What word am I looking for (similar to "subset")

If...   * (A) is a subset of (A)    * (A,B) is a subset of (A,B,C)    * (B,A) is not a subset of (A,B,C) because order matters.    * (B,C) is not a subset of (A,B,C) because I only want to compare the front of each set. Now _subset_ is the second cousin of the word I'm actually looking for. **_Which word would best fit here?_** Maybe:   * _is a prefix of_   * _begins_ ... but they seem awkward. Bonus points if there's a common term with an accepted Mathematical meaning (I'm not sure if some term exists).


Yet, I or Yet I,?

Which is grammatically correct? > Yet I, and my peers, have lots things... or > Yet, I, and my peers, have lots of things...


How many tenses are there in English?

Do we have 16 tenses in English? With   1. future   2. present   3. past   4. future in the past in these forms   1. simple   2. continuous   3. perfect   4. perfect continuous Can we manipulate these together to create English tenses? For example, " **present perfect** " or " **future perfect continuous** "?


How many tenses are there in English and what are they?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How many tenses are there in English? The number of grammatical tenses in English makes it confusing as to what they are exactly and what types of tenses there are. This seems to be complicated by Aspects and Conditionals. If we were to put them into a mix, how many total possibilities would there be, and what would they be?


Who knows which tenses of English are not used or used merely? I wonder which ones you do not use often. As far as I know these are the tenses that you often do not use. am I right? Will have been verb+ing Would have been verb+ing Many thanks


Can we split English Tenses into 2 * 2 * 2 matrix?

I seem to remember Simple vs continuous Past vs present (no future tense, that's present) Perfect vs "normal" Okay, if we multiply that, we got 2*2*2=8 tenses in English. Am I correct? For example, say I want to express I kick a cat in 8 tenses I will got: **Simple past imperfect tense** I kicked a cat. **Simple past perfect tense** I had kicked a cat **Simple present tense** I kick a cat **Simple present perfect tense** I have kicked a cat **Continuous past imperfect tense** I was kicking a cat **Continuous past perfect tense** I had been kicking a cat **Continuous present tense** I am kicking a cat **Continuous present perfect tense** I have been kicking a cat Am I correct here? Only 8 tenses right?


The double 'i' is cool, but what's the rule?

At least to a self professed geek its cool to write words like _fungii_ and _radii_ , so naturally in some informal communications I take every opportunity to apply the suffix where it's probably not supposed to be used. Thus I ask, what is (are) the rule(s) for the double 'i'?


"As of this morning" vs. "as at this morning"

>   * As of this morning, he was not in support of the motion. >   * As at this morning, he was not in support of the motion. > Which is correct?


"Vagrancy" as a substitute for "vagary" in the phrase "the vagaries of (fashion, market, etc.)"

As far as your English variety goes, is it OK to substitute _vagrancy_ for _vagary_ in such a phrase as _the vagaries of (fashion, mind, etc.)_? E.g. > Its popularity waxed and waned with the _vagaries of fashion_... > > She had no time -- or money -- to follow the silly _vagrancies of > fashion_... > > ...in the Earth's magnetic fields or the _vagrancies of the weather_... > > ...but it was the _vagrancies of the market_... > > Kenya is highly vulnerable to the _vagrancies of unreliable rainfall_... > > ...they could reduce the _vagrancies of English orthography_...


What do references like "Docc Rom." and similar mean?

In the book _Giordano Bruno: His Life and Thought_ , by Dorothea Waley Singer, references often have a form of > 18 Doc. Ven. XV. or > 49 Docc. Rom. XX, XXI. How to decipher them?


"I was wondering what time it is" or "I was wondering what the time has been"

Can you tell me which option is more natural in this English sentence? > I'm sorry to trouble you but I was wondering what > > (A) time it is   >  (B) the time has been * * * The whole story is that this multiple-choice question comes from a placement test for a coursebook. The complete question is as follows > I’m sorry to trouble you but I was wondering what > > (A) time it is   >  (B) the time has been   >  (C) is the time?   >  (D) was the time? I excluded (C) and (D) as ungrammatical and chose (A) as the most natural- sounding to me, but the answer key says that the correct answer is (B), which doesn't sound right to me. Now I'm a little bit confused. This coursebook is for the Polish market and I am Polish.


What's the word for taking an article from somewhere and published on my own site?

Sometimes when I see a good article on the internet, I want to keep a copy of it on my own blog. I need one word to tell visitors that this article was taken/copied from somewhere else. It is usually used in the meta data: Posted by: Author   Posted on: Sep 2, 2012   Tags: music, rock n' roll    **xxxxxxx** from: Billboard           **^**   this word And if without the word `from`, is `source` a good choice for this? `Source: Billboard` Thanks!


Where did the phrase "Holy Toledo" come from?

I was reading online and noticed this phrase in the comments. What is the origin of this phrase?


How would you use "can" in a future sentence?

> If you purchase this then you will be able to do that. How can I write the above statement using "can"?


Can we use "saccade" as a verb to describe eye movements

_Saccade_ is the term to describe rapid eye movements. I just want to be sure that _saccading_ could be used as a verb, or if not, which term would you recommend using?


The [insert superlative]

I am working on diagramming sentences and I notice many have "the" plus a superlative; as, "He is the funniest," or "Which trots the fastest?" Why is "the" attached to these superlatives? What exactly is it modifying? I imagine in the first sentence it is something like, "He is the funniest [person]," but what about the second sentence?


What does "putting your head into my mouth" mean?

The following passage is from the novel Ivanhoe by Walter Scott. > "By St Dunstan," answered Gurth, "thou speakest but sad truths; little is > left to us but the air we breathe, and that appears to have been reserved > with much hesitation, solely for the purpose of enabling us to endure the > tasks they lay upon our shoulders. The finest and the fattest is for their > board; the loveliest is for their couch; the best and bravest supply their > foreign masters with soldiers, and whiten distant lands with their bones, > leaving few here who have either will or the power to protect the > unfortunate Saxon. God's blessing on our master Cedric, he hath done the > work of a man in standing in the gap; but Reginald Front-de-Boeuf is coming > down to this country in person, and we shall soon see how little Cedric's > trouble will avail him.--Here, here," he exclaimed again, raising his voice, > "So ho! so ho! well done, Fangs! thou hast them all before thee now, and > bring'st them on bravely, lad." "Gurth," said the Jester, "I know thou > thinkest me a fool, or thou wouldst not be so rash in putting thy head into > my mouth. One word to Reginald Front-de-Boeuf, or Philip de Malvoisin, that > thou hast spoken treason against the Norman,--and thou art but a cast-away > swineherd,--thou wouldst waver on one of these trees as a terror to all evil > speakers against dignities." I wonder what exactly the Jester meant when he said "thou wouldst not be so rash in putting thy head into my mouth."


Proper format for listing criteria for a project

My team are going back and forth between the proper usage of a specific sentence in our project proposal. This project proposal is being presented to a school, so we want to make sure we are correct in our usage. Currently, it's set to > The stories are evaluated on topic, content, compliance, artistic, and > educational values. Attaching the word 'values' to each of the criteria doesn't sound correct for 'topic, content, compliance'. I think it should be in one of the following two formats: > The stories are evaluated on topic, content, compliance, and artistic and > educational values. Or > The stories are evaluated on topic, content, compliance, artistic value, and > educational value. Are either of those feasible for the proper format of the sentence, or is there another way that it should be written? EDIT: or even replacing 'artistic' with a noun, making it 'artwork' instead. > The stories are evaluated on topic, content, compliance, artwork, and > educational value. Does this separate 'educational value' into its own idea as opposed to 'value' being attached to each listed criteria?


Is "funnest" a word?

We seem to be stuck at an impasse on this issue. Is _funnest_ a word or not? If so, does it mean "most fun"?


We recommend that he provide/provides?

To my ear "We recommend that he provide an appropriate response" sounds better than "provides" what is this tense/construct called and which is right ?


What's the best way to get rid of international accents?

I have lived in the United States for more than five years now, and I am over 20 years old. Although I do not have that many problems with my verbal or written skills, it is not hard for people to notice my accents when I speak. I think I have failed to get rid of my accents because I have not completely surrounded myself with American people yet. I want to sound as much "native" as possible. Besides trying to spend time with native people as much as possible, are there other things I can try to speak more naturally?


Is the usage of “at play” limited to children’s action?

Time magazine picked up the topic, “Chick-fil-A meets a first amendment buzzsaw” in its 10 most popular stories of this week, which was followed by the following lead copy: “The issues _at play_ are the personal view of the owner of the restaurant chain and the philanthropic efforts of the private company.” I understand “ _the issues at play_ ” here means something like “hot issues” or “issues in motion, or in the process,” but I don’t find the pertinent definitions of “something at play” in dictionaries at hand. Oxford Online Dictionary defines ‘play’ as a mass noun meaning (1) activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation, _especially by children_ by showing the example of usage: _A child at play_ may use a stick as an aeroplane. (2) behaviour or speech that is not intended seriously: I flinched, but only _in play_. None of Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, and OALD carries “at play” as an idiom. Ngrams for _at play,in play_ shows high usage of both since before 1840, with the latter significantly surpassing the currency of the former since 1910 until recently. I assume “at play” is definitely a generic reference not limited to children as Oxford Dictionary defines. Do you know why this apparently well-used phrase is not included in popular dictionaries other than Oxford Online Dictionary, which shows limited usage?


What is the rule for adjective order?

I remember being taught that the correct order of adjectives in English was something along the lines of "Opinion-Size-Age-Color-Material-Purpose." However, it's been a long time and I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a few categories (I think there were eight or nine). Can anyone fill them in?


Why ‘a great green dragon’ but not ‘a green great dragon’?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the rule for adjective order? In Letter #163 to W.H. Auden from page 214 of _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_ , Tolkien mentions his mother noting but not explaining that one had to say _‘a **great green** dragon’_ instead of the other way around: > My mother said nothing about the dragon, but pointed out that one could not > say ‘a green great dragon’, but had to say ‘a great green dragon’. I > wondered why, and still do. Apart from the obvious aesthetics, why is this? Possibly related is something my French teacher once said, that adjectives related to size should be placed before the noun, and other adjectives should be placed after the noun — thus ‘un grand chat noir.’ Is it quite simply the same rule in English (with the noun moved after all adjectives), or is there something else at work?


A "black, full beard" or a "full, black" one?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the rule for adjective order? This is from the  Hound of the Baskervilles , where in Chapter 5, one of the characters is referred to as having "a black, full beard" and "a full, black beard" by two different people. Which usage is right? My confusion is whether the first description is good English in the first place. Or is it just Arthur Conan Doyle's literary licence? Further, most characters, including those using the descriptions above, speak good, Queen's English in the novel. This just makes me wonder all the more.


The time before place mantra

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the rule for adjective order? As a Dutch schoolboy, during English grammar lessons (long ago...) I got one rule hammered into my head like a mantra: time before place: > In the 1930s, in England, nobody prepared for war. But as I gradually got more fluent in English I started to wonder whether this "rule" really made sense. Let me change the sentence a bit: > In the 1930s, in England, nobody prepared for war, whereas in the 17th and > 18th centuries everybody did. Correct grammar, right? (Let history.stackexchange challenge the historical truth). But I think it makes sense to say > In England, in the 1930s nobody prepared for war, whereas in the 17th and > 18th centuries everybody did. because it emphasizes the contrast between the time periods better than in the former sentence. And when I just say > In England, in the 1930s, nobody prepared for war. does that sound warped to a native speaker? **So: how valid (or natural) is this rule?** (By the way, later I learned that the full rule is _manner before time before place_ , but let's not go into that — yet).


Is the phrase "fresh six muffins" grammatically correct?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the rule for adjective order? A non-native speaker that I know always puts the count before another adjective, as in "fresh six muffins". "Six fresh muffins" seems to be more grammatically correct. This sounds so funny. It seems that there is a rule that the number must come before any other adjectives. Is there a hierarchy of adjectives and rules that determine which ones come first? Is there any logic to these rules?


Ordering of multiple, consecutive adjectives

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Adjective order One a comedy show, one of the comedians was a female who was black and from the UK. The host introduced her as a the first _black, female, British comedian_ he has had on the show. On a package of salmon, the label read _Smoked Norwegian Steelhead Salmon_. (There were no commas because it was a package—commas are necessary in prose though right?) When using multiple, consecutive adjectives for a noun, is there a rule of thumb (or even hard and fast rule) for ordering of the adjectives? A reasonable theory is that it should go from least to most specific, but since English tends to do things in reverse, it would go the other way around. That fits for the salmon, but not the comedienne’s list, yet both feel natural.


Adjective order convention

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the rule for adjective order? As a native speaker, I would always say "big red ball," but never "red big ball." Further, I would say "Big red furry ball," and not ever another order of adjectives. Is there a _correct_ , or _accepted_ order/precedence of adjectives?


Is there a word that describes someone who will go along with how you feel, or will go along with whatever you do

I'm writing a story and I can't think of a word that describes someone. The quote is, "Who do I want right now? Sympathy or" So I'm looking for a word that describes this character. If you're mad, she'll get mad with you. If you want to cry, she'll bring the tissues and be right beside you making her own river. In the moment, she will be angry with the main character, I don't know if that will help but that's the situation.


"An awful lot": Any negative connotation?

Today was my first time I saw people use "an awful lot of" instead of "a lot of". It reminded me of "terribly good", which obviously has little negative connotation. But how about "an awful lot"? Does the person saying it imply that he hates the state of there being too many of something?


Where can I find a list of capitalisation rules for pure British writing?

Is there any quality English orthography book that contains rules for capitalising in pure British English? I’ve noticed that an American newspaper capitalises every word in the title of an article (except special words like “to”), but a British newspaper does not. I’m pretty confused. I’ve managed to find just an orthography book which apparently describes American rules. Where can I find a British version?


A better word for justice / morality

I'm looking for a good word to express the concept of "the right thing being done" but avoiding the connotations of the two most obvious words:   * _Justice_ \- has too much of a connotation of being legalistic or enforced by the police.   * _Morality_ \- has too much of a connotation of "traditional values" and puritanism. Is there a better word?


A single word antonym of "absorb"

In textbooks, they say "absorb" heat and "give off" heat. Is there a single word which can perfectly take the place of "give off"?


Why did ‘off-the-shelf' come to mean ‘in stock, ready-made, and easily available’?

I came across the word “off-the-shelf” in the following sentence of Time magazine’s article “The 50 Best Inventions of the Years (Nov.11 issue). He (inventor of the first synthetic cell) started with ‘off-the-shelf chemical’, and managed to reconstruct the genome of bacterium that successfully ‘booted up.’ I checked out the word “off-the-shelf” with a dictionary at hand, which defines it as “in stock, ready-made, easily available.” Although this may be a naive question to most of native English speakers, it casted me a question, why does “off-the-shelf” which sounds to me “off the store-shelves” akin to “out-of-stock” on its face come to mean ready made and easily available? Can somebody explain it to me?


"Notion" and "conception"

What is the difference between _notion_ and _conception_?


Meaning of 'terms' in 'in rational terms'

What does "terms" mean in the following sentence? > But I believe the theory of a creator of the universe can be explained in > rational **terms**


Pertaining to "Analog(ue)"

As _digitally_ is to **digital** , is _analogously_ or _analogically_ to **analog(ue)**?


What's this tense called: "I been done ate"?

Growing up in a Black family in the US, I frequently heard people have conversations like this: Mom: Have you eaten yet?   Kid: Yeah, Mom, I _been_ done ate. Wife: Have you fixed the sink yet?   Husband: Woman, I _been_ done fixed it. (Emphasis is on the word "been") The meaning has always been the same: not only have I done it, I did it some time ago. This led me to believe that it might be an actual tense in use in more than one language, and in more than one dialect of English. Am I right about that? What is the tense called? Are there other such tenses in use in parts of the English-speaking world that I might not have heard of? * * * I forgot to add that I found an article online, called "Notes on African American English". I disagree with parts of it, but section 5.2.2 seems about right: > 5.2.2 Also found in AAE (and some other varieties of English) is an > uninflected done for a resultant state: I done ate (I've already eaten), I > had done ate (I'd already eaten). For some speakers, this can be combined > with the uninflected be and been: I been done ate (I finished eating some > time ago), I be done ate (I've usually already eaten).


"with whom" or "whom with"

I've been looking, but I have not come across this 'whom' related question anywhere. Specifically in this circumstance, I feel 'with whom' flows more naturally but I remember someone suggested that 'whom with' is actually the proper order since it is referencing 'the people' > I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and > the people whom with I work. Or > I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and > the people with whom I work.


What the hell is this construction?

It is not given to all to do this job with celerity. What is this "it is not given to do" construction? Where is it in the dictionary?


7 years old and later

I am pretty confused with this statement "documents which are 7 years old and later should only be migrated" does it means "2007 to 2014" ,or "2007 to old"


Audio resource on Native American English accent?

I love the accent of English speakers of Native American ancestry. An example would be the actor Graham Greene. Are there any audio resources for this type of accent?


Term for misused diacritics

Is there a word which describes intentionally misusing or abusing diacritics, in contexts where they are neither needed nor appropriate, for purely stylistic reasons. For example: > I submittéd my résumé to thé récruitér Or perhaps the best example, the metal umlaut: > `Spın̈al Tap` Or in the most extreme case: > `za͎͌l̰͝g̻̕o̬̅ ͎̂ẗ̥́ex̲̚t͓̃`


What's the term for an antonym of a continuum?

Today I was trying to figure out an orthogonal word for "aesthetics", and was having a bit of trouble searching for it as "aesthetics orthogonal" and "aesthetics antonym" gave nothing useful--the latter just yielded synonyms to "ugly". (Didactic was the word I eventually settled on after coming up with it and double-checking the definition, but that's another issue) "Orthogonal" would seem to be what I want, and as a scientist makes sense to me, but another question makes me think twice about using it in a broader context. In short, what is the term for a word that would run along a different continuum that is perhaps related but distinct, for example:   * beauty vs. intelligence   * agility vs. power   * height vs. width


Too serious to take seriously

This is a concept I often find myself trying to articulate in political discussions. You have a situation that everyone openly acknowledges, but it is so entrenched that people may paradoxically behave as though it were completely unimportant. As a contrived example, for centuries the people of Helmetvania have all worn 6-foot-wide spherical helmets. There are lots of car accidents, neck problems are endemic, and people often complain about how silly it is to wear helmets. The hot topic in this year's election is whether non-helmet-wearing should be addressed by longer sentences, or better education on the importance of helmets. It's somewhat related to the frog in slowly boiling water, or to not seeing the wood for the trees, but what I'm talking about is not a failure of perception; rather, it's a failure to take one's own perceptions seriously when they seem to be at odds with the world. Are there good words, phrases or even extended references for this idea?


"Rogative" root (as in prerogative, derogative, interrogative)

_Prerogative_ , _derogative_ , and _interrogative_ all seem to have the root "rogative" (or perhaps it's not a root at all) and I'm wondering what it means. I was having trouble seeing a connection between the three words. For assistance, here are their dictionary definitions: _Prerogative_ : A right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class. _Derogative_ : Intended to make a person or thing seem of little importance or value. _Interrogative:_ Having or conveying the force of a question. The Latin root _rog_ means "ask" (as in the Latin _rogare_ ), but that seems to explain only _interrogative_ and not the other two. Is there a connection between all three them involving "rogative," or is it just a coincidence that they have the same pattern?


when is the phrase 'according to you' used correctly and what are its different contexts ? Can it replace ' in your opinion'?


Should laconism be favored over clarity?

One might argue that to be as understandable as possible, one should use common words and phrases. On the other hand, unnecessary verbosity is often frowned upon. > Stop acting so childish and sulky! > > Stop acting so petulant! Should a common and verbose phrase be favored over an uncommon single word in writing? What about speech?


"Be accepted to" vs. "be accepted onto"

Do these variations mean anything different, or is one more correct? > I have been accepted **onto** a course at the University of Stack Exchange > > I have been accepted **to** the Masters programme Are there any other variations?


Topography of phrasal verbs

Is there an exhaustive list of the prepositions/adverbs/particles that can contribute to a phrasal verb? And is there any 'verb-part' that can be used with the entire list?


'Plus, ...' or 'Plus ...'

I've a sentence structured as below for a leaflet: > Fill in the survey and you can win x!   >  Plus, a chance to be entered into a draw to win y! I typed this sentence and I just naturally added a comma after 'Plus' Should I?


what is the best source to find tenses of verbs

If I don't know/remember the past tense of a verb, I google for it. Often the returned searches are not indicative. I just looked for the past tense of _seek_ , and it took me 2 minutes to figure out that it was _sought_. What online sources do you use to find tenses of verbs?


The word 'not' often doesn't mean total negation in mathematical sense?

Consider the following conversations: > X1: I paid $10 for that hamburger.   >  Y1: That's not cheap! > > X2: I pay $1 for broadband Internet access.   >  Y2: That's cheap! > > X3: I paid $1 for a hot dog.   >  Y3: Seems like a reasonable price. In conversation 1, "not cheap" means expensive or overpriced. In conversation 2, "cheap" means lower than the expected or average price. In conversation 3, the hot dog is neither overpriced not lower than the expected price. Therefore, the hot dog is neither "cheap", nor is it "not cheap". Is this a special case, or does 'not' in the English language often not translate to mathematical negation? This post inspired by a MENSA book stating the 2 sentences below are contrapositives (and thus have the same meaning), even though most people interpret them very differently: > Good food is not cheap.   >  Cheap food is not good.


"At the end" or "in the end"

Which is correct? > I am planning to buy some property **at the end** of 2011. > > I am planning to buy some property **in the end** of 2011.


"More perfect" versus "less imperfect"

"More perfect" is presumably bad English (Preamble to the US Constitution notwithstanding), since something is either perfect (and thus can't be improved) or not. "Less imperfect", however, seems to make sense. It means "having fewer flaws" or "closer to perfection". The paradox: "more perfect" and "less imperfect" should mean the same thing, no? The real question: is "perfect" binary or continuous? Or is this a weird case where "perfect" is binary, but "imperfect" is continuous, meaning these words aren't true opposites? [I tried to work in a joke about English being imperfect, but couldn't find the perfect joke]


Usage of "the" for possible future objects

I am writing a software user manual so the topic is about possible situations which its users may come across. Here is an example sentence below: > Enter **the** window ID which contains an image.


Is it correct that imply:infer::sender:receiver?

Both the words _imply_ and _infer_ suggest that a communication took place, but that there was additional meaning beyond what was directly spoken, written, or gestured. What is the difference? I beleive that the answer is the sender of the communication (i.e. speaker, author) _implies_ this meaning, while the recipient (i.e. listener, reader) _infers_ it. Is this correct? i.e.: While my question seems to _imply_ only the need for a yes or no answer, you are free to _infer_ that additional background is welcome. EDIT: While this question has been asked, answered, accepted, and closed for some amount of time, it continues to receive down votes. It was my first question here at English SE, and I admit I made a rookie mistake; but if you look at my contributions since, they are much improved. So, in an effort to protect my meager reputation here, allow me to try to further illuminate what I was looking for here. I already knew the standard dictionary definitions of imply and infer. As was mentioned in the comments, I was asking more about the subtleties and shades of meaning. Consider this example: Alice: Roger makes a lot of mistakes. Bob: Are you trying to infer that Roger is stupid? Alice: No, did you imply that I do think so? Most of us understand what happened in this conversation. Yet it seems that Alice and Bob have used the two words incorrectly, and it seems a little awkward to read this. Why is this so?


Derivative/relative of "introspection" but for external phenomena

Is there a derivative of the word _introspection_ that does not relate to "spect"-ing oneself but external phenomena yet still contains the _spection_ part? Like for example _extraspection_ (which, I guess, is not a word). For example: > It took a lot of _extraspection_ to arrive to the scientific findings.


Individually meaningful building block of a complex word

If there is a complex word that consists of two simpler words, what would you call each component, or individually meaningful building block, that the big word consists of, relative to the big word? E.g., the word **_makeshift_** consists of the words _make_ and _shift_. What would you call each of those two words relative to _makeshift_?


Understand Rudyard Kipling's poem If

I came across Rudyard Kipling's poem **If** , quoted below: > If you can keep your head when all about you   >  Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   >  If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,   >  But make allowance for their doubting too;   >  If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,   >  Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,   >  Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,   >  And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise: > > If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   >  If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   >  If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster   >  And treat those two impostors just the same;   >  If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken   >  Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,   >  Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,   >  And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools: > > If you can make one heap of all your winnings   >  And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,   >  And lose, and start again at your beginnings   >  And never breathe a word about your loss;   >  If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew   >  To serve your turn long after they are gone,   >  And so hold on when there is nothing in you   >  Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!” > > If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,   >  Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,   >  If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,   >  If all men count with you, but none too much;   >  If you can fill the unforgiving minute   >  With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,   >  Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,   >  And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son! I pretty much like it and I am trying to translate it. But I found some of the sentences difficult to understand. Maybe because English is not my native language or because I am not used to poetry. Anyway, here are my questions:   1. How to understand "losing theirs and blaming it on you" in the first stanza? In particular, what do the pronouns " _theirs_ " and " _it_ " respectively stand for?   2. Why do the first and the second stanzas end with colons?   3. How to understand "Yours is the Earth" in the last stanza? What does "yours" stands for?   4. In the third stanza, what does "To serve your turn long after they are gone" mean? Particularly what do "turn" and "they" respectively refer to? The "turn" in "pitch-and-toss" and "winnings"? Any help will be appreciated. _EDIT:_   * Added Question 4


Referencing text on a button element?

If a button on a website has text on it, how do you reference that text? For example, if a button had the text "click here" on it would you say "the button that says 'click here'" or "the button that reads 'click here'"? Is there a better way of referencing the text on that button besides saying "the button with the text 'click here'"?


Use of "last year" and "last one year"?

The term **last year** defines last year according to calender.So if I say last year in 2014, it means I refer to 2013. On the other hand, the term **last one year** refers to last 12 months.So if I use this term in mar 2014, it refers to period between mar2013-feb2014. Am I right on this? Can you explain what the following two sentences mean? > I am actively participating since last year. > > I am actively participating for last one year.


Does the word "egrarious" exist?

For some reason I thought "egrarious" was a word, but I cannot find any authoritative reference to the word. I thought it meant "ostentatiously bad". I am aware there is a word "egregious".


What is the etymology of butyraceous?

I recently learned the word _butyraceous_ and immediately fell in love with it, likely because of my love affair with butter. A quick Google search did not give me anything for its etymology, though. I guess that it is similar to the etymology for the word _butter_ , but the " _-yracious_ " suffix (if that is what it is) confuses me. So what is the etymology of the word _butyraceous_? Where does it come from and what is the history of its use?


What does the word "omnipreneur" mean?

I came across the term "Culinary Omnipreneur" in this week's Times Magazine. I couldn't find the meaning of the word _omnipreneur_ on WordWeb or by googling.


Is the word "connector" in meaningful for a software product

We have a product that synchronizes data between an online-shop and a popular erp (enterprise resource planning) system. Now the question is, if the product name "System1Name System2Name Connector" actually makes sense in english? I was wondering if there was another word that is probably a better fit for these kind of applications? Maybe "gateway" or "exchanger"?


Grammar, concerning any exceptions of "wish" sentences

Which is correct "Do you ever wish (that) you had gone to..?" or "Do you ever wish (that) you went to..?"


"Lives" vs. "life" in "the life of those living on the farm"

James is giving a tour of his farm to some of his friends. Which sentence is correct: > James introduces some of the animals on the farm: "This is Elmer, the pig... > That's Mini, the mouse, and that duck is called Daffy... " > > James tells his friends about the life of those living on the farm. His > friends follow each word. or > James introduces some of the animals on the farm: "This is Elmer, the pig... > That's Mini, the mouse, and that duck is called Daffy... " > > James tells his friends about the lives of those living on the farm. His > friends follow each word. I understand that the singular of _life_ is more appropriate when discussing a shared life, but this distinction is less clear in my example sentence. We're assuming there are many different animals living on the farm.


'on' vs. 'in': 'Keep the discussion on the [IRC] channel'

From shlomifish.org: > Note that one common mistake that newcomers to IRC do is to private-message > a user that helps them (using the /msg command) instead of keeping the > discussion **on** the [IRC] channel. (Emphasis added.) Should it be “on the channel” or “in the channel”? In case you are not familiar with IRC (Internet Relay Chat), then the longer story is that the chat rooms on the various IRC networks are called “channels” in the IRC parlance, and one can speak on (in?) them. Thing is "keep the discussion on the chat-room" sounds weird to me, and "keep the discussion in the chat room" sounds better. I've usually always said "on the channel" when chatting on IRC and so far no one complained, but a commentator on the text in question said he thought it should be "in the channel". I'm not a native speaker of English, so insights would be welcome.


Telling the time "3:15" in American English

Which of the followings is the most common way to say _3:15_ in American English? >   1. A quarter past three >   2. A quarter after three >   3. Three fifteen > Also, in the last example "three fifteen", where do you put the stress (fif- TEEN or FIF-teen)?


Word for man with one testicle

I heard _half-sack_ in a TV series before to describe a man with one testicle. Is there any single word to describe that?


Can someone explain the meaning of this sentence and what "but for " implies?

I would not have worked in London in the summer **but for** being on holiday.


Carnival Man. What is meant?

I (think I) heard someone to be called a "carnival man", what do they mean ? Is that an insult ? Edit. As to the object of the question, I wished just to understand the meaning of the expression (I am not a native speaker). Mynamite has provided a first helpful answer.


Meaning of "to get stuffed"

What does the phrase _to get stuffed_ mean in the following passage taken from my IELTS reading exercise? > One of London Zoo’s recent advertisements caused me some irritation, so > patently did it distort reality. Headlined “Without zoos you might as well > tell these animals **to get stuffed** ”, it was bordered with illustrations > of several endangered species and went on to extol the myth that without > zoos like London Zoo these animals “will almost certainly disappear > forever”. With the zoo world’s rather mediocre record on conservation, one > might be forgiven for being slightly sceptical about such an advertisement.


Criteria used to determine if a "Chinese inch" is an "inch"?

This is a follow-on question to "Term for construct in which adjective completely changes the meaning of its following noun?" Is a "Chinese inch" an "inch" or something entirely different in which the only correct term is the compound "Chinese inch"? The English language word "inch" has been intended to indicate a specific length with a significant degree of rigor, even though both the definition and determination of precision has been refined over time. "Chinese inch" is a term for a unit that is similar in magnitude but is significantly different from an "inch" in actual length (apparently, 1 inch = 0.762 Chinese inches; authority of definition not determined; appears to have multiple, inconsistent definitions.) So, is a "Chinese inch" a type of "inch"? It has a degree of transparency: both are units of length of similar magnitude. It could also be considered completely opaque: use of "inch" instead of "Chinese inch" could result in the embarrassing fit of clothing, the disastrous misdirection of a Mars-bound spacecraft, or tragic surgical results. I can't determine if the compound "Chinese inch" is endocentric in that the sense of "unit of length" is preserved, or if it is exocentric since the length is indeed appreciably different in the same manner that a "kilometer" differs from a "mile." Has there been a semantic change, so that "inch" is now a class of length units instead of a specific unit of length? To be specific, must one now use "English inch" or "American inch"? Is it correct to advertise a tape measure using the "inch scale" if the scale is really in "Chinese inches"?


What does "yield to" mean in the following sentence?

> The cpu_relax() call can lower CPU power consumption or **yield to** a > hyperthreaded twin processor.


How to say "I'm sorry for such a bother"

I am in the middle of constructing my email to my colleague and I am out of words on how to say "I'm sorry for such a bother". Is there any other way of saying it politely?


Can't you sleep also?

> Can't you sleep also? Is it well said? I want to ask if you can't sleep, like me.


"Electronic" vs. "electric"

Most people would refer to computers as being electronic, whereas a flashlight would be described as electric. I know the general difference (electronic devices use transistors?), but what is it exactly, and how did the second term even come into existence? Why not just use electric for both?


Is it ok to use 'before' at the end of a sentence?

I once had been told by my English teacher that `before` must be used with a special time or event, like: `Say goodbye before you go.` What about: > I've seen that film before. Is this correct and appropriate? Or is there a better expression?


Is there any difference between "stoop down" and "stoop"?

According to Longman, they are the same, but I wonder if this is correct or if so, which one is more common. For example: >   * Dave **stooped down** to tie his shoes. >   * Dave **stooped** to tie his shoes. >


How can I use a different sentence structure every so often

Instead of saying "you told me to call him when you are back" (note that here both 'you' is the same person ) can I say "you said that call him when I am back". In both can you also tell me that using "you are/were back" and "when I am/was back" okay? And here "Last time I called here at the HR department someone said that I would be notified of any developments on my CV" is it necessary to say "someone said that **you** would be notified..." Thanks for giving it a thought.


"22 Acacia Avenue" British idiom

What is the meaning of this British idiom? I was watching BBC's Top Gear and the presenters were cracking jokes about people who live in the 22 of the avenues. And that the people who live there like to give nicknames to their home and have specific decoration, stating that they lived in the 22 of the "Acacia Avenue". As it is also an Iron Maiden song, and since the band is also British, what is up with this expression? I can't recall in what Top Gear's episode that phrase popped up, but I'm sure it was around the 2008 season. I found this wiki entry too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia_Avenue, Which is midly informative. I see that is something linked to the middle class, but I want to know more about the nuances.


A word for "living contemporary"

My teacher always says that I cannot use the word _contemporary_ when talking about living people. According to him you could say for instance: _He was a contemporary of Shakespeare,_ but you couldn't say _Merkel is a contemporary of Obama._ The only synonym for _contempoary_ that I've found was **coeval**. Does that word refer to living or dead contemporaries? In addition, is the word coeval commonly used/formal/informal? I have never heard of it before.


How does punctuation affect this clause in a sentence?

In this sentence: > Parents and children, under the age of 18, that live in the same residence When punctuated this way, does the age restriction apply to both parents and children? I mean, obviously it doesn't in reality. I'm just wondering how to properly punctuate the sentence to reflect the actual policy.


"I would like to ask you that have you"

Someone sent me something and then checked back with me writing: > I would like to ask you that have you received my gift? I myself thought this sentence was really uncommon (I have not heard it before). I discussed it with my friend and suggested that the correct way should be > I would like to ask if/whether you have received my gift. He said both should be okay. Google gives more than 27 000 000 results for "I would like to ask you that have you" (maybe many people are incorrect?). Since I am not a native speaker, I cannot prove that it is wrong.


May the words "Creation" and "Creativity" be used in the same way?

Consider a soccer player in the penalty box area of the pitch. He is extraordinarily creative in his skills in this area. It may be said that his "Creativity" is second to none, but may the word "Creation" be used instead? To wit: the striker Colyn Matthews' "Creation" in the penalty area is second to none. There is a current football commentator in England named Ian Joy and "Creation" is his favorite descriptor when a player shows imagination when scoring a goal. I believe that he is erring in his usage of "Creation". Any thoughtful opinions would be welcome. Thanks, Willard Goode, FL, USA.


"Take their origins from" vs. "have their origins in"

Which one is correct: >   1. Coffee plants take their origins from Brazil > >   2. Coffee plants have their origins in Brazil > >


Difference in meaning of "congratulation" and "congratulations"

What is the difference between _congratulation_ and _congratulations_?


If you didn't buy it online then you bought it...?

When you buy something over the Internet, you say you bought it _online_. And these days a lot of things can be bought online. So, when one of my friends saw my new wrist watch the other day, he asked, "Did you buy it online?" I hadn't bought it over the Internet, so I replied, "No, I didn't buy it online". But now when I think about it, I wonder if there is an alternative to saying 'not online', probably a phrase or term that means 'not over the Internet but at a local shop'. Of course, I am aware that _'offline'_ cannot be used in that context since it has a different connotation. So is there anything else to consider? I found another post discussing the term _'online'_ but it doesn't answer my question.


What is the difference between "English" and "British"?

As an American, **I naively think of British and English as exact synonyms**. I know I'm wrong, but I just don't know in what way. I am vaguely aware that people in the UK hold strong opinions about one or the other term and how it is applied, and using one instead of the other has dire social implications. So there is geography (Britain vs. England), but more importantly the adjectives British and English, and those adjectives each one by themselves, may mean different things in different contexts, and depending on the speaker and the listener. Can anyone explain the nuances of the differences as used by those who might consider themselves English (or British, if that's an acceptable usage)? How about by the non-English/non-British (again if it's appropriate to use such terms). (What I am not asking: I had to hold back from asking exactly what the distinctions among UK, British Isles, Great Britain, etc are as well as things like are people from Northern Ireland considered Irish (or do you call them Irish).)


Are "was/were able to" and "could" interchangeable?

In a grammar book, the claim was made that in the following sentences one cannot substitute "was/were able to" with "could." >   * The fire spread through the building very quickly, but everyone _was > able to_ escape. > >   * They didn't want to come with us at first, but finally we _were able to_ > persuade them > > However, when I searched for the term "finally could" in the _Corpus of Contemporary American English_ , I found some counter-examples. Here are two examples from COCA: >   * I told her to get in line. Did it make you feel better? It did. I > _finally could_ say something. > >   * Then, when it ended and I _finally could_ get my family back, it came at > a price, like suddenly being blind. > > Are these examples grammatically incorrect? **Remark:** I asked the same question here. It got a few answers, but unfortunately I don't find them very persuasive (my apology for those who kindly answered).


"Wanting something to happen"

**EDITED TO ADD PRECEDING SENTENCE** > At some point, we all ponder the workings of consciousness; but I pinpoint > two catalysts which propelled such musings to a pursuit of brain > understanding. The first is the acceptance, perhaps **wishfully** , that > understanding the brain is achievable within my lifetime. I want to replace **wishfully** with something that more reflects the feeling of wanting something to be true to the extent that you believe it to be true. Also if anyone could comment on the comma use in this statement then that would be great.


How to express "good teaching skills"

How can I express that an explanation is clear, considering the intrinsic difficulty of the topic? I mean that the explanation might not be easy to understand, if the subject matter is intrinsically hard, but a superlatively _adjectivy_ explanation is one that is as clear as it can get. Someone who frequently produces such explanations could be said to have good teaching skills. What's a good word to substitute for _adjectivy_? _The word that comes to my mind is the French word “pédagogique”, which a dictionary describes as meaning roughly “as coming from a good teacher”. Unfortunately the corresponding English word has negative connotations instead._


Describe the detailed phonetic environment for the appearance/presence of /ɜ:/.

One recent vowel phoneme in English is /ɜ:/. It would seem that this sound only developed in a certain phonetic environment, or to phrase it differently: it only appeared under certain conditions.


Meaning of "I'm so excited I could crush a grape"

I read this on a sports website, where a fan is welcoming a new signing in their team. I assume this means one is really excited, but what is the meaning of " _crush a grape_ " - does it imply opening a bottle of champagne? or some test of physical strength?


Why do we use the object instead of the subject pronoun in constructions like "stupid me"?

I'm trying to find out how come we say _lucky me_ and _stupid us_ rather than _lucky I_ and _stupid we_. My understanding is that this is not a recent invention, but a relic from the distant past where it was a dative construction. However, I don't see the _reason_ for using any case other than the nominative in this construction to begin with. >   * He went surfing. → Lucky him went surfing. >   * I got pulled over. → Stupid me got pulled over. >   * They bought a house. → Thoughtless them bought a house. > This is rather intriguing. After thinking about it for a while, I couldn't come up with any other language, Germanic or otherwise, where simply introducing an adjective would dictate a change of grammatical case. This appears to be an English peculiarity. How far can it be traced back? Can anyone comment on its background?


What should I use: 'composed of' or 'composed from'?

What is the correct version: "The system is composed from a lattice and a line" or "The system is composed of a lattice and a line" ? When should I use `composed of` and when should I use `composed from`? Is one of them always correct, or are there rules affecting which one to use?


Capitalization of "guest of honor"

In the following sentence, should _guest of honour_ be capitalized? > Ms. Joe Doe (DTM), the District Governor of Toastmasters International was > the **Guest of Honour** during the charter party on March 23, 2008. It looks a bit weird to me, and I am trying to find something that will support writing it (or not) this way.


Why do we say "by all means" when we mean "by any means"?

The common expression _by all means_ seems to advocate the use of all means possible in order to accomplish a certain object, when in fact it expresses the use of any means to do it. I realize that _all_ can mean _any_ when used with a negative phrase, such as _beyond all hope_. Because, of course, if one is beyond _any_ hope, he is also beyond _all_ hope (and vice versa). But in a positive context, such as with _by all means_ , it doesn't necessarily follow that when one uses **any** means to accomplish a task, that he uses **all** possible means. Why is _all_ used to mean _any_ in this expression?


Synonym for "It is easy to acknowledge accuracy to be a very important feature"

What is an alternative expression for : _"It is easy to acknowledge accuracy to be a very important feature"_. The word **Accuracy** should remain in the sentence. In an academic context.


Etymology of "Houston, we have a problem!"

Where did the phrase "Houston, we have a problem" come from? I have heard it used a lot in movies. In which situations would it be used correctly?


What does "slicker than snot on a doorknob" mean?

I have a friend from Mississippi and I've heard him use this expression sometimes: _slicker than snot on a doorknob._ What exactly does it mean? (I guess it's something positive but I'm not too sure myself.)


What does “put it in English” mean in broadcasting context?

The following sentence is from this past November 7th’s _New York Times_ article titled “Rove’s on-air rebuttal of Fox’s Ohio vote call raises questions about his role”, dealing with Karl Rove’s clear contradiction with Fox News’s call regarding Ohio voting for President Obama: > “So at 11:33 p.m., Megyn Kelly, an anchor known for her no-nonsense style, > began her walk down the hall and did the questioning. The leader of the > decision team, Arnon Mishkin, laid out its case, with some help from a more > polished television presence, Chris Stirewalt. > > “Arnon doesn’t do TV very often, and Megyn can be very pointed,” Mr. > Clemente said. “So I said let’s have Arnon with the facts, and Chris — > because he’s on TV every day — _to put it in English_.” I don’t understand the exact meaning of the ending phrase, “to put it in English”, because all concerned are Americans speaking the English language. Is this a jocular, or does it simply mean “to speak plainly”? I suspect I would offend the native English speaker, if I ask him/her “please put it in English”, as it may sound like he/she speaks circuitously, or badly.


Is this use of "having" correct?

Please consider this sentence in which I am using _having_ : > Having full driving licence, life insurance, 5 year driving experience and > never have an accident, I am great driver. Is this use of _having_ correct in explaining that I have this, this and this? If not, please show me how to write such a sentence properly.


"Sent" vs "sent off" vs "sent out"

When do we use one over another? > I **sent** a letter. > > I **sent off** a letter. > > I **sent out** a letter. Here I found a similar topic but I am still confused. > **sent** = sent to one or more people > > **sent out** = sent to multiple people _More people_ and _multiple people_ mean the same to me. So how do we distinguish which one is the right one to use?


A word to describe two (far apart) locations

I'm looking for a word to describe locations that are far apart. My sentence is: > The manufacturer uses two **___ ____** locations, thus requiring two > inspectors.


Is ‘there’ being treated as an object (noun)?

The word "there" in this sentence doesn't seem to be necessary. But if it _is_ there, what exactly is it? A noun? An adverb? See _there_ where the willow bends over the brook.


Is it wrong to use "genocide" as a verb?

Just so you people don't think of me as a monster. I ask this question because recently I was playing NetHack and there is a magic scroll that allows you to genocide a species of monsters (usually evil bad ones that want to hurt you, like a master mind flayer). I was trying to convey this to my friends by saying. I am having a good game so far I genocided over 16 types of monsters. They scoffed at me saying this was incorrect as genocided is not a word. What word should I use then in this case? I've also noticed the game itself uses the word genocided, so I am not sure If they are correct or the game is correct with the usage.


"...who didn't have a..." vs "...without a..."

I titled a short story _"The Girl without a Soul"_. But recently I've been thinking on naming it _"The Girl who didn't have a Soul."_ Do they mean exactly the same? Which sounds better as a name for a short story?


Difference between 2 questions

I am filling in this form and on page two there are 2 questions (Q11 and Q12) that seem the same to me but probably are not.   * Q10: Your date of leaving UK    * Q11: Are you resident in the UK for the tax year up until the date at question 10?    * Q12: Were you resident in the UK for the tax year before departure date? What is the difference between questions Q11 and Q12? Aren't they asking same thing: if I was a resident in the UK before leaving it?


What's the best way to say "while *working on* Project X"

I'm looking for a synonym for "working on" in this sentence. I feel like there has to be a more concise way than to say "Joe has contributed a lot while working on Project X, Y and Z". Joe has worked on many projects and I am trying to highlight a few specific ones he did very well on.


How do you punctuate a conditional question or properly restate it?

Today someone pointed out that a sentence I had written was incorrect in their eyes. They could not recall any specific rule or reference that explained their point, but it seems interesting enough to ask if anyone here might have a reference or thoughts on the sentence. The sentence in question is, "If the timeline is OK, would you please let me know if I can start on this right away?" I could not come up with an alternative that felt right. What is wrong with the quoted sentence? **EDIT** I have clarified with my colleague and they have explained that the question was more of a statement and did not need a question mark. They said that the sentence should be "If the timeline is acceptable, will you please let me know if we can start on this right away." I believe that either are correct but the former provides an avenue for response and is more friendly while the latter is a command and requires a response.


What is an "unsurance"

In semi-offical letter from non-native speaker the "medical unsurance" is offered to me. What is an unsurance really? U & I as required in comments: ![ui](http://i.stack.imgur.com/IKMDn.jpg)


"As good a car as it gets" — correct?

I need to understand if I could say "As good a [noun] as it gets". Would it mean "the best [noun]"? E.g. > You can buy as good a car as it gets in that store.


Appropriate word for "interactibility"

I am looking for a word for "the ability of being interacted to/with", expressing that something is interactive, its interactive nature/quality. Specifically looking for a noun.


Is it redundant to append "bye" to "speak to you later"?

Are the closing greetings "see you later", "talk to you later", and the like sufficient to end a conversation (especially a phone conversation) or must they be succeeded by "bye" or another word of definite finality? In other words, is it redundant to append "bye" to "speak to you later" or a similar wish?


What does "implications" mean in this context?

> They [heralds] presided at the weddings and funerals of armigerous families, > so as to keep straight **_the implications_** of those generational comings > and goings for family pedigrees. (Tittler, Robert., Portraits, Painters, and > Publics in Provincial England (1540-1640), p104) What does "the implications" means in here? Is possible it refers to a genealogical concept? Honestly, I do not understand its semantic relation with whole of the sentence.


Should it be.... 'The day you become Mrs' or 'The day you became Mrs'?

I am looking to get something engraved and wondered if it should read 'the day you become Mrs' or 'the day you became'. Many thanks for your help in advance!


Why we say "save file" and not "keep/preserve file"

Why do we say _save the file/image_ instead of _keep/preserve the file/image_? Is it because the original meaning was to save (rescue) the object from being lost?


What is the name of the difference between "doesn't" and "don't"?

I came across a phrase like this today, which is obviously incorrect: > The car don't run. The correct version of this would be: > The car doesn't run. I wanted to explain the issue to someone, but I could not recall what property of the verb "do" is incorrect in the first sentence. "Tense" is the first thing that comes to mind, but "do" and "does" are both in the present tense. What is it about the word "do" that makes it incorrect?


Correct usage of ‘on’, ‘at’ and ‘in’ from a foreigner’s point of view

As a foreign English speaker who never really studied too much English grammar other than the basics at high school, I am often struggling to use the correct form in certain phrases. _At_ being perhaps the easiest of all forms, I find it more difficult to determine when to use _on_ or _in_. I know things are _on_ the table or _in_ a box. I’m _in_ a house _at_ street XX,YY. But are there any rules or ways to find (other than some weird exception) when to use each form?


“There’s” or “There are”?

I wanted to get the usage of _There’s_ clarified. I have read sentences like: > There’s a lot of projects on that topic. It appears to me that _There’s_ applies to _a lot of projects_ , rather than to _the projects_ themselves. Is that right? If that’s the case, is > There’s many students standing there. not grammatical?


What does "Sold On" mean?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Sold" in the meaning of "bought"? I've read a tweet about iPhone 4S and this is what I saw: > Totally **sold on** the iPhone 4S - for the dual core CPU and dual antenna > alone. I like fast things. Can you guys give me an explanation about "sold on" and maybe some more usage.


Phrase for status of association

1. "The work is done by Mr Miller at the X-Institute."   2. "The work is done by Mr Miller pro forma associated with the X-Institute." Mr Miller really belongs to Y-Inc. and never set foot into X-Institute (neither was paid by X-Institute). "at" is a simple lie, "pro forma associated with" is the truth, but when this shall not be told (plainly), what can be said which is _understood_ as "pro forma associated with" while still _spelling_ "at"?


Which is the auxiliary verb and modal?

> It is being used. Considering the sentence above, I wonder which part is helping verb.


Expression for "be a little faster"

Is there an expression for the following: > A: Let's go for lunch. > > B: Okay. > > A: I am coming in a few minutes. > > B: Okay, but _be a little bit faster_ Do native speakers say this? Or is there a better expression or words construction for this?


Clarification on “Who stars opposite X in some film?”

I’ve always understood the phrase > Who stars opposite [x] in [film]? to mean: > Who is the deuteragonist in [film]? specifically where the deuteragonist is on the same side as the protagonist. Can it also mean this: > Who is the antagonist in [film]?


nebula and nebulous - a question of origin

While looking up `nebulous`, I noticed the origin of the word is dating back to 14th century. Surprised since the nebulae wasn't discovered at that time, I checked `nebula` to find that its origin dates to 17th century. Given nebulous means nebula-like, it seems inconsistent that it enters the dictionary before its derivative. It's obvious that `nebula` with its Greek/Latin root existed long before 17th century. But could `nebulous` have been used without `nebula` not even being mentioned for 3 centuries? Am I missing a point? Or is the dictionary wrong? Or should we take these as non-definitive dates which just represent the first written occurrence of the word? nebulous: 1375 - 1425 Late Middle English)   nebula: 1655-65 < Latin


What's the origin of the idiom "cut corners"?

_Cut corners_ is defined as > to do something in the easiest, cheapest or quickest way, often by ignoring > rules or leaving something out especially at the expense of high standards. What is the origin of this idiom?


Were "devil" and "damned" really offensive words in Victorian times?

I've been reading Trollope's _The Way We Live Now_ , and have noticed a little stylistic quirk; that the words _devil_ and _damned_ appear blanked out, as _d -----_ and _d------_. They appear in sentences like... > The d---- you do! and > It's all d----- nonsense. The Victorians have an unenviable reputation for prudery, but surely those words can't have been so taboo as to need blanking out, could they? Or is Trollope rendering them this way for comic effect (it certainly makes me smile)?


"kindly requested" vs "requested kindly" & "provide with us" vs "provide us with"

I am a contracts engineer working in the construction industry in the Middle East. A part of my job description is to manage official correspondence with the client. I am not a native English speaker, but I think I do have a fair sense of language.   I often come across the following concluding line: > "You are hereby kindly requested to provide with us the missing > equipment..." I am aware that "You are kindly requested" is a polite way of asking but I personally think kindly had better be used for the addressee, as in "you are requested to kindly provide us..." Secondly, I think "...provide us with" is correct and "provide with us" is lame. I need an expert opinion. I would request that you kindly reply to this post only if you are sure of the answer by experience or qualification.


"Cool water" vs. "cold water"

We often use "cool water". But can we use "cool water" or "cold water"? Which is correct? Examples: >   * I drink cool water only. >   * People always like cool water. > In the above examples, instead of the word _cool_ , can we use _cold_?


Semicolon: Always required before conjunction if internal punctuation follows, even if no ambiguity?

Is the semicolon in the following sentence necessary? Is it preferable? To me, it seems that there would be no ambiguity if the semicolon were replaced with a comma, but the writer insists that a semicolon is required because the part after “or” includes commas. > In that factory process, the production materials can be delivered to the > line as is; or a substance that is immune to the production materials and > lubricant, such as B1, B2, and B3, may be included. I wonder what "rules" there are concerning this type of usage. The Chicago Manual of Style, for example, says at item 6.59: > An independent clause introduced by a conjunction may be preceded by a > semicolon, especially when the independent clause has internal punctuation. > > Maria had determined to question the ambassador; but bodyguards surrounding > him, as well as the presence of dancing girls, prevented him from noticing > her. But, again, would there be any ambiguity at all in changing the semicolon after "ambassador" to a comma? If not, is the use of a semicolon in such a case just a matter of individual preference?


Using "decrease by" and percents

I just read an article which described congestion on a particular line in Japan. Currently the trains are running at 200% capacity, but larger trains were introduced and "the crowding was reduced by ten percent". Later they say that "the trains are now crammed to just 190% capacity". My question is: shouldn't reducing 200 percent by 10 percent yield 180 percent? EDIT: Apparently the question is being treated as a math question. I don't really see it this way. Unless the original value is known, both answers (190% and 180%) could be correct. But, for some reason in case of this article it is obvious to the commenters that the correct answer os 190%. EDIT2: Below is an excerpt from the article: > ...trains were introduced to the line, and officials are hoping the new > carriages, which are a whole 15cm wider, will reduce crowding by ten > percent.


Old English Etymology

Recently in my research I came across an O.E. word, 'ingebringan' out of a dictionary wherein the scholar translated it as "to bring in". It seems to me that in a verbatim translation, he left out the suffix 'an' which on both nouns and adjectives means 'of or belonging to' or it may also mean 'one'. The word ge in O.E. can mean to, into or together. Can a scholar out there clarify this for me. Thank you


An idiom to describe someone who thinks he/she is wiser than others

Is there an idiom in English to describe someone who thinks he/she is smarter/wiser than everyone else? In Polish, we have an idiom, which literally translated, would sound like: > He/she has eaten all minds


"Psychically" vs. "psychologically" vs. "mentally"

This one has been giving me headaches for about a year now. Some time ago, I created an AskReddit thread with the following title: > How do you **psychically** prepare for pain before a surgical procedure? I was mocked in the comments. Redditors were saying that _psychically_ refers to psychics (people who supposedly contact the dead). However, when I looked it up at The Wiktionary, the entry for _psychically_ states: >   1. in a psychical or psychic manner >   2. mentally > I was also told that the proper word I was looking for is _psychologically_. A few months later, in another thread, in one of my comments I wrote: > To perform a proper backflip, you have to prepare not only physically, but > also psychologically. And again, of course, I was mocked, because _now_ , it turns out, I was supposed to use _mentally_ , contrary to what I had been recommended before. Could the native American and British English speakers of ELU tell me:   * Was I ever wrong in whatever I wrote to Reddit, or are Redditors wrong?   * Is there any difference between the three words in question?   * If there is any difference, how do I properly decide which/when to use?


Should I use "me and her" or "her and me" in the following sentence?

* I was surprised Paola agreed to come on the trip, just her and me.   * I was surprised Paola agreed to come on the trip, just me and her. Both versions sound OK to me. Or is it there a more appropriate one?


Word for the act of a PC "breathing"

"Breathing" that's right, that's the word I'm looking for. Obviously a computer doesn't _breathe_ , but what does it _do_? By this I mean, a computer, more specifically the system unit or a laptop. On a system unit or a laptop, there are openings that allow hot air that's produced by the heatsink/fan to be blown out of the machine in order to prevent overheating. The other day I was looking at some Macbooks at the Apple store. Unlike other laptops, the Macbook virtually has no openings on any of its surfaces. So then I went and asked the saleperson on its mechanism in preventing overheating. When asking, it occured to me whether there's an actual word that describes this process/action, a verb that describes the act of sending heated air produced from the heatsink/fans inside the computer out through the openings on the surface of the laptop or system unit by the machine to prevent overheating. In other words, the laptop is not _breathing_ , it's [ ? ]. How does the machine [ ? ].


Meaning and usage of "Queens rules"

In one podcast I've stumbled upon the following dialog (two hosts discussing new version of software, one of them like it other - not, both of them males): > xxx: Ok, we both have tried that version on that weekend and now lets talk > about it. Queens rules? > > yyy: Yes. > > xxx: The thing that I liked most is... > > yyy: But on the other hand... After that it looks like normal discussion. In that context it sounds like a question which you may ask your opponent just before yours argument/battle. Also I could incorrectly recognize that phrase but it sounds like "Queens rules".


Confusion over “family name” in English: What about double-barrelled last names?

How do you fill out an official form in English that asks for just one last name when you instead have a surname which **comprises more than one word**? I currently live in a Latin country, where we have names which have “two last names”. One of these “last names” is the father’s surname and the other is the mother’s. The order can vary between countries and even individuals. Sometimes you see these written with a hyphen or an “y” to connect them, but sometimes you do not. For example,   * John **Perez-Espinosa**   * Gabriel **García Márquez**   * Federico **García Lorca**   * Isabel **Pérez-Espinosa González-Lobón**   * José **Ortega y Gasset**   * José **Aznar López**   * José Sócrates **Carvalho Pinto de Sousa**   * José Maria **de Eça de Queirós** I am filling a DS-2019 Form because I am moving to the U.S., but for the name they ask for               _______________    _______________        ________________           (Family name)      (Given name)          (Middle name)      That may map well to someone with a name like _Franklin Delano Roosevelt_ , where you have one one given name, one middle name, and one family name (and in that order), but what about when you have more than one of one of those, like _George Raymond Richard Martin_ , _George Iain Duncan Smith_ , or _Federico del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús García Lorca_? Put them both — or all — in the one field? Invent new fields? So, given the Latin name (with two last names), how do you fill this field? My last name has two names, so do I give them both, or choose just one, or hyphenate them, or something else like using one of the two last names as the middle name? So under the last idea, the answer will be               ____Perez_______    _____John_______        _____Espinosa___           (Family name)      (Given name)            (Middle name)


Give someone advice in advance with good intent?

There is a word for this in Hungarian (my native language) 'útravaló' which literally means something like "things to be used on your journey". I couldn't find a translation yet in any dictionary. (I've checked 5 different ones.) Is there an English word for the things (either physical or mental) that you give to someone for the reason/intent that she/he might have some use for them while you cannot help him? It's not always clear that the person will actually need them, but usually if he does, it would save him from a great danger. Often a danger that he may not be able to handle without the things you give him. These things could be advice, or things to think about. Physical examples that come to my mind are from folk tales, where the hero gets magical objects and advice on when to use them. They always save him from danger. The word can also be used ironically, when someone won't behave like he should, seemingly naively, but you think that he should have known better, so you give the things for him to think about, doubting that they are new to him or that he is innocent.


Word meaning "likely to cause controversy?"

Example: > The name Self-Arming Group isn't as [...] as Gun Club, but controversial > nevertheless. What word can I use in the example above?


Usage of Present Perfect and Past Simple in answer

I'm reading "English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy and I have a question about Present Perfect and Past Simple.   Here's the example from the book: > They've gone away. They'll be back on Friday. (they are away now)   >  They went away, but I think they're back at home now. (not They've gone) What should I use if I'm talking to my friend and I am not sure if somebody is back or he's still away? For example:   -Hey, where is Mark?    -He has gone to the shop _or_ He went to the shop.    Should I choose the tense depending on my own opinion about his current location at the moment of speaking?


Scripts ran/run/running/?

What is the correct verb construct in the following sentence? > Scripts **___ __ ___** under cron have an empty environment. Cron is a program that runs scripts at scheduled points in time (e.g. every hour). So the verb should be passive and continuous, and since the action continues through the present I believe the correct form is the present participle: _running_. Is this correct?


Does a word rhyme with itself?

In other words, does rhyming work reflexively? Do "potato" and "potato" rhyme? Is the following (admittedly cumbersome) limerick valid?   > _An issue with rhymes confused me much   >  So I used the internet as a crutch   >  I went to a site   >  The Stack Exchange site   >  And used it as my crutch_


Usage of *what* for *that* or *than* in BrE

Occasionally, when watching British television or movies, I've come across a construct that isn't used in AmE. Using _what_ as a replacement for _that_ or _than_ as a determiner or comparison. Here is an example from the classic Monty Python Parrot Sketch: > C: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot **what** I > purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique. > > O: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it? > > C: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's > wrong with it! In AmE we would always say _... parrot **that** I purchased ..._ I've also heard it used as a replacement for than in a comparison: > He thinks he's got bigger balls, **what** I got! I'm guessing that in this case it's merely a colloquial deletion of _than_ and should be _than what I've got_. **My question: Is this considered a colloquial usage in BrE? Or is it fairly standard in the Queen's English?** It seems to me that it might be colloquial based upon John Cleese's accent and intonation, but I don't have the ear for the British accent to pinpoint a regional vs. a socio-economic class of accent.


Comparison error

Because of its innovativeness and its effective presentation, Mary's science project received more judges' votes at the exhibit than **did Jim**. The "did Jim" part was incorrect, and I was kind of confused on how this is a comparison error?


What is "double history"?

I'm a Yank watching the UK version of Being Human and the character mentions sitting next to his ex-girlfriend in "Double History" (season 2 episode 3 around timestamp 24:18). It's clearly a history course of some sort, but what sort? I've never heard the phrase before, and duckduck and google are both failing me.


What is the meaning of 'to be recessed 0.2mm in area shown' in a drawing


statistically dispositive

> The Court also, however, reaffirmed that quotas were illegitimate and found > that the undergraduate program, which mechanically awarded minorities a > fixed twenty points, was therefore impermissible because it was too similar > to a quota. However, it upheld the law school’s program, which purportedly > treated race as merely a vague “plus” and aimed for a “critical mass” of > minorities rather than a fixed quota. But Justice O’Connor’s majority > opinion barely responded to the criticisms of the dissent that the so-called > plus ended up being **statistically dispositive** and that the critical mass > was in fact, historically, a disguised quota, largely taking the > government’s word that the process was individualized. I referenced http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dispositive?q=dispositive but I still don't apprehend the meaning here? Is this a technical term exclusive to statistics? Source: P242, America on Trial, Alan Dershowitz


Using a comma before “and we already have a toaster.”

Which of the following is correct?   1. No gifts please, we don't need any orchids and we already have a toaster.   2. No gifts please, we don't need any orchids **_,_** and we already have a toaster.


Plural of "scheme"?

_Scheme_ is the singular form. What is the plural of _scheme_?


What exactly is a "figure" in a scientific paper?

I'm writing a thesis and I would like to direct the user to an algorithm description. The description is in the form of numbered (and lettered) list. I would like to write that "the algorithm is presented on fig. 1.1", but I'm not sure if that would be correct. I've been thinking that a "figure" is a drawing or a schematic, but recently I've been seeing this word when referring to lists or even blocks of text.


Which article fits better in this sentence?

> Please read **the** instruction(s) in exercise 1. or > Please read **an** instruction in exercise 1.


Neutral synonym for "leaderboard"

Is there a synonym for "leaderboard" that implies less of a value judgement of the criteria by which the items on the board are ranked? I need to describe a dynamic table of **ordered** data (with the highest value at the top) about a sensitive and controversial topic without appearing to suggest approval or disapproval. I also want to avoid a using term that could be construed as flippant or ironic.


What is a better way to say "computer person with a lot of experience in multiple parts of computer-related areas"?

I am trying to create a concise 'title' for my experience working in the computer field. I have experience in multiple programming languages and multiple roles (manager, technician, programmer) and multiple applications (most mainframe based) and I have been at this for quite some time. But all I can come up with is this: > Well rounded computer systems specialist Any other ideas?


What is the difference between "unbeliever" and "disbeliever"

I am asking this question because of this http://islam.stackexchange.com/a/2158/44 > It seems that "unbeliever" can be used for a person "who does not believe" > whereas "disbeliever" can be used for a person "who is presented and > rejected". The prefix "dis" can be used for rejection (compared to the > prefix "un" which can be used for "not" without rejection). So "disbelieve" > seems to imply "making a conscious decision" to reject/dismiss something. How correct is above explanation. Can someone explain in more detail what is, if any, the difference between those two words?


Confused about grammar

I would like to know what the difference is between the following sentences:   * A PM (project manager) can only track so many items   * Only PM can track so many items Is the first sentence grammatically correct ?


Can I say "I have some apprehensions"?

Can I say "I have some apprehensions"? Or it should always be in singular. For example, "He seems to be able to walk now, but I have some apprehensions that he can faint at any time" Google search gives me both, but I am not sure if both of them are correct.


Omission of 'to'

Arnold King, while writing a blog in _econlib_ , wrote: > The last thing he meant to do was call attention to the coercion behind the > insurance function. Should it not be: > The last thing he meant to do was _to_ call attention to the coercion behind > the insurance function. Is the second _to_ an ellipsis? Or is the second way of constructing the sentence incorrect?


Plural form of a noun vs "many a..."

I just read the sentence "I live in the East Village and see many a person lying in the street at all hours of the day" (for anyone wondering this sentence is referring to New York City). When, if ever, is it grammatically correct - or appropriate - to use the phrase "many a _noun_ " instead of using the plural form of the noun?


What is single word for "behind the bars"?

I have heard of the term 'behind the bars'. Is there any single worded-term for this?


Why on earth are binoculars pronounced as /bɪˈnɒk.jʊ.ləz/ instead of /baɪˈnɒk.jʊ.ləz/?

I once pronounced _binoculars_ as > /baɪˈnɒk.jʊ.ləz/ and my friend told me that it is supposed to be pronounced as > /bɪˈnɒk.jʊ.ləz/ I didn't believe him as I was very sure that the prefix _bi-_ is pronounced as > /baɪ-/ instead of > /bɪ-/ and so should the word _binoculars_ until I checked with the Cambridge dictionary, the Oxford dictionary, the MacMillan dictionary, the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and the Collins Cobuild dictionary. It turned out that my friend was correct.


Is there another way to say "needn't have done"?

I'm learning modal verbs now and get in trouble with "need" one. In my textbook it is said that: > don't need to == needn't -- present simple   >  didn't need to -- past simple   >  needn't have done -- present perfect In some inexplicable reason I think that _needn't have done_ sounds weird (may be because I haven't ever heard of such construction). So my question is: Is there a sentence that equal to _needn't have done_ but without the _needn't_ part (like the past simple one)? Or everything is just fine with it and I shouldn't keep in mind?


Is technical copywriting jargon or style?

I became confused by comments to my answer insisting that Technical writing is jargon using incorrect English words. I also looked through definitions of "prepend" in internet, all with inserted derogatory remarks, even in IT-specialized dictionaries, like 'jargon' and:   * prepend is not an English word. It was created to sound like the opposite of "append," which means to add to the end. The correct English word is "prefix;   * Although it sounds correct, prepend is not an English word. It was created to sound like the opposite of "append," which means to add to the end. The correct English word is "prefix;" for example, Is Technical Writing jargon or writing-style and the branch of correctly used English?   Would I better avoid to refer to it as English at all while copywriting (or copylefting) in it? Update:   If I write using the words which are not English WORDS, do I write in English? Update2: I've read many definitions of copywriting but basically it is to poularize a product or a point of view to a most general (including illiterate) reader. The term **Copywriting** "refers to writing in the sense of creating non- technical material". Where is here a "jargon is nearly impossible for the average person to decipher", given by all answers, I wonder? Update3:   Some of jargon definitions:   * Jargon (JAR´gen) - Meaningless use of words   * The technical language of a particular group that is inappropriate in most formal writing since it is frequently not understandable by those outside the group What is unclear in "prepend" and to whom?   Why isn't busyness letter or step-by-step instructions a formal writing? Update4:   Jargon is not necessarily incorrect words. I can speak a few jargons with completely correct words engagement which will be clear only to representatives of certain groups. It is the matter of enagaging accent, distinctiveness, allusions, metaphors, rare citations or facts and idioms Should it be be understood that insulting obscenities known to everybody are not jargon and full members of "correct" English printed in all dictionaries, exposable in printed books, screened popular movies? but understandable "technical" ubiquitous words are out? > Jargon, when referring to computers, is the usage of words by a particular > group, profession, or culture, especially when the words and phrases are not > understood or used by other people. For instance, words like Adware and > Spyware are considered Jargon. Many computer related acronyms, such as CPU > (another name for computer processor) and RAM (another name for memory), are > also considered Jargon terms Do you know anybody who:   \- who does NOT know the words RAM or CPU?   \- who knows, without consulting with dictionaries, all "correct" words of a language? Related question:   * Does English have taboo-ed (unprintable) obscenities? [closed] Update:   The origin of confusion is that the foreign words "jargon" and "slang" make part of Russian and in Russian (as far as I know it, since I am not a linguist) "jargon" covers insulting dialects while "slang" is just peculiar/eqxuisite dialects. **Update:**   May I ask to start delete/edit my question, so distorting its sense, after answer to question acceptance?


"Go XXX" or "go to XXX"

Sometimes I see _go XXX_ ( _go home_ ) and sometimes _go to XXX_ ( _go to school_ , _go to work_ ). Is there any specific rule about this?


Is preposition required before 'yesterday' in certain cases?

Is the following sentence correct? > Last saved by Rod yesterday at 6:15 PM


What does "For what it's worth" mean?

I hear it often, and can usually derive a sentence's meaning with or without it. What does it really mean? When would one use it?


Why does English need an article before any noun?

In my native language, we can say: > I have dog Because I don't want to say _a dog_ (one dog, how many dogs) or _the dog_ (that dog, the listener don't care which dog). p.s. after 3 years later, I have to say, why I ask this question, is I still cannot grasp how to use the right 'article word'. sometimes, a noun will use an article, sometimes, a noun could not(or omit) the article word before it. there aren't a formula for this. So, I have to remember all the time! I feel so frustrate


Word for a person who often visits night clubs and bars?

Do I call them _clubbers_ or are there better words to describe them?


Using an uncountable noun and 'none'

Today I came across the following sentence: > We asked for help and were given none. It feels and sounds right to me. However, after decomposing _none_ into _not one_ , it becomes apparent that you can't have _one help_ in this context. So is _none_ the right word to use originally? If so, what does that say for the _none = not one_ equivalence? If not, then what is a better way to phrase it?


"The more you (will) ask them, the harder it will be"

Is this correct? > The more you **will** ask them, the harder it will be. Should I use > The more you ask them, the harder it will be instead?


..abstract subject.. has gone blind. Meaning

I heard this on a song. > "a prayer has gone blind" What does it mean when something abstract "has gone blind"? They don't like thanking in the comments. So it goes without saying for all my questions from now on...


Name of 3 dots to indicate a pause in speech

Answers to this question show that it is quite common to use the 'ellipsis' (three dots) in English writing to indicate a pause in speech for reasons of "confusion, insecurity, distress, or uncertainty". I agree with this usage, but is it still appropriate to call the 3 dots an 'ellipsis' in this case? I generally associate 'ellipsis' with omission; indeed, that's its primary meaning, with the reference to the typographical 3 dots being secondary. Is there a better word or phrase to use to refer to the 3 dots being used to indicate a pause in speech (either real as in quotes, or abstract as in written prose)?


Would the rejection of an argument because of a grammatical error be a type of logical fallacy?

Many people may have experienced situations (often online) where someone dismisses another's argument not on the merits of the argument, but because of a grammatical (or, more generally, mechanical) error. Instead of errors that could actually confuse the meaning of a statement, I'm thinking of errors like using "that" to refer to a person rather than "who," where the ability to process meaning is not disrupted. Generically, I guess it might be considered an _ad hominem_ ("What do you know? You can't even use a comma correctly!"), but I'm just curious if there's a more specific term for such a thing.


plain and simple

"The chimpanzees were jealous, sexist, and possessive, plain and simple." In the sentence above, are _plain_ and _simple_ two adjectives describing the chimpanzees or are they part of an idiom emphasizing that the chimpanzees are jealous, sexist and possessive, which is completely true and cannot be described as anything else as in this sentence below: "It was cheating, plain and simple." Thanks.


Meaning of "stuck in a barb wire snare"

What is the meaning of the expression _stuck in a barb wire snare_? I heard it in a song but I can't find the explanation and I can't figure out what it means.


What is a name for a unit of measure and value

I'm trying to find a word that describes both the unit and value of something. The unit types and values are arbitrary. For instance "10 meters" and "52 inches" are examples of (the word). "10 liters" and "40 watts" are examples of (the word), etc. Is there such a word? I can't think of it.


Punctuation for "then fine"

This is one of those colloquialisms that doesn't seem to translate to a complete sentence, but how would you properly punctuate and/or correct the following sentence? > I'd like you to keep working, but if you want to quit, then fine. My interest is on the last phrase "then fine" which I've heard before but can't seem to figure out how to write it down properly. Is it "then fine" or "then, fine" or something else entirely? What kind of grammatical function is it?


wooden, golden, oaken - Genitive?

A few nouns can be transformed into an adjective meaning "made of that noun (also: being like that noun)" by adding -en. > golden, wooden, oaken, stonen   * Are those remnants of an old noun inflection of the Genitive case?    * If so are there other remnants of that?   * Would it be possible to interpret "the maiden gown" as such a Genitive?


Subject–verb agreement not clear in "Is two bars OK?"

Is the following correct? > Can I get some chocolate for myself? Yes, you can but not much.   >  **Is** two bars OK? Is there any rule to explain the sentence above? The dialogue's taken from Grammar Textbook Round-Up Level #3.


Origin of "go into hock"

> We will have to _go into hock_ to buy a house. What is the origin of the idiom?


Punctuation for quote reversal

Is there any punctuation--obviously not standard--for when you rearrange a quotation? It would be similar to an ellipsis, but indicate movement rather than elision. For example, you are given the following line: > If one yields to it one's character narrows and cheapens. The structure of your writing, though, favors "It 'narrows and cheapens' 'one's character.'" This, though, hideously places two quotation marks next to each other. Of course, you could change your sentence to fit the original order but this is not always easy. Has anyone ever introduced a punctuation mark that would go between the two segments? As an example of what I mean, I hypothesize a symbol: > It "narrows and cheapens <> one's character," where <> is my substitute for what I seek. Please do not tell me how to use quotations. I do not need an education on how to get around this need. I am only curious if there is such a symbol.


A "torque wrench" or a "wrench"?

Could " _wrench_ " mean something different from a torque wrench? Would the meaning here be vague if I left off the word " _torque_ " in the following passage? > The biggest difficulty in giving instructions is, as already noted, over- > estimating what your audience already knows. Telling someone to remove a > part on their car using a **_torque_** wrench doesn’t help much if they > don’t know how to use a **_torque_** wrench, or even what one is. Problems > can also arise when you fail to adequately describe a point — it often is > not clear until several steps later that a failure has occurred, and the > only thing to do for it is to trace your steps backwards until you find the > error.


Is “workingest” used as often and casually as “hardest working” and “the most hard working (or industrious)”?

I found the phrase America is “ _the workingest nation_ ” on earth in the following sentence of Time magazine’s (November 14) article titled “Whatever happened to upward mobility.” > For the first time in 20 years, the percentage of the population employed in > the US is lower than in U.K., Germany and the Netherlands. “We like to think > of America as _the workingest nation_ on earth. But that’s no longer the > case,” says Ron Haskins, a co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center > on Children and Families. I know the word “working” as an adjective, but I don’t think I’ve come across the word being used in the superlative degree like this. MS Windows 7 spell- check on my PC keeps demanding to correct “workingest” into “work ingest” and “workings” when I'm posting this question. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines “working” as an adjective, meaning;   1. Having a job for which you are paid.   2. Having a job that involves hard physical work rather than office work, studying etc.   3. Connected with your job and the time you spend doing it.  Plus five other, situational definitions. Is “workingest nation, (people, men, women, laborers, students)” used as often as “the hardest working” or “the most hard-working nation, (people, men, women, laborers, students)” in the world?


Correct capitalization for "of" in an acronym definition

For an acronym that includes the word "of", do you capitalize its usage within the definition (or expansion) of the acronym For example, in the follow sentence: My coworker Steve suffers from Complete Avoidance **of** Work Syndrome (CAOWS). Should **of** be written as **Of**?


How different “inflection point” is from “turning point” and “diverging point”?

Further to my question on the usage of “workingest” in the Time magazine’s article (November 14), “Whatever happened to upward mobility,” I noticed the word “inflection point,” in the following sentence in the same article: “International Monetary Fund research shows that countries like the U.S. and U.K. are more prone to boom and bust cycles. And they are ultimately at risk for social instability. That the _inflection point_ that we are at right now.” I am not clear with meaning of “ _inflection point_ ” and the difference of it from other resembling expressions, such as “turning point,” “diverging point,” "bifurcation" or “junction.” Apart from a bookish mathematical definition of the inflection points as “the point where the function changes concavity” with an example equation, “f(x) = x3”, which I found in www.clas.usb. edu, what does “inflection point” mean in the contest of the above sentence? Is this phrase interchangeable with other analogies as shown above?


What does 'question items' means?

This is the sentence "True or false question items and short answer ones were also analyzed separately. " I do not know what 'question items' mean Full sentence: "The data have revealed that the candidates performed in computer-based reading as well as in paper-based reading. To be more specific, True or false question items and short answer ones were also analysed separately."


"Hungry" is to "full" as "thirsty" is to what adjective?

In Danish, we do have word for this ("set"), but absolutely nobody uses this...


Using dashes when omitting verb

The claim start date is reported as the start date of the episode and the end date as the first billable visit. OR The order start date is reported as the episode date and the end date--as the date of the first provided visit. Do we need dash before "as" when we omitted the verb "is reported"?


"won't" vs. "wouldn't"

Are these two words interchangeable? How do you know when to use one or the other? For some sentences it is easy to know which one to use, but not for others. The type of sentences that are difficult are those that begin with "if" or "should." Here's some example sentences: >   * Should you ever break up with your girlfriend, wouldn't you become > lonely? >   * Should you lose this, won't finding another one be difficult? > Or any kind of sentence that is like "Should **___ __ _**, wouldn't/won't **_____**?"


The best time to go out for (a) dinner

I'm not sure why in some situations articles are not going before a noun. E.g. I found this sentence: > The best time to go out for dinner. Why is not here _a dinner_? This link says that we don't put articles in front of noun if is already some determiner before, like this and that. But for is not a determiner, so I'm wondering why it's not correct to say _a dinner_?