academic paper. Do you think this is true?


Is it correct to say: please refer to my resume?

In my cover letters, I give a summary of my resume. Then, I want to say that if you need more info about my resume, please refer to my resume. I feel that this is not the correct usage. If that is the case, then are there any other words I can use instead? And how about introducing a paraphrasing tag?


What does “haul something out” mean as an idiom?

I found the following quote of Mike Nichols, director of the hit revival of Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” on Broadway in the article titled “How Oedipus Wrecks” in March 24. New York Times: > “My father was proud once when I won a horse show in boarding school. And he > was proud when I was brave when I broke my arm. And man, I’ve _hauled those > out_ innumerable times.” As I’m not familiar with the expression, “haul something out,” I looked for the definition without success in OED and CED. There was an entry of “hauling out” as a noun in Wikipedia, defining it as; >   * Hauling-out is the behaviour associated with pinnipeds of temporarily > leaving the water between periods of foraging activity for sites on land or > ice. Hauling-out is necessary in seals for mating and giving birth and non- > reproductive aggregations, termed "haul-outs". > I also found the following answer to the similar question on “haul out” in www.englishforums.com/: >   * (haul out is) to take a heavy-handed approach to justice. It is a US > phrase. I guess it comes from the slightly stereotyped image of the sheriff > going into the saloon bar and "hauling out" ... > However, I think neither applies to Mike Nichols’ statement, “I’ve hauled those out innumerable times.” What does “ _haul something out_ ” mean? Does it mean “experience / get over problems" or simply "pull something out”? Is “haul something out” a popular day-to-day phrase?


Is it incorrect to say "If you could"?

I tend to use the following construction often in my e-mails: > It would be great if you could... However my German colleague repeatedly reminds me that according to the rules he was taught, using "if" together with "could" in the way I do is strictly speaking incorrect. I am however certain that this construction is quite common (see here) and can often convey _willingness_ rather than _ability_. Is the above construction strictly speaking incorrect, and is there a better replacement for it?


Which is correct: "soda" or "pop"?

Depending on where you go in the world, some people will refer to a carbonated beverage as "soda" while others choose to use the term "pop." For example, "Can I get you a soda" vs. "Can I get you a pop." I assume they both came from "soda pop" and were shortened at some point. My question is if one is considered more correct or if they are both on equal footing. Also, are there certain parts of the US where it is just plain bad English to use one or the other?


Do I need a "to" for a second infinitive in a sentence?

> It was common practice to first test and execute a program's source code by > hand before using a computer. > > It was common practice to first test and **to** execute a program's source > code by hand before using a computer. The first version of the sentence is without a second **to** , the second version includes a second **to**. Which one is correct?


What are the correct form of the following 2 expressions

I am working on a simple application which predicts you the wake up time if you go to bed at the moment. In example: if you go to bed at **12am** and set your alarm, you should set your alarm to **8am**. Is it correct if I write that _"Wake up time for getting up lively: 7.30 - 8.30"_? Also I want to predict the bedtime if you set your alarm to **8am** the app says you that you should go to bed at **12am**. Is it correct if I write that _"Bedtime for getting up lively at 8am: 12:00 - 12:30"_? Thanks for your assistance.


What is the standard way to answer a question that is asking for confirmation?

Now, this is something all native english speakers should have learned in grade school, but many non-native english speakers don't know how to answer a question unambiguously. In particular, in the comments for this question (don't worry about the meaning) the response to my request for clarification is as unclear as the original question. So, how would you answer my question (see the link), and how should one generally answer simple yes/no questions?


How to find a word to fit a meaning?

I need to find a word that would have a reasonably close meaning to: > a collection of facts and arguments used to arrive at an explanation [of > some (thing|concept|idea|...)] More generally, I would appreciate if someone can give leads to _how_ to create|construct or search for words expressing a given meaning. I've found the OneLook Reverse Dictionary. What other tools are available to achieve this?


Meaning of "we are poised on the brink of dramatic changes"

What does "we are poised on the brink of dramatic changes" mean? I thought it means we are calm and composed when it comes to making dramatic changes.


Momentary vs Temporary

Is there any difference? Which would be better to describe a requirement for 1 or 2 days. Suppose I need to inform my Operations team, that I need a particular requirement to be implemented but I want it only for a day or two? From ODO I get: > Temporary: not permanent ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/EHTKV.png) > Momentary: lasting for a very short time ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/gQgLo.png) So both seem to have the same meaning. Which one would be appropriate here. **Statement 1** : My team's requirement for implementing ABC system is temporary. **Statement 2** : My team's requirement for implementing ABC system is momentary.


Rule to pronounce words ending with "age"

Is there a rule to pronounce words ending with "age" ? ex : **usage** , **outage** => normal pronunciation of word "age" ex : **sabotage** , **mirage** => seems to be french pronunciation of "age"


"His head" or "their head"?

I was disappointed to see a favorite storybook from my childhood has been edited. ( _Harry, the Dirty Dog_ ; ISBN-13: 978-0064430098) I distinctly remember the text written as follows: > ...but everyone shook his head and said, "Oh, no, it couldn't be Harry." I was taught that the male gender form takes precedence, when speaking several individuals of each gender. However, the book was edited to read, > ...but everyone shook ~~his head~~ **their head** and said, "Oh, no, it > couldn't be Harry." ARGH! Please assure me that the original version and I are correct! There are some other minor edits that have simply ruined the book for me. (My linguistic snobbery helped, too.)


"Environmentally-friendly" vs. "Environment-friendly"

"Environmentally-friendly" sounds completely normal to me. So does "Environment-friendly". But I'm pretty sure I favour the former (despite the fact that I normally prefer the shorter of any two equivalent terms). According to Google, I'm in good company. At least, the 'allies' massively outnumber those who say "Environment-friendly". Why is this? _Environment_ seems like a straightforward noun. All the other _-friendly_ constructions I can think of just bolt on to the uninflected noun... _User-friendly software_ , _Gay-friendly bar_ , _Dolphin-friendly tuna_ , etc. I hesitate to ask "What's so special about the environment?", but there it is being asked. Later... Note that my focus is on why the inflected form apparently 'just happens' to be used with _environment_ , but not with other nouns.


"a capacity limit for each warehouse" or "capacity limits for every warehouse"

I am not really sure whether I understand these phrases correctly. "a capacity limit for each warehouse" means that each warehouse has its own limit, which may be different from other warehouses' limits?? "capacity limits for every warehouse" means that each warehouse has more than one limit and that set of limits of a warehouse is the same as the other sets of different warehouses?? Do I understand these correctly???


What are common word sets for describing ranks in a profession?

What are some sets of words used to describe rank in different professions (music, engineering, science)? I'm thinking about words similar to _novice_ , _amateur_ , and _professional_. In the European guild system there were _apprentices_ , _journeymen_ , and _master craftsmen_.


What is the difference between "graduate students" and "postgraduate students"?

I am reading about finding a good university for master studies and I am really confused if graduate students are the same as postgraduate students. Are the terms synonyms, or do they refer to different levels of studies?


Figurative meaning for "open a parenthesis"?

In this article one can find the following construct: > ... To answer this question, it is ... necessary to open a parenthesis. ( And then the author goes into some details. But he does not literally use any parenthesis as I do right here. ) So my question is -- did the author invent this figure of speech, or does it exist in contemporary English ? **Upd.** As **FumbleFingers** have mentioned below, Google Books search for "will open a parenthesis" shows the meaning _"to be mentioned in parentheses"_ to be rather common for this expression. The moral: there is not just Google, there are also Google Books. )


On the target of "not"

I would like to know the target of the word "not" in the following sentence. > The problem is that Britons were never given a chance to vote on whether > they wanted the CCTV cameras set up or **not**. I wonder which of the following is a correct interpretation:   1. whether they wanted the CCTV cameras set up or (they did _not_ want the CCTV cameras set up)   2. whether they wanted the CCTV cameras set up or ( _not_ set up)


Use of the word "neglect"

Can you use the word "neglect" in the following way? The townspeople/inhabitants neglected their town/city. Firstly, thank you so much. Some background about me. I am British born and have been living abroad for many years teaching English as a Second Language at a large high school. One of the English teachers in our team (who speaks American English) thought that the use of the word "neglect" as a verb usually only relates to authorities such as the local council or the government who "neglects" the town. Myself and another teacher felt that the use of the word in the sentence 'The inhabitants neglected their town' was grammatically correct and acceptable. Our colleague did some research and couldn't find any example that talks about inhabitants/residents neglecting their town. She said that it seems that is is always in the hands of authorities to take care of a town and only they can neglect it. However, people can neglect their house, front yard or any other property they own. So we started discussing the issue and I found this site and posted my question this morning. Can you shed any more light on the issue? Thank you so much. Ros


Why do we write "Tsk" for the sound of disapproval?

Wikipedia says alveolar clicks are found only in Africa/Australia, which isn't true at all. For instance, there's the one usually done twice in rapid succession with the tongue against the upper side teeth/gums - to "gee up" a horse, indicate "mock-conspiratorial" agreement, etc. So far as I know, we don't even _attempt_ an onomatopoeic written representation of that one, but the one formed by suction against the back of the front teeth/palate is normally written as either "tut" or "tsk". Sometimes people actually **say** "tut" or "tut-tut" (presumably, influenced by the written form). But I've never heard anybody say anything remotely resembling "tsk". So where does the "k" come from in that written representation?


Should I wash my hands of this?

> Should I wash my hands of this? Has this expression ever been used as a way of suggesting a bribe?


"The question then arises . . . "

I'd like to say something like "Then, we have the question: why did this happen?" What is a proper way to say this using the phrase "The question then arises..."? Is it "The question then arises as to why this happened."? If this is correct usage, are there other continuations of this phrase (i.e. "The question then arises") that I could use?


English questions and negation with *do* in syntax

A former lecturer of mine once explained why, from a syntactic point of view, the English rule that negation and questions are formed with the auxiliary _do_ follows from other syntactic facts about English. More precisely, if you gave a good syntactician not familiar with English a corpus of English sentences containing everything but questions and negated phrases, then s/he could infer grammatical rules from it (such as headed-ness of phrases, what kind of arguments what word takes, etc.) From some of these rules, then, s/he could see that something specific would be wrong with the sentences "Gave you the present to Mary?" and "He went not to the cinema." Can someone explain what exactly this something is and how it follows from other sentences? FYI, my lecturer did this in Government & Binding with X-Bar theory. This may be more suitable a question for the proposed linguistics.stackexchange.com but as it's not online yet I'm trying it here first. Edit: the beta is online now at http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/.


Meaning of 'do' in questions like 'do you want...'

If take question 'Do you want to eat?' as example, I don't understand meaning of 'do' because:     * to do something in my understanding is to take some actions, to want something is not an action, it is not something, that you 'do'.    * And in form of simple statement this question will be 'I want to eat', not 'I do want to eat' (right?). What meaning of 'do' in this question?


Question building in English vs. in French

Question about language grammar etymology. In French the question _«Do you love?»_ can be written as _«Aimez-vous?»_ in German — _«Mögen Sie?»_ , but in English — _«Do you love?»_. Why should we use the verb «to do» in order to form the question? Why, according to the English grammar, it is not possible to build the question only with words inversion, e.g. _«Love you?»_ , like in French or German? In other words, why English which has quite a common Latin/Roman base with French and German has such different question building form. Thanks.


Using "do" to create a question

> **Possible Duplicates:**   >  English questions and negation with _do_ in syntax   >  What is the origin of the 'do' construction? I vaguely remember hearing that using "do" to create a question is almost unique to English. Other languages would simply reverse the verb and subject. However, as I asked a similar question (mistakenly) 30 min ago...I'm not certain whether this is right or not. Could speakers of other languages comment and set me mind at rest? Could anybody point me to a website on this?


What is the origin of the 'do' construction?

Modern English seems to require this verb in several circumstances, where most other European languages don't seem to need it. (See? I just used it.) For example, in questions: "Do you have a dog?" Whereas, "Have you a dog?" would be normal in other languages or in the English of days gone by. Another example: "I do not know him." Again, "I know him not," could be used, but sounds stilted nowadays. So, where _did_ this 'do' come from?


Context to distinguish "we" inclusive versus exclusive

In English, "we" has no clusivity \- context is needed to determine whether it means we-including-you or we-excluding-you. What context can a speaker provide to disambiguate without sounding awkward? I'm wondering in particular how to reword sentences like "We need to meet tomorrow."


Is the term "fire and forget" well understood?

When referring to people's skills, my (IT) circle sometimes refer to a person as being "fire and forget." This would indicate that you could tell such a person to accomplish a task, and they'd work it out themselves without constant supervision. The (to me) obvious etymology would be a fire-and-forget missile where the operator simply needs to target the weapon once as opposed to, say, a wire guided missile that requires needs to be manually guided to its target. Is "fire and forget" widely understood in this context or is it just a geek thing?


Forming the negative with "no?"

I sometimes see sentences like _I no go to Rio_ (note that _no_ is before _go_ )—as the title of this blog post.   Is it considered slang or is there an actual rule? p.s. While related, this is _not_ a duplicate of my previous question.


Start a subordinate clause with "thus"

In an academic paper I'm using _thus_ to indicate the conclusion of an argument. Today my professor said that _thus_ should not be used in the beginning of a subordinate clause and suggested to use _whence_ instead. Here's some examples to show how I use _thus_ : > The substance did not freeze at normal pressure when the temperature dropped > below 0 °C, thus it's not water. > > Lisa's evidence does not satisfy the epistemic standard, thus she doesn't > know that _p_. > > Joel's utterance was offending, thus it was inappropriate. Is it okay to start a subordinate clause with _thus_? Would using another word, e.g. _whence_ , be more appropriate?


What is the origin of the word "copper" for referring to a police officer?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What are some slang words for "police" in countries besides the US? What is the origin of the word _copper_ for referring to a police officer? There is no shortage of explanations available on the Web, and as near as I can tell they fall into three categories:   1. It is a variation of the Latin _capere_ , meaning, to grab or apprehend — a meaning preserved in expressions like “ _cop_ a feel” — that came into use in Britain in the 1700s.   2. Early English police forces had very large copper helmets (or, in some versions, buttons).   3. The badges worn by early New York police officers were made of copper. In addition, some sources have the word arising from “the color of the early police or sheriff cars in the western states”, and even from an acronym for “Constable On Patrol”. What I can’t find is an authoritative reference on the matter. The OED entry seems to support (1) as an _application_ of the word, at least for _cop_ , but is ambiguous about its origin and says only that “other conjectures have been offered” for _copper_. Is there a generally agreed to origin for the use of _copper_ for referring to a police officer?


What is the factual basis for "pirate speech"? (Did pirates really say things like "shiver me timbers"?)

The "pirate speech" we hear/see/read, for example, on the website _Talk Like A Pirate Day_ consists of a rhotic dialect characterized by phrases like "shiver me timbers," "ooh arh me hearties," and so on and so on. What is its basis in fact?


Words for meat differ from the words for the corresponding animal

In English we have:   * "beef" for "cow", "cattle"   * "veal" for "calf"   * "pork" for "pig"   * "mutton" for "sheep" I'm not aware of this separation for "fish", "goat" or "chicken" (Spanish has "pollo" and "gallina") and other poultry. Are these words used simply to distinguish the meat from the animal (i.e. to avoid saying "cow meat") or is there a psychological separation to avoid the association? I doubt the latter since these words developed when people were likely less squeamish than some are today. Why are there not meat words for some animals? What are some others I didn't list?


"also is" at the end of sentence

> I am in favour of compromises and I am glad that Gabriel also is. Is it okay here to end the sentence with "also is"? Is there a better/more proper way to express this?


Alternative to "maze" as a description for Pacman's environment?

Pacman's maze ![alt text](http://i.stack.imgur.com/OcDkN.jpg) is not a maze in the sense of being a place in which we get lost since we can clearly see where we are going. So what should we call the restricted environment in which Pacman operates? To clarify: I want another word to describe this rather than _maze_. Answers claiming that this is a maze by some definition or other aren't any use to me.


Is there an inverse word for emissary?

I'm looking for a word which describes a certain relationship. There are two people Adam, and Barry; and Adam sends Barry on a mission for him.   It can be said that Barry is Adam's emissary, but what is Adam to Barry?   I'm looking for an inverse word for emissary, such as employer is the inverse of employee.


"Question and Answers" equivalent when it's not a question

There is a common phrase, "Questions and Answers", also known as Q&A. If you have a viewpoint. opinion, idea, statement, or a thought etc., what phrase would represent it and the response the best? In other words, the equivalent to "Questions and Answers" when referring to opinions, thoughts, ideas, etc., is what? Some possible combinations I have thought of are "Viewpoints and Reactions", and "Opinions and Responses". There are probably others, but I am searching for the most proper. Also, in my opinion, "Comments and Feedback" seem too similar to "Questions and Answers".


What does this use of "carpeted" mean?

I partially understand based on the background and context, but I've never seen it used this way before. Can someone provide the full meaning of carpeted in this context and also tell me if it is a new usage or something old and obscure. From the news article: Joe Hockey carpets Liberal leaders > OPPOSITION Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey yesterday **carpeted** Liberal > Party leakers for undermining the opposition's bid to secure government. > > Mr Hockey condemned talk of leadership divisions stoked last week by a > leaked email from chief whip Warren Entsch rebuking former leader Malcolm > Turnbull. > > "I would say to people they should put their ambitions for the nation ahead > of their own ambitions," Mr Hockey said.


Is the adjective common between "form" and "colour"?

In the sentence: "The Bayeux Tapestry of 1068 shows designs in colour but not of heraldic form." Is "heraldic" common between "form" and "colour"? I mean is the adjective "heraldic" joint to both words "form" and "colour"? hence: "The Bayeux Tapestry of 1068 shows designs in [heraldic] colour but not of heraldic form."


When do you use the plural form for nouns that are generally considered uncountable?

When should the plural form of the nouns _combustible_ , _material_ and _liquid_ be used?


Origin of the name "paw-paw"

I've always known this fruit as papaya. It was only in recent times that I started hearing "paw-paw" used instead of "papaya". I also looked up the dictionary, but no relevant word came up. Where did this term originate from?


Is it okay using "The thing is" as filler?

I often use expression "The thing is" as filler a lot like this: > See, the thing is, they did not want to watch the movie that is why went > there. I might as well say it without **it** , since it does not really change the meaning, but sometimes I just say it instinctively to give my self some more to time to think. My question is, is it normal for people to do this? And if the answer is yes, what are the other expression like this?


Difference between "evade X" and "sidestep X"?

Please consider the following sentences > In the journalist meeting, the politician **evaded** the questions about > riots.   >  in the journalist meeting, the politician **sidestepped** the questions > about riots. Do the above sentences have the same meaning? As fundamental rule, no two words would have same meaning at all times. I expect some differences between evade and sidestep, which is why I am asking this question. The "Dictionary" software which I am using shows the below definitions: > Evade = escape or avoid, esp. by cleverness or trickery   >  Sidestep = avoid (someone or something) by stepping sideways I am unable to make out the differences between those two definitions.


Correct usage of infinitives

I am not sure about the usage of _infinitives_ in this sentence: > Finally, one of the accused confessed _to have_ forged the director's > signature on the report. Could anyone explain correct usage?


Should I begin with uppercase when placing a sentence inside a apostrophes?

Here's an example: Warren said, 'could you help me remember some English basics?' vs. Warren said, 'Could you help me remember some English basics?'


Is it grammatical to use "an even better " rather than "even better"?

I know this question is quite basic but right now I'm having a problem with it: "Jimmy your english is bad. Try to speak in front of mirror or **an** even better option is to take english classes." Is it grammatical to use "an" here?


"are added" -or- "are being added"?

Basically, what I want to say is: "new pictures are constantly added", but I need to omit "constantly", so how would be grammatically correct to say this phrase meaning `constantly`: "new pictures are added" -or- "new pictures are being added"?


This article uses a phrase that started me wondering, here's the relevant quote (emphasis mine): > So you're right. SQL -- the kind you write every day -- is ugly and awkward. > In fact, **_it looks like hell on legs_**. And it's often pretty slow. Where exactly did the phrase "hell on legs" come from?


Opposite of "implicate"

What might be a good antonym of _implicate_ in the context of troubleshooting an engineering problem? I can think of _exonerate_ and _vindicate_ but both sound more about crime than to refer to a component previously thought to introduce a design flaw in the overall system.


Morphological or syntactic conversion?

When a noun is used as a verb, linguistically, this process is termed as morphological conversion: > Fish (n): This is a fish.   >  Fish (v): I'm fishing in the river. Why shouldn't we call it syntactic conversion? The word itself didn't change only the grammatical role has been affected? And if an adjective, for example, is converted into a verb by adding a derivational suffix, then it should be called morphological conversion. Am I right?


"With an (instrument)" and "by (instrument)"

"We forced the door **_with a jimmy_** " is idiomatic whereas "The door was forced **_by jimmy_** " (Note there is no article after 'by' in this sentence) is also idiomatic. However, "We forced the door **_by jimmy_** " is not. I wonder whether one or the other is idiomatic is based on the passive-active difference. I can't assess whether the following sentences are idiomatic, as I'm a non-native speaker. If you could please help me with this, I'd be very much obliged. * * * [1-a] We drew lines with a straight edge. [1-b] Lines were drawn by straight edge. * * * [2-a] We held the unknown object with the tongs we found in the lab. [2-b] The unknown object was held by the tongs we found in the lab. * * * [3-a] We ate the beans with chopsticks. [3-b] The beans were eaten by chopsticks. * * * [4-a] We cleaned the room with a broom and a mop. [4-b] The room was cleaned by broom and mop. * * * [5-a] We cut the paper with such a peculiar instrument. [5-b] The paper was cut by such a peculiar instrument. * * * [6-a] We measured the length of the rope with a ruler. [6-b] The length of the rope was measured by ruler. * * *


What is meant by "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining"?

I have heard a couple of times recently the phrase "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining", usually in the context of a heated argument so I've hesitated to ask speaker what exactly he meant by it. Can anyone here help?


Terminology of a non-numbered page of text having 12 points?

I was in a law lecture and the lecturer referred to a sentence three-quarters down a slab of unstructured text as 'point 9'. The idea being, she explained, that a page of text 'has 12 points' and you can indicate a particular part by the point number. (so 1 quarter down the page is point 3 etc). My question is - does this convention of a page of text having 12 points have a reference or any authority? * * * EDIT: Lecturer is Australian


Terminology for expressing the scale of a measurement system

I'm looking for the most applicable terminology for defining the scale of measurement units in a particular system. For example, for a distance, in 'metric', the 'small' scale could be 'm/s' and the 'big' scale could be 'km/h'. In 'imperial', the 'small' scale could be 'feet' and the 'big' scale could be 'miles'. Similarly with a speed, the 'small' and 'big' scales could be 'm/s' and 'km/h' respectively for the metric system, and 'ft/s' and 'mph' respectively for the imperial system. Throughout this post I've referred to a 'small' and 'big' 'scale'. Are there better terms I could use?


More accurate terms for one-sided business information?

I like to use the term `"one-sided"` when I come across to very misleading, too much marketing or even wrong information in annual letters. My observations can be flawed so I am very hesitant to use more extreme terms such as `"propaganda"`, `"brainwash"` or such terms. One example where I like to use the term `"one-sided"` and sometimes `"propaganda"` is in finance and particularly with speculators. One good example is Buffettphilists that premisizes their actions with Buffett's historical actions (this company is like Buffet's this-that company, I will buy it etc).   1. What are more lively terms for one-sided information?   2. What are more neutral terms for one-sided ambiguous information?   3. What are more stressing terms for one-sided clearly wrong information?   4. What are more neutrals terms for clear brainwashing?


use of constant

I read this article on the Syrian upheaval on a Prospect Blog. > A week is a long time in the diplomatic efforts surrounding the Syrian > conflict. Just when it looked as though key elements were coalescing towards > convening a US-UK-Russia-sponsored conference to negotiate a way out of the > political deadlock, events on the ground took over again. Rather than an > aberration, “events” have in fact been a constant of what is better > characterised as a game of diplomatic catch-up, in which the main players on > the chessboard have been firmly rooted in Syria, and now the wider region, > for over two years. I am not able to understand why the "events" are "a constant"? Does s/he mean constant as in a maths equation's constant? Would _described_ , instead of "characterised", not have been a better word to use in the last sentence?


In "Enter John", is John in the nominative or accusative case?

This question made me think about the structure of the sentence. I'm familiar with the expression 'Enter Michael'/'Exit John' to represent Michael's or John's entry or exit, respectively, to a dramatic stage, and its metaphorical use. Is this a real sentence, or a sentence fragment? Either way, should John be treated as the subject of the sentence, and put in the nominative case? I realise that this makes little practical difference as English words are not typically declined based on case, and "exit him" or "Enter I" sounds wrong either way. However I am curious. Initially I had thought that "exit" might be the subjunctive, and that the phrase was equivalent to "Let John exit". But the plural of "exit" in stage directions is "exeunt", and both "exit" and "exeunt" are present indicative in Latin.


First-rate, second-rate, and third-rate

I’d like some clarification on the use of these three words. _First-rate_ has positive connotations and its meaning is manifest, but the meanings of _second-rate_ and _third-rate_ are relatively muddy in comparison. I know that both of them have negative connotations, and that _third-rate_ is even more forceful in the claim it’s making than is _second-rate_ , but when would it be appropriate to use either? Is _second-rate_ a better choice of words when doing an explicit comparison like > Prof A is better than Prof B. When I say Prof B. is _second-rate_ , I’m in fact implying that Prof. B is less than stellar, but not necessarily bottom of the barrel. And conversely, is _third-rate_ a better choice when making some sort of global claim — like for example, when I say Prof. C is _third-rate_ , I’m implying that he’s the worst, **_worst_** professor I’ve ever encountered, and that when Prof. C is juxtaposed with any other professor, he will almost assuredly be found lacking in comparison. If anybody has insight or clarification on all this, that would be great. And also, if anybody wants to try at the etymology of these three words, then by all means please do so, as I’d be really interested to find out more about their history.


"Infantile" vs "puerile" vs "childish" vs "immature"

My understanding of these words is:   _Infantile_ indicates behavior of very small children (infants), in contrast to _immature_ that says someone is unexperienced and callow. Childish and puerile sounds to me as something between infantile and immature.   1. In regular use, do these words allude any differences or are they used fully synonymic.   2. Which word is most common?   I've already taken a look on ngram, frequency seems to be quite equal.   3. Which words are more formal or informal, which one are more or less colloquial?


Plural of "Average" as a noun?

I have a sentence lingering in my mind that I read somewhere, but the way I'm remembering it it doesn't sound right:               The averages have the power of invisibility.      Is this correct pluralization of 'average' as a noun?


"Not a clue" vs. "no clue"

Example:   * > — What is he called?   >  — I have **not a clue**.   * > — What is he called?   >  — I have **no clue**. Are both versions grammatical in English? If they are, which one is preferred by native speakers in the US and the UK?


Correct usage for "bad" v. "poor" adjectives

The way I was taught many years ago was that something like _quality_ can be poor, but not bad. The reasoning was that "bad" is a value/moral whereas poor applies to non- value qualities. In this case, _evil people_ can be bad, but not poor (unless they have no money). Is this still the case? I find more often that people use "bad" to describe most things that "poor" would traditionally be used for.   * **Poor** >     * This burger was really ____ quality. >     * Wow, that chair is of ____ craftsmanship. >     * Johnson handled the account ____ly, so we lost it. >     * He drives so ____ly, it is a wonder how he ever passed his test in the > first place.   * **Bad** >     * That barking dog is ____. >     * The ____ boy broke my window. >     * No one can dispute that Hitler was a ____ man. So what about where things are less clear-cut? What's the rule of thumb? >   * Wow, that's a really ____ computer you have. >   * My S.O. always treats me ____ly when I forget to take out the trash. >   * I hate that garage! The mechanic always does a ____ job! >


How do you pronounce PIPEDA?

I'm wondering how to pronounce the acronym for Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. PIP eh duh? pie PEED uh? other?


How did 'provide' evolve to mean 'stipulate in a document'?

What's an intuitive derivation behind ODO's definition 3 that helps to internalise its meaning: > 3\. **to provide** [with clause] = Stipulate in a will or other legal > document: Etymonline doesn't explain this meaning.


"Before it was too late" vs. "before it would be too late"

What is the difference between the sentences below? >   1. Mary decided to get pregnant before it was too late. >   2. Mary decided to get pregnant before it would be too late. >


What is the difference between "Must" and "Must be"?

I saw the following sentences in an advertisement.   * Graduation must be in computer science.   * Graduation is must.  I want to know the meaning of Must and Must be and the difference between them.


Meaning of "leave on a full basis"

When I was reading News of Real Madrid - Di Maria set to be released, I saw following sentence: > Real Madrid management seem to have decided to let Di Maria leave on a full > basis. What does this mean(especially **full basis** )? Does that mean Di Maria will leave Real Madrid?


Word describing a person's momentary pleasure, but overall discord

I once read an article that used a single word to describe a frame of mind in which a person experiences momentary pleasure amidst overall discord; or perhaps the word was describing the opposite: A unified, holistic mind without discord. The word may be related to _dysphoria_ or _equanimity_. Any ideas? As an example of such a frame of mind, in the discussion of the OCD condition Trichotillomania [1] here [2] there is a phrase: _“Immediate pleasure may be experienced but in the long run the person feels frustrated and embarrassed.”_ This is a good example of the sense I’m looking for in this single-word- request. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotillomania [2] http://www.biobehavioralinstitute.com/viewarticle.php?id=7


Does the word “skyfall” (or “sky falls”) exist in English?

I found the word, “skyfall” being used in the article of April 18 Nikkei.com. under the title, “What the collapse of the gold bubble tells” with the following lead copy > “International commodity market represented by gold collapsed on April 15th. > The collapse was triggered by the dropdown of the economic growth rates of > China which turned out far below the economists’ expectation. The “ > **Skyfall** ” broke out in the gold market may foretell the economic boom of > new developing countries is coming to a turning point. The word “skyfall” is used in English in Japanese text as if it is a stock market jargon. There is a Japanese word “杞憂-kiyu” – worring about the fall of the sky,” which we borrowed from Chinese proverb, “杞人憂天-Qi ren you tian” that derived from the ancient story of the people of the Qi country very much worried about if the sky should fall on their heads suddenly. I checked if the “skyfall” is English word or not with CED, OED, Merriam- Webster English Dictionary to find none of them carries this word, nor does Google Ngram register it. Is “skyfall” used as an English word other than James Bond “007 Skyfall” and its theme music? If it is, can the word, “the sky falls” be associated with anything like a panic or catastrophe as used in the Nikkei article among Anglophones?


Computer terms tip

Here is a tip to notice the users what's going on   "This directory contains one folder named as Program Files in which a specialized virtual machine is used to crack WiFi passwords, Don't modify it!"   Q: Where is the virtual machine?


Which one is the proper alternative ? niche / field / area / domain

I'm developing a software that asks user to specify a `niche / field / area / domain` of the document he is uploading. It can be business proposal, technical documentation, official stuff, correspondence, complain whatever. How do I call this field ? There will be a suggestion form field that will contain the most frequent expressions.


What does "with a thing for" mean in this context?

It comes from an episode of "The Big Bang Theory." Here's a transcript found on the Internet:Big Bang 15. I was befuddled by "with a thing for"; it looks like "have something" to me.


What does "let's go with that" mean here?

What does Howard from _The Big Bang Theory_ mean when he says "let's go with that"? I think the meaning was "let's just keep thinking it's true." Am I right?


To put more "weight/power" into a conclusion

I am trying to find an expression which would meet my needs. In the report that I am currently writing I would like to explain that I have done a certain action in order to "put more weight/power" into a conclusion. There is an expression for this purpose in the French language ( _mettre du poids dans_ ), and I know that translating an expression from a language to another nearly never works. I tried to find the solution by asking Google but I guess I am not using the correct keywords... Does anyone would have any ideas? [EDIT] I am actually trying to say that my action will _carry more weight_ (thanks Rant) but I do not know how I should formulate it. I have started my sentence like this: The investigation will also draw a timeline of activities in order to add **expression** to the previous arguments. I have moved from **conclusion** to **argument** as it make more sense in the current context. How can I add an expression which means _carry more weight_?


Which punctuation should be used for spelling out acronyms?

Is "COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease)" more correct, or would "COPD [Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease]" be right?


em dash followed by a comma

> I have three cars -- blue, red, and green -- , two motorcycles, and four > bicycles. Is this a correct use of comma after an em-dash? It seems quite weird. How should I use an em-dash and a comma here?


Describing event with “greatest” date value

I'm struggling with a way to describe one of a series of datetime values that has the greatest value. My first thought would be to call it the "latest", but the suggests that the event is in the past, not possibly in the future. How would you describe an event at a time which is after all previous events in the series, and can have already happened or is possibly in the future?


How can I identify the role of an infinitive in a sentence?

Infinitives may function as nouns, adjectives or adverbs. Since infinitives are derived from verbs, they do express actions or states of being. However, there is some difficulty in identifying the particular **_role_** of the infinitive in a sentence. Is there a generic test available to determine whether each infinitive is serving as a noun, adjective, or adverb? I will be taking the GMAT exam shortly, and this is an area that I am particularly weak in. It is necessary to identify the role of Infinitives in order to get answers right for questions related to Parallelism and Verb Tense. **Example:** "Half our life is spent trying to find something to do with the time we have rushed through life trying to save." - Will Rogers


"The judge is god" or "The god is judge"?

In a scene in _The great debaters_ , Denzel Washington's character asks his students to reiterate some lines. He asks: > Who is the judge? And the students reply: > The judge is god. Now, why is the answer not "the god is judge" instead? I think the former one is not appropriate because "The judge is god" means in a general sense that each judge is god, doesn't it? And this was not being asked anyway. The question was asked in more specific way and "the god is judge" means that god is the judge, emphatically god is the only judge but the former answer is not emphasizing that. Am I correct? Or are these two equal with not even the slightest of differences? If they are different, then how?


Favoritism granted in politics or business regardless of merit?

I'm looking for a word that describes _favoritism granted in politics or business regardless of merit_ , but not just towards relatives.


Why are these questions structured differently?

> How many rooms **does** your apartment _have?_ > > How many rooms _have_ carpeting? I'm a native speaker of English teaching at a language school. Recently I was stumped by a question made by a student. It was: > How come in the first sentence, the question is structured the "regular way" > i.e. auxiliary (does) + present simple of the verb (have), whereas in the > second sentence we don't use an auxiliary. I have a feeling that it might be related to subject / object, but honestly I'm not sure. Any help would be appreciated.


Usage of "is when"

In grade school, when writing stories for English classes I recall being gently corrected whenever I handed pieces in that contained sentences with a structure similar to this: > "A debate _is when_ a group of people get together and argue for fun," or more generally "noun _is when_ description" or "metaphor _is when_ philosophical prose." I don't recall the justification for not employing _is when_ in sentences, but even now, I find myself avoiding its usage simply because it "feels" clumsy. Is there any legitimate justification for avoiding this grammar?


Irish English use of "college" for secondary schools?

I've been filtering locations in Ireland from a list that comes with Google Maps location data for each, selecting those that are close to a "college". I just checked on one of those locations manually, and found a "Killorglin Community College", and the place's webpage says it is "a co-educational and multi-belief _Secondary School_ under the governing body of Kerry Education Service". **Is this common in Ireland, to use the term "college" for a secondary school?** In the Wikipedia page for "Education in the Republic of Ireland", I can only find "college" associated with "higher" or "third-level" education (I would say "post-secondary", coming from Canada)...


subconscious vs unconscious

A friend of mine believes that a thought that is underlying, and not the main focus of the mind, can be described as a thought had "unconsciously". I am convinced she is incorrect, and the word to use is "subconsciously". The word could also refer to an action that is instinctive and not thought through? Any input as to which (or both) is correct would be appreciated.


Et cetera vs Et al

Probably one of the most used word around is et cetera. I also come across people substituting et al for etc. Google says me that both of them more or less give away the same meaning 'and the others'. Is there a particular context and usage for each of these? Are there any situations where in one should prefer et al over etc or vice versa?


I've found this sentence in a grammar site : "you'll surely pass the exam if you studied hard" (independent clause in the future and dependent clause in the past) Wouldn't be more natural : "...if you study hard" ? Does the original sentence express doubt about the willingness to study? Puime


Is the phrase 'have something down' the same as 'have something down pat'?

Once we **have** the functional mechanics **down** , we’ll customize the display of fields using properties and then using richer data templates for the edit, add, and display modes. This sentence is extracted from a tech book titled 'Silverlight 4 in action'.


and/or question

If I were to write buy 2 blue and/or red towels, would I be saying: > Buy 2 red towels, 2 blue towels, or 1 red and 1 blue? Or > Buy 2 red towels, 2 blue towels, or 2 blue and 2 red towels?


Does "Japanese tourist" have any meaning other than a tourist from Japan?

I was under the impression that "Japanese tourist" had a meaning more than just a tourist who happens to be from Japan. For example, TV Tropes has an entry on Japanese Tourist, and French fashion boss offends Chinese over elitist Paris hotel describes the reaction when "Chinese tourist" (which I assume is the same as "Japanese tourist", but updated for the new century) was interpreted literally (tourists from China) rather than figuratively (mass tourism). However, others seem to be skeptical of this. One person commented > I don't think there is a special term - just as in English, "Japanese > tourist"/"Chinese tourist" could be a neutral descriptor in many contexts. > It's more a stereotype than a figurative meaning. Does "Japanese tourist" have any meaning other than merely a tourist from Japan, like "Polish plumber" means something other than just a plumber from Poland?


What is a word similar to "multiplier" but for addition (or subtraction)

A _multiplier_ is a number by which another number is multiplied. What do you call a number by which another number is added or subtracted?


"unaccounted for externalities" vs "unaccounted externalities"

Which of the two formulations is correct or preferable? > Alienation of consumer from producer allows the existence of unaccounted > **for** externalities. > > Alienation of consumer from producer allows the existence of unaccounted > externalities. I would say the first is correct while the second isn't. What do you say?


A bit niche - noun? adjective?

I came across this sentence while I was reading an article and it got me very confused as to the definition of the word " _niche_ " > The bitter, terrible reality of the media world was clear to me even then. > My pudgy face didn't fit. I didn't have enough glamour for Anna. In > retrospect, perhaps my suggestion that The Blues Brothers should be shown > every day at midnight was **a bit niche**. But that didn't matter. I don't think I understand understand the definition of " _niche_ " here. Is it a noun or an adjective? What does it mean in this sentence?i don't seem to be able to understand it... Does it mean it was not the correct time slot on TV? or that it was not the right tip?


The difference between "heathen" and "ungodly"

My student needed an adjective which means "irreligious" or "does not believe in God/a god." I suggested the words "heathen" and "ungodly". Would you say there's a difference between the two sentences below?   1. My student has the impression that the Poles, a deeply religious nation, think of their Czech neighbors as a heathen lot.   2. My student has the impression that the Poles, a deeply religious nation, think of their Czech neighbors as an ungodly lot. Thanks a lot!


What is the single word that describes a person who always gossips? (For example, telling things about others which are not true.)


What do you call someone who gives you the wrong advice?

I have a co-worker at work who I have figured has given me the wrong advice or wrong impression more than once (like "oh its ok to come by this time" while I found out later it was not permitted by company policy). What do you call such a person? EDIT: Thanks to everyone for the answers. I was looking for someone doing this deliberately.In my opinion the word I would use would be a "deceiver" or a "misleader", as they convey the sense of deliberately giving a false impression or leading in the wrong direction.


Capitalising the first letter of a reference to God?

like "He", "His", "Thy", "the Creator", "the Omnipotent", etc. What is the origin of this practice? When should I capitalise words like this? for any deity? only the deity of the Abrahamic faiths?


What does "fringe meeting" mean exactly?

I'm aware of that 'Fringe' means 'not major', 'not mainstream'. I hardly understand how 'fringe' and 'meeting' meet as one vocabulary.


Is "it is a fun game" correct?

"It is a lot of fun," sounds correct, but not, "it is a fun game."   Isn't **fun** a _noun_? Then why is it used as an _adjective_?   I have heard this usage even by literary giants, so this cannot be a common mistake.   Should "funny" be used in stead? **EDIT** Moral of the story: _Fun_ has become an adjective colloquially, hence it is impossible to see it as wrong.


difference between "engage with someone" and "engage someone"?

What is the difference between "engaging with someone" and "engaging someone"? For example, what is the difference between these two expressions:   * How do you engage with your employees?   * How do you engage your employees?


"Neither" and "either" usage in negative sentence

I would like to make sure I understood the usage of these: _Do you want A or B?_ >   1. I do not want either. [none of them] >   2. I want neither. [Can I say that?] >


Should these questions be split?

I have these two questions: >   * Could you give me a call please as I need to speak to you about > something? >   * What is the name of the reference because there is something important > that I need to look up? > The actual question stops at the word 'please' in the first question. The actual question stops at the word 'reference' in the second question. Should these two questions be split into two sentences like this: >   * Could you give me a call please? There is something I need to speak to > you about. >   * What is the name of the reference? There is something important that I > need to look up. >


What does this idiom mean and where did it come from?

What does the expression "being drug up on the carpet and then run up the mast" mean and where did it come from? It could very well be the person who said it made it up on the spot.


What is the real difference between dilation and dilatation?

In the medical profession we use the terms **dilatation** and **dilation** with great frequency. Dilatation is defined as a region of dilation, an area of abnormal enlargement, or the surgical enlargement of a region (noun describing the verb). Dilation is defined as the act of dilating (stretching out), the state of being dilated, and confusingly: _dilatation_. Both definitions cross-refer to one another. And, yet I've never gotten a sufficient answer as to why we use one vs. the other. Some, try to claim that dilatation is an active process (like _dilatation and curettage_ ), and dilation is a passive process. But, we dilate people's pupils by giving medications. Or using balloon angioplasty we dilate a stenosed blood vessel. Other sources claim that dilation is a uniform enlargement compared to dilatation. And, other sources claim that there is, in fact, no difference between the two. In research of this question I sought out clues from the etymology And, I found that dilatation is the older form. That dilation was a mistaken assumption in the 1590s that -ate was the Latin Verbal suffix (and not part of the root). So, my question: Is there really a difference between the two terms? Or are they truly interchangeable as the etymology would suggest? Has there been a shift in meaning within, say, the Engineering world?


Should one use an indefinite article after 'kind of'?

If the noun after _kind of_ is singular, do we use an indefinite article or not? For example, >   * That kind of an answer is teasing. >   * That kind of answer is teasing. > Which is correct?


What is the name for "pronunciation spelling"?

Dictionaries often have "pronunciation spelling" listed next to the word. For example: > **port·man·teau** \- noun `\pȯrt-ˈman-(ˌ)tō\` What is the name for this alphabet/system? Is it a universal system, or does every language have their own "version" of it?


using and/or for two equal things

Which sentence is preferred? > The value of A or B is 50% each > > The value of A and B are 50% each > > The values of A and B are 50% each


What's the meaning of "in the spirit of"?

The following is a passage from this article: > In the spirit of full disclosure, the texter in question turned out to be my > editor at Salon. (Hi, Sarah!) She has not texted me again. What does _in the spirit of_ in the passage mean? I have looked it up in the dictionaries, but couldn't find a definition for it.


What's it called when one is so familiar with a language that phrases just "sound" right or wrong?

Native speakers, especially those who have read a lot of writing or literature for a given language, acquire the ability to "know" whether something is grammatically correct (or not) just from their recognition of patterns and phrases and not necessarily any specific rules of grammar or language usage (i.e. transitive or intransitive verbs, conjugation, etc.) Is there a term for this?


A word for somebody who supports things fleetingly and whilst they are popular

I'm looking for a word for somebody who supports things fleetingly and whilst they are popular, for example a sports team on a winning streak, or something which is currently in fashion.


"Criticism" vs. "critique"

What is the difference in meaning between _criticism_ and _critique_?


How did "chopped liver" come to mean "of little value"?

Where did the phrase "chopped liver" originate? Why does it mean "of little value"?


Words to describe human beauty?

I am listing down words that I can use to compliment a special someone. So far, I have a few like "gorgeous", "stunning", "mesmerizing", "ineffable" , "pretty" , "charming" , etc. These are common and far too few. Are there more words that can be used to describe the beauty of a young girl in her late teens? If the words are context-sensitive then please do mention that also.


How should I thank someone for considering my job application?

My girlfriend is writing a cover letter for a job application and wants to thank the recipient for taking the time to review the application. She wrote the following closing sentence: > Thank you for your consideration of my application. I suggested that this would be better: > Thank you for taking the time to consider my application. Which sounds more professional and fluent? Can you please explain why one is better or why they're both equal? Thanks!


Guidelines for selecting suffix when making an adjective out of a proper name (-esque, -ean, -ian,

Examples: For (Michael) Jordan, we often see Jordanesque. Why? Perhaps because he is His Airness (and the _-esque_ suffix is associated with fanciness)? Maybe also to avoid confusion with Jordanians? Plato -> Platonic. Why? Do names ending with an "o" generally get the suffix "-nic"? If so what do we do with Michelangelo? And here are some for which there does not seem to be consensus: Tolstoy -> Tolstoyian? Tolstoyan? Toylstoyean? Something else? Any guidelines? Schelling -> Schellingian? Schellingesque? Is this just mostly arbitrary and a matter of convention?


Was/were exception rule

My kid's English teacher is teaching that there is exception in use of was/were "WAS she and her sister at the zoo?" is right. "WERE she and her sister at the zoo?" is wrong. AFAIK "She and her sister WERE at the zoo" is supposedly right. There is no explanation on that exception in the book. Can someone explain this rule or at least point to a source where such rule could be found? Thanks.


What is proper sentence structure?

I've got a problem with this structure: "Under this term are meant all things that belong to (...)" I wish to know if it's correct and what kind of structure actually it is. I believe it's probably more of general problem with sentence structure in English. I've got similar problem with this kind of constructs: "There is/are sth in somewhere" vs. "In somewhere is/are sth". Example: "There are two tomatoes in the fridge." vs. "In the fridge are two tomatoes." Are the above structures correct? Can they be used interchangeably?


Pronunciation of "Celt": /kɛlt/ vs. /sɛlt/

Both `/kɛlt/` and `/sɛlt/` are considered acceptable pronunciations of the noun Celt and similarly of the adjective Celtic. Is there a reason for the different pronunciations? Which is the more common? Is each variant perhaps particular to a geography? Scottish vs. Irish, maybe?


Is there any word for people who are strongly against artificial intelligence?

A group of people who strongly oppose the idea of having humanoids, robots, expert systems and claim they are degrading and insulting to human intelligence. Is there a word for a group strongly against artificial intelligence?


What's the name of the color

Can any body tell me the official name of the color? I want to say light blue, but people may not be able to get the closest image in mind.![Color](http://i.stack.imgur.com/V3TkX.png)


Polemic/controversial in noun form

what would you call the putting forward of a controversial debate? i.e. something is polemic when controversial but you can't say 'i am developing a polemic' (that is, use polemic as a noun) is there an equivalent noun that would fit the case?


Why are there exceptions for the i before e except after c rule?

The exceptions such as"foreign" and "weird" seem abnormal to me because most of the rest of the ie or ei words follow the i before e rule. They don't have a "c". Why does that happen?


"e" before "i" in the word "weird"

In elementary school, I was taught the rhyme: > "i" before "e" except after "c", and in words like "neighbor" and "weigh" Obviously this means that "ei" is used in "deceive" (it comes after "c") and "sleigh" ("gh" follows it). The word "weird" does not follow this rule, and I have always thought that to be weird (please pardon the pun). It has neither a "c" nor "gh", so why does it have this "ei" vowel combination instead of "ie"? * * * While writing this post, I noticed that "neither" also disobeys the rule, just like "weird". At first, I thought that maybe the "English gods" thought it would be a funny meta-joke to let "weird" have a weird spelling (like how "awkward" awkwardly has a "k" surrounded by two "w"s), but apparently there are other words as well!


Why do you write "receive" with "ei" but "retrieve" with "ie"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why is it true that “I before E, except after C”? Both words are similar in pronunciation but different in spelling. Why is it that _receive_ is written with _ei_ but _retrieve_ has the diphthong the other way round?


"Either your dog or your cat eats" vs. "Either your dog or cat eats"

Version (1) seems correct to me, but I cannot explain why it is correct grammatically. Could someone explain please? >   1. Either **your dog or your cat** eats my garbage. >   2. Either **your dog or cat** eats my garbage. >


"I have been reading your letter with pleasure"?

Is this a correct choice of tense? If yes, what conditions would justify the use of Present Perfect Continuous? It seems much more natural to say > I have read your letter. (I have recently finished) or > > I read your letter with pleasure. (I finished in a string of events not > related to now) I wanted to explain to my student where her choice of Present Perfect Continuous ( as in the title) might do. Here is what I think: > I have been reading your letter with pleasure. does make sense when the reading is recent or still lasts. Adding "with pleasure" does not make any difference, contrary to what I initially thought. That's my answer to my question that has been modified several times for clarity. Thanks.


XX inch round - radius or diameter?

I am looking for some circular labels on eBay ("Warranty void if removed" - I guess you know these things stuck on computers). ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/d0slS.jpg) The listing states: > 100 round bright silver tamper evident hologram labels - Warranty Void If > Removed with unique sequential serial numbering. > > Dimensions: **.65 inch round** Does "XX inch round" customarily refer to the radius or the diameter circular things?


Origin of “not for quids” phrase

At various times I've supposed the informal Australian phrase “not for quids” (which apparently is analogous to “not at any price”) derives from _quid_ , which refers to sovereigns, or guineas. At other times I've imagined it derives from _quid pro quo_ , “This for that”. What evidence is available about the origin of “not for quids”? Note, quoting from the _Cambridge Idioms Dictionary_ , thefreedictionary says the following of “not for quids”: > If you say that you would not do something for quids, you mean that you > would hate to do that thing [ _eg_ ] I wouldn't do your job for quids.


Antonym of "comfort zone"

What is a good antonym of "comfort zone", or an expression replacing "outside my comfort zone"? I'm writing an essay and don't want to repeat myself too much.


Do words for male animals include those which are castrated?

English has distinct words for the male and female of many common animal species. For example, we have _bull / cow_ , _rooster / hen_ , _ram / ewe_ , _stallion / mare_ , _boar / sow_ , _man / woman_. However, we also have words for castrated male animals (those which have had the testicles removed): _steer_ , _capon_ , _wether_ , _gelding_ , _hog_ , _eunuch_. Do the male terms include or exclude the castrated case? If I refer to a male sheep as a _ram_ , and it later turns out to be a _wether_ , have I spoken incorrectly or merely imprecisely? I would be interested in common, technical, and historical usage.


Confusing adverbs, "still" and "yet"

Which of these sentences is correct, and why? >   1. It's yet stopped raining. We will be able to leave soon. >   2. It's still stopped raining. We will be able to leave soon. >


Should common foreign phrases such as "vice versa" be italicized?

I am writing a document in which phrases such as " _et al._ ", " _in vitro_ ", and " _ex vivo_ " are to be italicized. However, is a very common English (yet foreign) phrase such as "vice versa" to be italicized? Is there a general rule of thumb for determining this?


What is a 'beater restaurant'?

I was reading an article in the Denver Post and I ran across the term "beater restaurant." I didn't know what it meant, and I wasn't able to find the term via a Google search. The article is in the newspaper's cold case section, talking about a murder that took place in 1947, so possibly it is an older colloquialism. From the article, "Founder of Denver school murdered with sister", K. Mitchell, 23 February 2013: > To help in the discovery of Lundy, authorities said he “likes good steaks” > that he eats at **beater restaurants** and stays in good hotels. “He dresses > fastidiously.” The article is rife with inaccuracies and poor grammar/spelling/editing, so it is equally possible that it is some form of misprint. Any insight would be appreciated.


Why are "put" and "but" different in their pronunciation?


'-gate' as a suffix to coin words related to scandals and corruption cases

I noticed that for corrruption/scandals the usage of '-gate' suffix is pretty common, as we have recently seen with 'datagate' and before with 'watergate' Can anyone explain what the relation between '-gate' and scandals is and why this relation arose? Also, is this '-gate' used with the same sense in British English, too?


What does “it took one away” mean in the line, “For each superpower his brain gave him, it took one away” in encountering a gun attack?

There was the following sentence in the article of Time magazine, titled “Your brain in a shootout: Guns, fear and flawed instincts” dealing with the brain’s function in a life-or-death situation. As Jim Glennon, a lieutenant in the Chicago Police, found himself placed in, one autumn day in 2004 when he was assaulted by a gun-shooter:- http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/your-brain- in-a-shootout-guns-fear-and-flawed-instincts/ > “As happens for most people in life-or-death situations, his brain began to > manipulate his perception of time, slowing down the motion as he fled down > the corridor. But for each superpower his brain gave him, **it took one > away**. In a flash, his brain reprioritized, shifting finite resources to > the cause of survival. I’m not very clear with what the line, “it took one away” means? What do ‘it’ and ‘one’ represent? Is ‘it’ a substitute for his brain or ‘a superpower’? Is ‘one’ “one of those superpowers” or “him”? What does 'for" of 'for each superpower' function for? Is it grammatically or rhetorically wrong, if I take ‘for’ away from the line, and say “His brain took away each superpower it gave him”? How can I rephrase it in a clearer way, without using substitutes, “it” and “one,” (even if the end result includes redundant expressions)?


What are "discursive politics"?

I'm not a native English speaker. I have been reading Rousseau's "The Social Contract", and the phrase "discursive politics" showed up. I'm not really sure what it means... So, what does it mean?


Present Perfect after "before"

I've been watching a TV show recently and in one of the episodes the following is being said: > I don't want half my army killed before I've crossed the Narrow Sea. In the second part of the sentence, after "before", the Present Perfect tense is used, which made me think about the meaning of it. How does "before" influence the meaning of this part of the sentence?


How was "assassin" brought into English?

According to etymological dictionary the word "assassin" is derived, "via French and Italian", from a word translating as "hashis-eater", the name given to certain members of the Nizari Ismaili, a tribe originating in twelfth- century Syria during "the time of the Crusades". Can anybody explain the reason why the word was brought into English "via French and Italian" rather then directly by returning Britons crusaders? Or, maybe, etymological dictionary is wrong?


Is "regardless" a word I shouldn't use?

Is it true that "regardless" is a word I shouldn't use because it is obsolete? If it is, what shall I use instead?


What is a "hood" in this context?

A forum poster was giving an account of his visit to his friend who is an owner of a burger shack, and in one part he said: > We smoked some of the Mr. Nice I brought along to give him and his employee > for the trouble and blew it up into the hood in classic poverty restaurant > style :coolface:. What is a hood? Is that the ceiling of the restaurant? I was thinking this couldn't be the folding hood of the car. Edit: This is the picture of the kitchen he posted (couldn't scale it down unfortunately I'm on iPad :(), not sure if that device on the top left corner is the extractor or not, but could possibly be since I think there's what it looks like a fryer on the far right below it. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/KTUZ7.jpg)


French speaker here — How to pronounce "r" and "l"?

I'm a French speaker and actually I have some problems with the sounds _l_ , _r_ and _o_ in _lawyer_. Do you have any advice for me on how to place the tongue and so on?


What would you call someone that you ask for directions?

I'm driving around and I stop to ask someone for directions to my destination, is there an English word for that person?