Should words be capitalized for being religious terms?

While googling about whether "atheist" should be capitalized, and skimming past posts by people blogging about atheism rather than about English grammar, I came across http://uwf.edu/writelab/reviews/capitalization/ It says > [Capitalize] Religions and religious terms > > Examples: > > Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddha, the Bible, Christian, the Ten Commandments, > Baptist church, Mt. Zion Methodist Church > > NOTE: Do not capitalize the following: > > Examples: > > church, communion, atheist, agnostic, spirituality but I don't recall hearing of such a prescription before. Wouldn't most of the examples listed be capitalized because they're proper nouns? Are there good examples of words being capitalized solely because they're religious terms? I'm mainly interested in modern English, rather than days of past where a lot more words were capitalized than they are nowadays. Somewhat related: When should the word "God" be capitalized? \- use "God" when referring to the name of the god of Judaism and Christianity (a proper noun), but "god" when referring to the general concept of a deity (common noun).


A different word for "meaninglessness"

This is where I want to apply that word: > "He discovered the meaninglessness of consumerism and work" I looked in dictionaries and reverse dictionaries but for some reason I can't find a word that is easier to pronounce and shorter than _meaninglessness_. Any suggestions?


To make sense vs. to be making sense

- Hey John, what do you think?     - I think that sucks!     - It doesn't make any sense.      vs.               - Hey John, what do you think?     - I think that sucks!     - You're not making any sense.      What's the difference between these? Are there any emphases in the meaning?


Formal saxon genitive usage

since James Jeans was that famous British physicist, shouldn't there be:               Jeans's instability       instead of:               Jeans instability       (wiki link) I have read couple (maybe not all) of saxon genitive related topics here but I haven't found the answer.


Is it correct to omit this verb?

Can I omit the "are" in this sentence? > Instead, a linear combination of these two priors gives the maximum success > rate, the optimal weightings for which [are] given by the values of lambda > at the maxima in figure 2 in each regime. It sounds kind of OK to me, but I'm not sure what the rules are here. Can anyone explain them or provide a link to them?


what is the meaning of "might sound"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "May" & "Might": What's the right context?   >  May, might confusion I can not understand this sentence and how it differ from may sound. > OK, well, the shack - not as horrible as it might sound. I was actually born > in the city, and yeah, grew up on the edge of the city of Glasgow, and my > parents ... Can any one explain it?


What does this sentence really mean?

“It would be ungenerous to affect not to know that your self-denial is to be referred to your consideration for her father" Chapter 10, A Tale of Two Cities.


Hallucinating + [preposition]

I’m trying to decide which preposition to use to complete a statement about Charlotte Perkins Gillman’s short story “The Yellow Wallpaper”. I am describing how a hysterical woman sees things in her wallpaper. Over time these things become the image of a woman. To introduce the situation, I have written the following: > She was hallucinating [ _preposition_ ] the wallpaper. _Oxford Dictionaries_ gives a usage example wherein _hallucinate_ is used transitively with no preposition: > I don’t care if they’re hallucinating purple snakes. This to me sounds like people are seeing purple snakes that are not there. I'm looking for the best way to say that a woman is looking at real wallpaper and seeing it move. An ngram search produces a lot of hits for `hallucinate about`, but those also largely represent that a person sees something that isn’t present. For example, > His last days were spent strapped down in a hospital bed _hallucinating > about_ snakes and people who wanted to hurt him. [ _emphasis added_ ] Is there a correct preposition to use with _hallucinate_ to mean that a person sees something unreal happening inside something real? Or is this improper usage of the word? Two prepositions I considered are:   * hallucinate _over_ (similar to _suffer anxiety over_ )   * hallucinate _on_ (similar to _trippin’ on_ )


How about my new epigram?

I'm a Transylvanian epigramist, I'm not so fluent in English, though I wrote several epigrams in this language. Here's one tooth them: **The theory of harmless excess** *When you are squiffy as a jelly, Be very sure that you have nothing, As long as you can stay on belly, But you don't need to cling to something.* Can anyone tell me if there is anything wrong in terms of logical expression, semantics or English grammar? Many thanks, Riti from Transylvania


can "happy" bells toll?

can "happy" bells toll: Say wedding bells? or does "toll" have an ominous connotation, suggesting doom, funerals, death, etc.? : "For Whom the Bells Toll", etc.


What word type is "before" when used as in this example?

I need to know the word type of "before" in constructions like the following: > Before going home, I had a beer. I do know the word types before can be in general, so no need for lengthy responses ;).


What is the difference (in terms of usage and connotation) between "loath" and "loathe"?

I'm having difficulty in understanding the differences in usage (and understanding which one is used from pronunciation/context) between "loathe" and "loath" - could anyone help clarify it ?


How to arrange in alphabetical order by maiden name but include married name

In a class list, what is the correct way to arrange in alphabetical order by maiden name but also include married name, so that someone who doesn't know the person and does not know the list is in alphabetical order by maiden name would be able to tell which is which?


How to say I may mislead you again?

How to say I may mislead you again:   1. because of my poor English,   2. in a good manner   3. the responsibility is mine (no need to speak out, just let she surely know this). i.e., I'm afraid of my poor English...


Can anyone give me a grammatical explanation as to why "that being said" is proper English?

A certain pedant is claiming that beginning a sentence with "That being said" is grammatically incorrect owing to the apparent logical contradiction in claiming that something in the past (e.g. the previous paragraph) is still "being said", i.e. unfolding in the present. He claims that only "that having been said" can be grammatically correct. I'd like a simple prescriptive grammatical argument to counter him. In my view, using "that being said" is permissible on the one hand as a collocated expression; on the other, owing to the fact that English grammar is full of apparent logical contradictions that have been brought about in order to advance the cause of expressing meaning. But this argumentation is too broad. Can anyone give me an airtight, standard grammatical explanation as to why "that being said" is permissible despite its supposed logical contradiction?


If additive is "something added", what would be "something subtracted"?

Yes I know I can check the dictionary. But I can't find this part. Additive is both noun and adjective. The antonym for the adjective usage is _subtractive_ , because it's an adjective too. But I can't find a **noun** antonym for the **additive** as a noun.


Is there a word meaning "true-on-average"?

Economist Bryan Caplan asks: > What's a good word for "true-on-average"? Can we help him out?


"In practise" or "In practice"

British English makes the distinction between 'practise' (verb) and 'practice' (noun). Based on this, I would judge the following sentence as **incorrect** : > In practise, computers often crash. Nevertheless, I see it frequently. Could 'practise' possibly be a verb in this phrase?


Is "Is it a girl or a boy?" really calling the infant an "it"?

So, my boss comes in, railing that "English is a stupid language!" Since this is pretty much a thrice-weekly occurrence 'round these parts, I barely raised an eyebrow, and waited for him to continue. "Mary just wrote to tell us that she's back from maternity leave, and I want to congratulate her and ask whether she had a girl or a boy, but I can't do it without calling the child an 'it'!" I blinked, then confirmed that yes, he believes the **it** in _"Is **it** a boy or a girl"_ is the impersonal pronoun, the same word you'd apply to an apple or a house. Is it the 'thing' pronoun, really? Or is it just a placeholder of some sort? I used to believe the latter: I gave the boss a mini-lecture about "it's raining" and the dummy subject pronoun. He wasn't convinced, however, and now he's got me doubting too. (Harumph. I really should know better than to listen to the boss.) I'm not asking about politeness, here; the former title was to be taken somewhat facetiously. I'm wondering about the grammar: **what role is that "it" playing in that sentence**? Is it a personal pronoun (and thus the infant has grounds for feeling offended) or a dummy pronoun (and thus those who perceive a politeness issue are just misunderstanding the grammar)?


Non-lexical words

I like suffixes and prefixes. I am wondering if I can use new nonlexical words such as: >   * Javasmith (-smith) >   * Javamaniac (-maniac) (just like shoemania!!) >   * Javaster (-ster) > The main word is "Java" : a programming language. What would you call these kinds of words? By nonlexical, I mean a word or term that you cannot find in the lexicon, for example, SOHO, NOHO (neighborhoods in Manhattan, NY).


“your heart just shrank” vs. “your heart just shrunk”

If I say: > Your heart just shrank two sizes too small. Is the verb shrank correct as is? Or should it be in participle form? > Your heart just shrunk two sizes too small. Which one would be correct in these two cases?


Changing tenses

I am a sports writer and was wondering if this sentence is wrong because it starts in the past tense and changes to past participle "Sophomore Chelsea Vujs recorded a double-double by scoring a game-high 21 points and pulling down 10 rebounds "


What part of speech is "only" in "Fame lights a fuse that leads only to extinguishment"?

My impulse is that it's modifying the verb _leads_ , and is thus an adverb; yet it seems that a case could also be made that it's exerting power on the phrase _to extinguishment_ , a noun, which would make it ... what, exactly? an adjective? I'm confused. > Fame lights a fuse that leads only to extinguishment.


What does "above" mean in this context?

I just read this lady's profile. The following sentence has drawn my attention: > I'm not **above** occasionally bending or breaking a grammar rule for good > cause. But I do believe clear, persuasive communication requires sensible, > well-respected language conventions. What does "above" mean in this context? I've rarely seen such usage before, nor have I been able to find anything online. My best guess is it might mean "against". Or could it mean "free from"? **EDIT** : so "not above" means "no better than"?


Common expression for "frame conditions" for a working concept/process

In German, the common expression "Rahmenbedingungen" (used both as plural and singular) relates, for example, to a set of conditions necessary for a business idea to work out (e.g. low taxes and wages for successfully introducing and manufacturing a new product). Mostly these conditions have to be implemented/managed by a 3rd person, external authority or surroundings, so that the business/political idea can work out. In that sense, it's not a pre- but a side-condition. So you can already start to make your idea real, knowing that, for example, a soon change of business laws will realize this necessary side-conditions. _Linguee_ gives out different phrases and expressions for the German counterpart. I would have thought this to be a rather unique and common expression in English too, as you use and need it in many contexts (technology, business, politics, etc.). Maybe I should simply stop using Linguee for finding expressions, as it's more baffling than enlightening for this purpose. But **dictionaries also name very different expressions using these words as components:** **_condition, factor, framework, requirement_** (well, at least **_factor_** and **_condition/requirement_** are two different things from a math/logic point of view, so some look like bad machine translations). So what is the common expression I'm looking for, used in different contexts? Or does it not exist and I have to check the context in English first and then choose the appropriate expression, according to the contexts mentioned above? PS: I'm not looking for the common term _boundary conditions_ in math, which translates to the German _Randbedingung_.


What does "Hungarian" mean here?

I think it’s a figurative usage as a reminder of blood, but not for sure. Why is the word _Hungarian_ used here? ( _He_ is a professional pianist who holds lessons open to the public.) > When I told him that one of the students had likened it to an energy > radiating from his hands into theirs, he laughed and offered his own image: > “I give them a blood transfusion right there on stage! After all, I’m > Hungarian.” ( _The Piano Shop on the Left Bank_ by Thad Carhart)


Why is the Elizabethan English incorrect in this quote?

I saw a Geico commercial with Elizabethan verb forms that bothered me because they were being misused: > Trick Number 1. **Lookest** over there!   >  _Servant looks_   >  Haha! **Madest thou** look!   >  So **endest** the trick! How would a native speaker of Elizabethan English have phrased these sentences? Specifically, what verb forms would they have used if this scene were authentic?


Are "smith" and "blacksmith" synonymous?

Dictionary.com says > **noun**   >  1\. a worker in metal.   >  2\. a blacksmith. Does this mean that they are the same?


Questions with 'would'

Why most questions in English get asked with 'would'? Grammar books say that it's used for making a polite request, but doesn't talk about the grammar of the 'would' part. Do we have to answer questions asked with 'would' also with 'would' or could we use other structures as well? For example: > Would you tell me who that man is? Possible answers: I wouldn't know him, I > won't know him. I don't know him, I cant tell you, etc. Could all of the above be possible answers?


Position of "of which" in the sentence

In a post here I found that both following sentences are correct..is that true? Is the first one really grammatically correct? > A camera of which the wires go through the wall. > > A camera, the wires of which go through the wall. I thought that "camera of which" is not correct..? Dictionary I have says "changes the importance of which is.."..so could I say "changes of which the importance is..?


meaning of parochial

As far as I know "parochial" means of or relating to a church/parish. My dictionary (and Google, or that matters, also says so.) But recently, I've heard it also means "narrow-minded" (or something similar). Can anyone tell if this is true? I know one should know better than to ask WHY a word means what it means, but I really want to know how/why "parochial" could mean "narrow-minded". Thanks,


What is a more humane term for 'user'?

Many websites refer to people who sign up as 'users', which may be considered a bit derogatory; these people also participate, they don't just use the site. In Russian, MediaWiki (the software that powers Wikipedia, Wikinews, Commons and sister projects) calls these people 'Участник', which literally is 'one who participates' [as a website user, and as a writer, as a reader, as whatever else you like; not as formal, active, or involved as 'participant' term expects]. What English language term is equivalent?


What term to use instead of "Company" to represent, well, a company

I'm in the process of (re) designing a software product, and I'm attempting to find the right term to use. Right now, our product has been targeted at a few different industries that operate on a distributor-dealer infrastructure, and our software has been sold primarily to dealers. As a result, we have come to refer to the company (or companies) that are represented within a single database as "dealers", even though they may, in fact, be distributors and the dealers are actually their customers. The package is expanding in scope and is now going to be targeted at other organizations that may not operate under this model, so the term "dealer" is becoming increasingly diluted. As a result, we are attempting to find a suitable term that is both generic enough not to be unintuitive, but also specific enough so as not to be easily confused with other parts of the database. In other words, simply calling them "Company" could be confusing because users already have other "companies" with which they conduct business entered into the system, and "Company" is the term used to describe them. So far, only "Company" and "Business" have been found to be suitably generic, but I'm not sure if they're specific enough. I know that software like QuickBooks refers to them as a "Company", but I'm curious if there is something better suited. **EDIT** : The database in question is the _customer's_ database, not our own. We design the database and the application, but it's their data. Perhaps a little more information will be helpful, as there seems to be some confusion about what I'm talking about. I was under the impression that people reading my question could actually read my mind, but in case that isn't true: As stated above, our current model uses the term "Dealer". In our database, we have a `Dealer` table that stores information about the dealer (or dealers) that our customer runs. In turn, we have a `Customer` table in their database that represents their customers, and a `DealerId` column in that table to associate a customer to a given dealership (some of our clients have multiple dealerships that they run out of the same database in order to share other things, such as product lists). What I'm looking for is an alternative to the term `Dealer`, as our target markets are no longer solely businesses that could be considered "dealerships". `Company` would work, but I am concerned with our interaction with the customer becoming confused by mixing usage of the word "Company" for their company with other "companies" that they might interact with.


A word that means 'hateful but indispensable'

Is there a single adjective meaning 'hateful but indispensable' or something close? (Not "love-hate"). British or American would be OK.


Is there a name for adjectives that are based around someone's name?

Some examples would include:   * Shakespearean   * Christian   * Mesmerized   * Pavlovian   * Newtonian   * Boolean   * Darwinian


Regarding 'for' used in the context of time

Is the following ambiguous? > He has not lived in Boston for 2 years. Could it mean:   1. It is not true that he has lived in Boston for two years. He might have been living in Boston for only one year.    2. It has been the case for two years that he has not lived in Boston.  Now consider the following. Are they ambiguous?   1. He has not lived in Boston for ages.    2. He has not lived in Boston for ages yet.


'Parasitic' Phonemes

In searching for the reason for the mess **age** -> mess **enge** r shift, I came across the theory of the 'parasitic n.' Essentially, the idea is that during the post-Norman Conquests period in England, borrowed words from French containing nasalized vowels preceding a 'g' would be misheard by English speakers as containing velar or alveolar nasals, and as such were written or repeated containing an erroneous n. Are there other instances of such 'parasitic phonemes' in the history of English?


What are the open rooms called in business environment?

We work in an office which does not have rooms but instead has compartments which are split by dividing walls and have open tops. The walls are at shoulder height. What are these compartments called in business environment?


What does "bite" and "quarter-backing" mean in this context?

It's from the first few lines of the foreword to Karl Llewellyn's "The Bramble Bush": > These lectures grew out of an attempt in 1929 and 1930 to introduce the > students at Columbia Law School to the study of law. They were privately > printed in 1930, and met with reasonable favour. _But I found out early that > their **bite** for a beginning law student lies rather in November than in > September_; and a man's own ideas--especially on perspective and whole > view-- change as he gains experience Hence for ten years I planned and > worked over a rewrite. Then it slowly became clear that I have no business > to rewrite. The young fellow who wrote these lectures just isn't here any > more, and the job he did had its own virtue, and I have no right to mess it > up with _Monday morning **quarter-backing** which has used two decades in > getting from Saturday to Monday morning_. Can someone give me an explanation of, if not some interchangeable words/phrases for, 'bite' and 'quarter-backing' in respect of the above context? Thanks.


When to put a verb ahead of its doer?

I have read this at the Science.com, and it's in the second line of the last paragraph. > A bow and arrow or an atlatl allows users to attack prey—and enemies—from a > safer distance than **does** an ordinary spear. I would have put it this way: A bow and arrow or an atlatl allows users to attack prey—and enemies—from a safer distance than an ordinary spear **does**. So here are my questions:   1. Are both of the two sentences right?   2. When **can** I put the verb ahead of the noun? When is it a necessity?


What's the opposite of "bootstrap" (in business)?

When starting a project or business, there are two extreme approaches. One is where you do everything yourself without external help: learn the techniques yourself, develop your own tools, providing your own capital. The other extreme would be to find as much external help as you can: consulting/hiring domain experts, using COTS solutions, looking for investors/partners. Compared to the former, the latter tends to have less risk (for the founders), more capital cost, less retention of knowledge, less equity/control. The former, in certain forms, is sometimes called "bootstrapping". What would the latter be called? **Update:** I think I've mislead folks due to poorly presenting this question as a straight-forward antonym request for _bootstrap_. Bootstrap has a specific meaning in finance, pertaining to the acquisition of capital without taking on external liabilities or equity. I'd like to know what's the opposite of a more general approach to growing a project or business, one which is better covered in this article: "Ben & Jerry's vs Amazon". Here are some examples which better illustrate the dichotomy:   * Hiring consultants instead of employees   * Leasing a pre-furnished office space instead of building a new one   * Contracting out your IT management to a firm instead of growing in-house staff I think mainly it's a money vs. time payoff but there are other side effects such as expertise, culture and so on.


What’s the subject and verb?

> During these sessions, the court could rule on major issues, this time > around that includes the case about whether race should be a factor when > colleges decide which students to accept. For ‘this time around ... which student to accept’, what’s the subject and verb?


What do CI, CIM, CID, CIB mean?

I was talking to a friend about a girl, and he mentioned that “She can pretty much CI anything, CIB, CIM or CID.” I’m wondering what these mean. The context was sexual experience. Sorry if I missed some letters; English is not my primary language.


Differences among words describing someone who is expert in many things

I wonder how the following words for describing someone who knows many different things compare, and when to use which word. Some are adjectives, others are nouns:   * renaissance   * polymath   * versatile   * aficionado   * ... (possibly others if you don't hesitate to mention) Some background:   1. I encountered "aficionado" and "versatile" from a personal description here > "It's getting harder and harder for me to believe that you're just a > hobbyist. Aficionado would be a better term. And a damn versatile one at > that!"   2. When I told some American I hoped to be polymath, he said they would use "Renaissance" instead.


Is there a reason the British omit the article when they "go to hospital"?

Why do British speakers omit the article in constructions like "go to hospital" or "go on holiday"? Pretty much all American speakers would rephrase those as "go to _the_ hospital" and "go on _a_ holiday", I think. Is there any good reason, or forgotten sense behind those words that might explain why the articles are ommitted? Are there other common constructions other than those two that the British use that drop the article? **EDIT** : I just realized per Kosmonaut's comment that Americans do much the same thing with a few nouns, so this isn't all that special. Do grammaticists designate nouns that can have their article dropped with anything, i.e. do they have anything in common?


AE vs British English usage of hospital

We all know that Americans say: > Sara is going to the hospital While in the UK, they would say (and Americans would _never_ say): > Sara is going to hospital I'm wondering what the history of this difference is given that in AE, the usage of the "the" modifier seems extraordinarily arbitrary: Americans would say: > Sara is going to school to mean that Sara is going to _be enrolled in school_. While they would say: > Sara is going to the school to mean that Sara is going a particular school building (not enrolled). To me this intuitively suggests some sort of lack of "personal" connection with the concept of a hospital which is not there when it comes to concepts like "school" or "church". Now for the leap: does this perhaps have anything to do that in the US, healthcare has been a private entity (until recent occurrences), and not generally regarded as a personal right (but rather, a privilege)? I know this is a stretch, but this _could_ be an explanation for the "impersonal" way in which AE uses the word — unless my history is all wrong here? No politics here, just curious about the root of this difference.


Usage and confusion on "geek" and "hipster"

Within the circle I regularly communicate with the meaning of these words is commonly understood:   * _Geek_ \- someone with an obsessive interest in one field.   * _Hipster_ \- someone who ironically apes geek fashion, but is more interested in being cool. In particular in the UK a _hipster_ always refers to a Nathan Barley type. They even have a song. Does anyone know (and can provide citations) for when this usage of _hipster_ started? Online these seem much more confused; I regularly see traits from _hipsters_ applied to _geeks_. For instance someone described as a _geek_ for wearing an ironic t-shirt, while to me that would make them a _hipster_ (a _geek_ would genuinely be a fan of whatever it was). Occasionally I've seen _geek_ traits applied to _hipsters_ , for instance someone describing a _hipster_ as socially awkward (stereotypically UK _hipsters_ are all about being seen at the right parties). Is this a US/UK difference to what _geek_ and _hipster_ refer to? Is the meaning of _geek_ changing over time to refer to _hipsters_? Is there a US equivalent to _hipster_?


What's the word that describes this ability/quality?

What is the word that describes someone who displays the ability to think of alternative ways of dealing with a situation, especially a situation that calls for it and then acts upon it? In my native language, it is a relatively common word. As I thought of it, the idiom _think on your feet_ , and the word _nimble_ sprang to mind. It is the closest expressions I could think of, although it is similar, it does not contain the exact meaning of that word. Basically it's an adjective that describes someone who's able to quickly think of alternatives in a situation, especially in a situation that calls for it. He is able to accommodate to new situations as opposed to someone who, if faced with a similar situation, will become stuck, not knowing what to do and unable to think of any alternatives. For example, If someone who's shopping for ingredients for the desired dinner he's going to prepare for his party guests discovered that one of the ingredients for a dish he's going to prepare is not sold in any of his local grocery stores, he buys another similar ingredient as a substitute. He is (that word), because he has the ability to think of alternative ways in dealing with the situation where as someone who is not (that word) is rather dull and when faced with such situations, will propably decides not to prepare that dish and may also get frustrated/upset over the matter.


How did the term "Mistress" take on two rather different connotations?

One meaning of the word is "female master." The Latin equivalent would be Domina. Another connotation is "lover." Not quite what one associates with "Domina." Or was there a connection between the two made when men took "dominant" women as lovers? Could one possible instance of this phenomenon be the medieval "courtly love?" http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1125/what-was-courtly-love-amour- courtois


Describing Historical Events

When we describe historical events, like events related to the Roman empires, Persian empires, etc., what is the best way to describe peoples' thought with a connection to the present? > People **might have thought** the same back in those days, but you know it's > not always correct. > > People **had thought** the same back in those days, but you know it's not > always correct. > > People **thought** the same back in those days, but you know it's not always > correct.


Is there a rule for the correct pronunciation of words starting with "ex"?

The following words are pronounced starting with an **`iks`** / **`igz`** :   * extent [ɪkˈstent]   * expect [ɪk'spekt]   * exterminate [ɪk'stɜːmɪneɪt]   * external [ɪkˈstɜːn(ə)l]   * exhaust [ɪg'zɔːst]   * examine [ɪg'zæmɪn]   * exact [ɪɡˈzækt] The following words are pronounced starting with an **`eks`** :   * extant [ek'stænt]   * extra ['ekstrə]   * execute ['eksɪkjuːt]   * exhale [eks'heɪl]   * excellent [ˈeksələnt]   * excavate [ˈekskəveɪt] So, I have this question on my mind for a while: Is there a rule of thumb to determine whether the words starting with an _ex_ must be pronounced with **`iks`** or **`eks`**?


Was vs had been

I guess this question has been asked before, but please take a look the following sentence and tell me if there is a difference between them.   1. When the transaction had been completed, A was still a partner of ABC & co.   2. When the transaction was completed, A was still a partner of ABC & co.


What measures the Byte unit?

Well,   * _meters_ measures _distances_ or _lengthes_ ,   * _volt_ measures _tension_ or voltage, ,   * _kelvin_ measures _temperature_ ,   * _second_ measures _time_ ,   * _ampere_ measures _electric current_ ,   * _kilogram_ measures _mass_ , But what measures the "Byte" unit ? I'm looking for a word that would take the same place than _mass_ takes for _kilogram_ , but for _Byte_ (or _bit_ , as 8 _bit_ makes a _Byte_.). There's only very unspecific terms that springs to my mind ( _size_ , _capacity_ , ...):   * My file is 3.2 KB in `<fill the blank>` ?   * My hard drive has a `<fill the blank>` of 2TB.   * Byte measures `<fill the blank>`. Could it be _information_ ? But the word alone doesn't seem to refer to something that can be measured. And you don't use it as naturally. For example, in a technical specification you could see:   * mass: 3kg   * temperature: 2°   * voltage: 3V   * `<fill the blank>`: 3TB But what would you use here in front of "3TB" for instance ? It seems we must use 2 words, for example: "information size". But even this doesn't seem so natural. Have you any word suggestions that I've might missed, references on this topic, if not, do you know other units that don't have a proper word to name what they measures ? **Edit:** I'm a software developer and I know relatively well what a Byte measures. I'm looking for a specific English word that could be used as naturally as you would use the word "mass" to qualify what you measure when you say "3 kilograms".


"Him/Her" vs "Himself/Herself"

As a unit admin I’m often typing award certificates. The last line of the award citation usually goes something like this: > Private Joan Smith actions reflect great credit upon **herself** , the 120th > Jumping Jacks Company, the 13th fighter Battalion and the United States > Army. It was recently pointed out to me that the below is correct: > Private Joan Smith actions reflect great credit upon **her** , the 120th > Jumping Jacks Company, the 13th fighter Battalion and the United States > Army. The first way is what I’m used to seeing and it looks right to me, but has always sounded awkward when reciting it. When I say the other way out loud it sounds better, but both seem to work. Which is correct?


What adjective is between "intermediate" and "advanced"? Specifically, my academic program already has an intermediate programming course, and a proposed course does not seem to meet the standards for what I would consider advanced, so I would like to propose another term that can be used for it.


Possessive of a word that is already possessive

If the cricket ground Lord's is a possessive, what if you want to describe something belonging to Lord's? Would you say "I was very impressed by Lord's's customer services"? It doesn't look right, so what is the correct way of writing it?


Apostrophe usage on proper nouns already having one

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Possessive of a word that's already possessive? There is a famous pizza restaurant named "Domino's". In our city their rivals accept vouchers issued by Domino's. The sign reads "We accept all Domino's vouchers". Given that the name already has an apostrophe is this correct? Why not "We accept all Domino's' vouchers"? Okay, I accept that perhaps that looks very strange but my point is that the registered name already has an apostrophe, does that now do the two jobs of being part of the name and indicating possession?


Confusion regarding apostrophe

To talk about something or someone, we usually give an apostrophe, like John's pen. If the word ends with s, we say Adams' pen . But what if we are talking of something that ends with an apostrophe s like Jack's (what we sometimes say in short for Jack's home, or Jack's kitchen etc.). How do I use an apostrophe for words like these? (For eg. If I want to say "Jack's house is closed" but I want to write _Jack's_ instead of _Jack's house_ , How do I manage the apostrophe?)


Possessive of Queen's?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Possessive of a word that's already possessive? I ran into this issue today. Referring to Queen's University, how would you say "I've been accepted to Queen's MA program?" Would you move the apostrophe over to make it Queens'?


What is the best use of the apostrophe in a church name when the church also "possesses" something?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Possessive of a word that’s already possessive? For example, would it be correct to write St. Marys' basketball team for the basketball team belonging to St. Mary's church?


St. John's greatest dinner: how to indicate a possessive of a noun which already ends apostrophe - s

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  If the cricket ground Lord's is a possessive, what if you want to describe > something belonging to Lord's? Here's a tricky one that I can't quite figure out the correct punctuation for. How do you write the possessive of a noun which is already possessive? The example which spawned this question: How would you describe something belonging to St. John's, where St. John's is any of the colleges, towns or hospitals which bear this name, including the apostrophe, and not the saint? _edit_ @waiwai933: This is what I've always done, I just wondered if there was any clever punctuation you could use to avoid this kind of rephrasing. I'm guessing from your immediate reply that the answer is probably no, but I'll see if anyone else comes up with something interesting.


Proper Apostrophe Use: Possessive Apostrophe In Brand/Corporate Names

Wondered the same thing as this person: but could not find here on EL&U What is the proper way to indicate possession when the proper noun itself already has a possession-indicating apostrophe? (such as "McDonald's") http://levynewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/proper-apostrophe-use- possessive-apostrophe-in-brandcorporate-names/


Is “ O’Leary’s’s ” orthographically correct?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Possessive of a word that's already possessive? There’s a bar near me named O’Leary’s Irish Pub—or just O’Leary’s for short. One day, they changed their menu. I wrote to a friend: > “O’Leary’s has changed their menu. **O’Leary’s’s** menu no longer has beer- > battered onion rings.” Is this usage correct? I _always_ use “ ’s ” to denote singular possessive—Charles’s office, Russ’s phone, Lars’s car, Baggins’s sword—so O’Leary’s’s seems completely natural to me. But several of my friends say it is wrong. Why? The way I see it, it’s like this: Finnegan **O’Leary** works hard at **O’Leary’s** Irish Pub. The **O’Learys** are a friendly family. The **O’Learys’** house is on Beacon Street. **O’Leary’s’s** menu is new. Many **O’Leary’s’** doors have closed (meaning: the doors of many places named O’Leary’s over the years have closed). * * * p.s.—What about “ _My Night at Maud’s_’s plot”?


Is a "misspelled" word which subsequently creates another word still considered misspelled?

According to Dictionary.com: > **mis·spell·ing** [mis-spel-ing]   >  _noun_ > >   1. the act of spelling incorrectly: Note his misspelling of that word. >   2. an incorrectly spelled word: You have three misspellings in your > letter. > Some people have told me that as long as the letters actually create a word, it's spelled correctly. This doesn't make sense to me, though. The example I'm using occurred in a recent Stack Exchange blog. They had accidentally typed in "word" instead of "world." I pointed out that "world" was misspelled (missing an "l") and another person said that it was technically not misspelled. So when do we consider a word misspelled?   Only when our computer puts a red zig-zag line below it? Isn't the word "word" still considered misspelled since it was _meant_ to be "world" and it is not spelled correctly, and just happens to become a different word when this particular misspelling occurs? Is there perhaps a better definition of the word "misspelling" out there somewhere that can more accurately represent what exactly the word means? **Note:** This isn't meant to be subjective. I'm hoping for _factual_ information that supports it one way or the other.


Did people ever use the word "cock" as a euphemism for "God"?

English has a lot of surprises. When I was checking the etymology of " **cocksure** ", I found this entry in Oxford Dictionaries: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/DAJ4B.png) > **1** _British_ A male bird, especially of a domestic fowl. * * * Below is another definition from "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English" _By Ernest Weekley_ (originally published in 1921): ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/HrckS.png) * * * Moreover: > **By cock and pie:** an adjuration equivalent to "by God and the service > book." * * * **Questions:**   * How in the world is/was cock a euphemism for God? And how is it related with God?   * Are there any references to this in the current vernacular?   * Are there any connotations to vulgarism also?


Is a possessive noun a contraction?

I was told not to use contractions in an essay. My classmate wrote "the argument of Emily" but I preferred "Emily's argument". He disagreed and claimed "Emily's" is a contraction.


How to politely request to be called by first name instead of Mr. Surname?

Let's say that somebody from a partner firm with whom I've never spoken before starts an email to me with "Dear Mr. Rossi,". When a reply to her, I think I will then have to start with "Dear Ms. Her- Surname," to not sound disrepectful. But I would like to make this email conversation less formal next time. Is there any better alternative to the sentence below? > Dear Ms. Her-Surname, > > First of all, feel free to call me Ivo. Regarding your...


How to deal with abbreviations like 'etc.' at the end of parentheses which are closing a sentence?

In Hungarian, when there's a dot both inside and outside parentheses at the end of a sentence, we write it as follows: > Sok állatom van (kutya, macska stb.). ( **Meaning:** _I've got many animals [dogs, cats, etc.]_ ) I'm not sure though how do we write it in English.   1. _I've got many animals (dogs, cats, etc.)._   2. _I've got many animals. (dogs, cats, etc.)_   3. _I've got many animals (dogs, cats, etc.)_   4. _I've got many animals (dogs, cats, etc)._


A couple of quick questions related to "Messrs"

How is "Messrs" pronounced? The meaning is the plural of "Mister", right? Does that mean that "Misters" is not a word? Is "Messrs" a word that is more commonly used in England than the United States?


Correct usage of FAQ

FAQ stands for 'Frequently asked questions', with the plural being implicit in the acronym FAQ. But it is common to see the word 'FAQs' being used, which treat the word FAQ as an object in itself, and an s being added to its end in order to pluralize it. Which one is the correct usage for FAQ ?


How to pronounce "Zoubin Ghahramani"?

Zoubin Ghahramani is a computer scientist and statistician. I tried Google translate but it sound a little weird. Does anyone know the pronunciation of his name? Is it from another language other than English? Or as Google translate suggests, is it a Turkish name? Thank you.


Does "reinventing the wheel" have negative or positive connotation?

I've always assumed that the expression "reinventing the wheel" meant something negative. For me it means doing something that has already be done without making any improvement. However, a few times I've seen the expression use in a positive way too. For example, in this article, it's written: > Eminem's progressive rap style has raised the bar for Hip-Hop lyricism > across the board. [...] he's continued to reinvent the wheel, putting his > life on display, through a bevy of syllable-heavy, metaphor-driven cuts. So it's clearly meant as a praise. Is this usage correct?


How to call natural listeners for other people's desire to talk

... or in other words, what is the complement of "talkative"? Like in > She has a couple of good friends that trust in her, who share their private > issues with her and who phone her whenever they have something to talk > about. She is ...


Is there a secular, non vulgar alternative to "for heaven's sake"?

I know _for heaven's sake_ , _for Pete's sake_ , for _God's sake_ and for _Christ's sake_. All of those, however are religious references. The only non- religious equivalent phrases I know are _for fuck's sake_ and its variations. Are there any non-vulgar, non-religious alternatives? I am very used to the general construct of _for X's sake_ and am looking for something along the same lines that I could use in cases like > C'mon, it's just a scratch for X's sake! > > That's not even true for X's sake! It does not need to also be applicable as a general exclamation of frustration ( _Oh, for chrissake!_ ) but that would be nice. Basically, I'm looking for a synonym for the "Oh come _on_!" sense of _for fuck's sake_ rather than the _Oh shit!_ one. * * * EDIT: Since this has gotten quite a bit of attention, I would like to urge those who answer to read the entire question, not just the title. I am not just looking for polite swearwords but for something that can be used in the example phrases above.


Word for child talk

What is a word for talk or conversation done by a child? The aspects I wish to portray is the way in which they speak continuously, in an animated and enthusiastic way, and often nonsensically. Preferably the word should convey this in a positive light.


Synonyms for multiplexing and demultiplexing

I have developed a software mechanism which operates on a certain kind of software entities which are called _interfaces_. If you want technical details about the mechanism you can read this post on StackOverflow, but it should not be necessary in order to understand the question and give an answer. The mechanism consists of two parts: one performs an operation upon interfaces which could be called _multiplexing_ , and the other performs an operation which could be called _demultiplexing_. Now, these terms are already used for various other things in the general domain of computers and electronics, so if I were to use them I would have to always be speaking of _interface multiplexing_ and _interface demultiplexing_ , otherwise I would be confusing people. The problem is that these terms are now way too long and cumbersome. I need to come up with simpler terms, preferably unique, so that when people hear them either they realize immediately what I am talking about, or they realize that I am referring to something previously unknown to them, about which they might wish to ask for explanations. So, I need to give you non-technical descriptions of what these things do, and ask you to help me find better terms. Of course, there is no way to do this but with similes. There are a few similes that I can give, and terms that satisfy any single one of them would be fine. (I do not expect to find a single term that would satisfy more than one simile.) **Simile #1: wires through a tube** The job of the multiplexer is akin to taking a bunch of wires and making them fit into a tube, so that we have a single inconspicuous tube crossing the room instead of a bunch of separate wires dangling around. The job of the demultiplexer is akin to taking the wires out of the other end of the tube and separating them from each other so that we have the wires that we started with. Note that in actual cabling this process usually involves twisting the wires, but for my purposes conveying such a notion is entirely optional, perhaps even slightly undesirable. **Simile #2: generalization-specialization** The job of the multiplexer is akin to taking objects, each one of which is unique in shape, color and function, stripping them of their properties, and making them completely homogeneous and barren of any characteristic features. The job of the demultiplexer is akin to taking these homogenized objects and restoring their properties and their characteristic features back to what they originally used to be. **Simile #3: assembly-disassembly** The job of the multiplexer is akin to taking things and putting them together into conglomerations thereof; the job of the demultiplexer is akin to taking these conglomerations and breaking them down into their constituent parts. **Simile #4: translation** The job of the multiplexer is akin to translating the language that someone speaks to some cipher suitable for transmission, and the job of the demultiplexer is akin to translating from the cipher back to the original language so that someone else can understand it. (But note that cipher/decipher are not applicable because they already mean other things.) Please consider the fact that I need six terms:   1. a synonym for the act of multiplexing.   2. a synonym for the performer of the act. (The multiplexer.)   3. a synonym for the verb of the act. (To multiplex.)   4. a synonym for the act of demultiplexing.   5. a synonym for the performer of the act. (The demultiplexer.)   6. a synonym for the verb of the act. (To demultiplex.) (I am mentioning this because someone suggested "fusion" and "fission", which would have been fine if all I needed was names for the acts, but then I tried to think of the corresponding names for the performers and for the verbs for "fusion" and "fission" and I realized that there is a slight problem.) It goes without saying that the terms need to be as symmetric as possible, preferably even with the same number of letters for each part. To help to get things started, here are some sets of terms that I have been able to come up with so far. I do not know which, if any, I should choose. You can pick one of these sets, or suggest your own set.                               name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   generalizing     generalizer        generalize     demultiplexing: specializing     specializer        specialize                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   normalizing      normalizer         normalize      demultiplexing: denormalizing    denormalizer       denormalize                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   entwining        entwiner           entwine     demultiplexing: untwining        untwiner           untwine                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   enmeshing        enmesher           enmesh     demultiplexing: unmeshing        unmesher           unmesh                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   enplexing        enplexer           enplex     demultiplexing: deplexing        deplexer           deplex                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   coalescence      coalescer          coalesce     demultiplexing: separation       separator          separate                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   twisting         twister            twist     demultiplexing: raveling         raveler            ravel                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   folding          folder             fold     demultiplexing: unfolding        unfolder           unfold                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   braiding         braider            braid      demultiplexing: unbraiding       unbraider          unbraid                          name of action   name of performer  verb     multiplexing:   enlacing         enlacer            enlace     demultiplexing: unlacing         unlacer            unlace      The answer that I will accept is the one that I will end up using.


Would the adjectival form of "on the premises" be on-premise, on premise, or on-premises?

I am familiar with the origin of the word premises as it relates to property, both land and structure (relayed here: Is "premises" always plural?). I want to know if there is an accpetable adjectival form. So which of the following is most correct and which are acceptable?   1. Virtual events are less effective than on-premise.   2. Virtual events are less effective than on premise.   3. Virtual events are less effective than on-premises. (I know that reforming the sentence so that it doesn't use an adjective would likely be best, but what is the runner up?)


"Money quote": Phrase Origin, metaphors involved?

My partner Kate asked me a question today that I could guess about, but not answer. It's a Phrase Origin search, which I'm pretty bad at (because I don't really care when a phrase originated; I'm much more interested in the metaphors it's involved with). So I decided to post it here for her. She frequently encounters the phrase **_money quote_** on her favorite blog, and was unfamiliar with it. She'd like to know where and when it came from, and I'd be interested in any origin stories. I **am** familiar with it, as it happens, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it for years if not decades, but it's probably been on the usage upswing for a while because of the penchant for labelling money quotes as such in blogs. So, does anybody know?


What does “typed-out paralysis” mean exactly?

I found the article titled “A writing coach becomes a listener” in April 28 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/books/william-zinsser- author-of-on-writing-well-at-his-work.html?pagewanted=allvery) interesting as well as very instructive. The article introduces the profile, career and the latest activity of Mr. William Zinsser, a great teacher of writing and the author of “On Writing Well,” first published in 1976. I was also interested in the word, “stage of typed-out paralysis” in the following sentence in this article: > “People come to him in **stages of typed-out paralysis** , stalled, > uncertain whether they have written too much or too little. He tries to help > them organize their thoughts by condensing, reducing — learning what not to > include.” I imagine “the stage of typed-out paralysis” to be the stage of your typing- out fingers being frozen and your writing work stalled. I’m confortable with ‘typed-out fingers / hands,' or 'typed-out messages/ essays,' but I was hung up on the expression, ‘typed-up paralysis.’ Whether it's phisical or mental, can ‘paralysis' be 'typed-out' by hands phisically as the logic? McMillan English Dictionary defines “type out” as: to write the whole of something using a keyboard. Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘type’ as: write (something) on a typewriter or computer by pressing the keys, with an example ‘He typed out the second draft.’ Cambridge English Dictionary defines “type out” as: to use a computer or a typewriter, to make a copy of something in writing. None of these definitions seems to give me a hint to make out what is exactly meant by “typed-out paralysis,” and again the question, can ‘paralysis’ be typed-out?


Anyway v.s. Anyways

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Can "Anyways" be used at the beginning of a sentence?   >  How did 'anyway' become 'anyways,' anyway? Is **Anyways** correct or **Anyway** correct? From chat of EL&U: _Anyways_ is slangy, is dialect used by Americans mostly.. But Anyways is informal AND incorrect both. For example: Sorry for missing our trip. ANYWAY/ANYWAYS, let's make another one some time next month. So, which one is correct? **Anyways** or **Anyway.** **Updated:** Possible Duplicate question.


How did 'anyway' become 'anyways,' anyway?

All of the time I see people use these two words synonymously. For example: > Why did he move there anyway? Versus: > Why did he move there anyways? I always assumed that there was once just the word _anyway_ that one day had an _S_ added to the end for some reason. Is this assumption correct? What morphological process enables this to happen?


Is the phrase ''a little bit'' superfluous?

What's the point of saying both words if one of them already implies a small amount of something? Doesn't it seem a bit redundant?


Starting a sentence with two subordinating conjunctions

Is it grammatical to start a sentence with two subordinating conjunctions? For example: > Because if it rains tomorrow, I will get wet, I hoped for a sunny day. It seems wrong to start a sentence with "Because if..." and the last two clauses feel like a comma splice, but I can't figure out what's actually incorrect about it.


Degree Certificate and Diploma

I am hoping to apply to a master's program in the USA. They ask for a "Diploma/Degree Certificate", but I don't really know what that means. When I looked for the definition I found only "Degree", as the level and/or paper you get after finishing your studies. "Diploma" is vague, too. When we finish a Bachelor's in my country (Mexico) you get various papers:   1. A paper that testifies that you finished all the courses, but you are not still a "Bachelor". It's called a "Study Certificate" ( _Certificado de Estudios_ ).    2. A symbolic paper that means you finished all the semesters, even if you failed some courses as long as they are not enough to fail the whole semester. This is called "Diploma" (just like in English).   3. When you present a thesis (and you get it approved) you get a "University Title" ( _Título Universitario_ ) and _then_ you can say you have a Bachelor's Degree. Some people have such a high GPA that they give them this paper without presenting a thesis. So, as I couldn't find a specific and detailed definition of "Diploma/Degree Certificate", I am asking for your help please. If this is off-topic, I apologize, please delete.


This lack of reliability, can be ..?

How to say the factors are responsible for the lack of credibility? > This lack of reliability can be **imputed** to several factors. "imputed" is probably wrong. What word should I use, in an academic environment?


What is a finite verb?

What's a _finite verb_? It's not just the opposite of an infinitive, is it? Can I get some examples?


Should I use present or past tense in indirect speech?

Suppose a person has told me this: > I will go home. I want to report what he told me to someone else, but I don’t know whether the condition is still true — that is, whether he has gone home. Now which version should I use? >   1. He told me that he **will** go home. > >   2. He told me that he **would** go home. > > If the person doing the reporting doesn’t know whether the reported event has happened, which tense should be used here?


Naming 1, 2, 3, ... millennial celebrations

I know that after 100 years there are centennial celebrations, after 200 years bicentennial, tricentennial, etc., Similarly, are there terms for 2000, 3000, etc., years of celebration?


Where do you place 'please' in a sentence to sound the most polite?

An interesting thing just came up at my work place which I did not really know. We got this text that says something like "Insert a flash drive, please." in the English version. Here I was wondering, isn't it more correct/polite to say "Please insert a flash drive."? So my 2 questions are: Are both of these valid? Which one would be more polite in terms of displaying them to a customer?


Is there a word to describe a state of not identifying with any common explanation of God?

I am trying to describe one who is neither agnostic nor atheist but does not accept any religious order as his own.


the future-existence of a currently "nonexisted" object

I'm trying to convey the idea of the existence of a determined future object that does not yet exist. In other words, > the **future existence** of a currently non-existing object. I don't think simply using the word existence for it is right since for now the object does not exist. It is only coming into existence in the future. So is there a more technical term to express the **future existence** (or "coming-existence") of a currently non-existing object?


Is the word "will" some conjugation of the verb "to be"?

I have the impression that the phrase "will be" is using the verb "to be" twice. Is that correct?


Right usage of "is due to get"

Could anybody tell me is this sentence OK to use in a scientific paper? Do you have any other recommendation? ...and we came to the conclusion that trying to keep a balance between method-1 and method-2 is due to get an appropriate result.


Example of Irony

Recently I had a test in college that asks us to give an example of irony. I wrote this word by word: > An astronaut had over 200 missions into space over two decades. Ironically, > two days after he returned from his latest mission, he tripped on a banana > peel and died. But I did not get any marks for it (it weighs 3 marks). Is it not an example of irony?


The difference between an analogy and a metaphor?

Many a time I've asked what the difference is between an analogy and a metaphor. I've asked it to my teacher, on internet sites, to my parents, so on and so forth. I got a different answer every time, and I never fully grasped what the difference is, so what is the difference?


Why do people keep mispronouncing my name, Divine?

My name is `Divine`\--like the English word, "divine". There are no tildes, no accent marks, no umlauts, or funky letters like _æ_...nothing shady going on here. Yet every time someone reads my name, i always hear: > "Now, excuse me if i mispronounce this...is it {'Divon', 'Devin', 'Div-in', > 'Div-EE-nae' (yes, this one actually happened), etc.}...?" I know my name isn't the most common name in the world, but it's an **English** word! I can understand if you have a "regular-looking" name that has an abnormal pronunciation. I imagine the protocol there would be that you sound it out as best as you can first, _then_ go for the funny pronunciations. But why do people reverse that order with my name? To make matters worse, after learning how my name is pronounced, and its place in the dictionary, a large percentage of those people go on to _misspell_ my name as `D` **e**`vine`! Is there something about dialects, or the history of this word, or something, that makes people's brains start working when they read my name?


Abstract noun as a proper name?

This might be silly to ask, and possibly more theoretical than anything else, but it's something I've always pondered. My first name is Hope. When I was in Elementary School and first learned about abstract nouns, I fell in love with the idea of having such a name - it feels almost magical to me. However sometimes I wonder, does my abstract name technically become a proper noun because it's my name? Or am I still allowed to keep some of that magic and call it an abstract noun? Thank you!


Origin of 'coax'

According to the Online Etymological Dictionary the origin of the word is: > 1580s, originally in slang phrase to make a coax of, from earlier noun coax, > cox, cokes "a fool, ninny, simpleton" (1560s); modern spelling is 1706. > Origin obscure, perhaps related to cock. But how did a noun meaning "fool" end up as a verb meaning "to influence?"   Is it just because someone who is influenced easily is a fool?


Underlying vs. Overarching

In a physical sense, "underlying" and "overarching" have very different definitions, but if we use these words in a more abstract way, their meanings seem to intersect. For example, is there a difference between the phrases: "the underlying theme in this narrative" and "the overarching theme in this narrative"? I think there is some nuanced difference here, but I can't quite identify it.


Is British English the one used in European academia?

English is used all over Europe in (more or less) academic papers and books that are not necessarily related to reviews and publishing houses based in UK or US, and that are not necessarily intended for UK or US markets. English is largely used between non-English speaking areas as _lingua franca_. What is the main trend in this field concerning the use of British vs American English? Are there certain guidelines (or even EU directives) on the matter?


A derogatory definition for a politician

I am looking for a definition, a negative one, to describe a politician who is not doing politics in the public interest.


Is "The MSO/MSE Split is soon underway" grammatically correct?

We're in the middle of a historical time. Two creatures will be separated from each other. Waffles will be torn in two. Meta Stack Overflow will be split. This banner is currently being shown on Meta Stack Overflow and on Stack Overflow itself: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/wOfr5.png) > The MSO/MSE Split is soon underway. Please bear with us while this is > completed. The first sentence caught my eye, specifically the last few words: _"is soon underway"_. I'm not sure this is grammatically correct - my internal "something-isn't-right" meter doesn't like it. If I had to guess I'd say it should read _"is underway soon"_ , but that doesn't sound quite right either. I can't put a finger on what, exactly, is wrong with the sentence, nor what should be done to fix it. Can anyone explain this to me?


Etymology of "computer" before computer referred to a machine

Before the term "computer" referred to electronic analog or digital computers, it was said to be used to describe people who did computing. Was "Computer" actually a formal job title? How long did the usage as a description of a person last into the era of electronic computers? (Was there ever a period of confusion?)


How should I abbreviate "versus"?

There are 4 types of abbreviations I know for "versus":   * v   * v.   * vs   * vs. I generally use the last one in the list, but I want to stick to one and use only that one. Which one is more proper (or more prevalent), and why? Extra question: Which one should be preferred in scientific papers?


I need <something> yesterday?

Is it correct to say: > I need those reports, and I need them yesterday. Shouldn't it be: > I needed those reports yesterday. Or is this aberrant usage style simply a colloquialism?


Alternatives for "installed" when referring to a food establishment

> Caroline wondered whether there were coffee shops and restaurants in other > galaxies. She imagined them **installed** on floating asteroids, or in the > rest area of cosmic highways. Since the universe was so infinitely large, > how couldn't there be at least one or two? Is **installed** a good term to use in this case? If not, are there other better options?


to fire/ terminate/ lay off

What verb would sound more like a legal term (to be used in documents) if one wants to write that he fires a worker from director's position? To fire? To terminate position?


What is the equivalent word for "walking like a king"?

I am looking for a phrase or an vocabulary that means "walking like a king".


And/or vice versa

Should one write "and vice versa" or "or vice versa"? Examples: A) Autocomplete can be set to 'on' for the form, but 'off' for specific input fields, _and_ vice versa. B) Autocomplete can be set to 'on' for the form, but 'off' for specific input fields, _or_ vice versa. I'm sorry about the examples, they look weird out of context. I was wiring an HTML5 tutorial when the question popped into my head.


How to describe humanities students in one word

In several languages, there is a specific, usually rather derogatory word for students of the humanities. Would it be necessary to stick to 'arts students' or 'humanities students' to point out these students in English, or is it possible to describe this in a more direct and short manner? If there is such a noun, either in official or in popular vocabulary, would it be possible to also make this into a adjective - such as 'arts students' and that is such an 'artsy' thing to do but then specifically for the humanities.


What is the verb for "apoplexy"?

In the following sentence, > He [the verb] apoplexy a few years back and was suffering from numbness on > the left side of the body, hence the need for a cane to walk. what is the appropriate verb for "apoplexy"? Is it "get" like some other diseases? I checked some online dictionaries but none of them has an example except for one that used "suffering" as an example which is not what I am after because I'm referring to the very moment that it happened.


"Building site" vs. "construction site"

Is _building site_ the British English equivalent of _construction site_ in American English, and is it used in American English?


Usage of "however"

In the below sentence, the word **however** is used at the end. > _New genome editing techniques—in particular the CRISPR system Church and > his team are using—offer new hope, however. In 1987 Japanese scientists > found genetic sequences dubbed...._ But often **however** is used at the beginning of the sentence. For ex : > _However, it is not true..._ Is there any difference between both the usages? If there is no difference is it a style of the author?


Is it common for place names to lose their possessive apostrophe?

On a road trip, my wife and I drove by Kings Dominion. We debated whether this should in actuality be _King’s Dominion_. It seemed that it ought to be possessive, or possibly plural possessive. Upon doing a little more research we found the origin of the _Kings Dominion_ name. To quote the wikipedia article: > The park was named after its sister park, Kings Island in Kings Mills, Ohio, > which opened in 1972. Which leads to the question: Is it typical in the English language for a place name to lose the possessive in English? If so, I wonder why that should be so.


Shifter's Bay or Shifters Bay?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is it common for place names to lose the possessive? I am struggling with the meaning of and the difference between Shifter's Bay and Shifters Bay (don't pay attention to what a shifter is or could be). As I understand it Shifter's Bay is a bay belonging to a Shifter and Shifters Bay is a bay with, of or/and for Shifters. Is this correct? Maybe someone can elaborate? Which is better for a name on a (fictive) bay? Maybe someone can motivate? **Edit:** Concrete examples :   * Bakers Cottage (in The Bakers Yard)   * Baker's Yard


Term for seeking to reaffirm your existing beliefs

The word I'm looking for is similar to 'circlejerk', but rather than it being the participation of multiple people, I'm meaning one person seeking out studies/reading etc, for the sole purpose of reaffirming their existing beliefs or position on something, rather than to get to the truth of a matter. The context this word would be used would be:               The article about messy desks being associated with genius, was a bit [word].       Similar to how you might say:               The atheists in the pub meet up, was a bit of a circlejerk.


What does "lemon on" mean in this context?

What does the phrase _lemon on_ mean in this context? Is it an idiom? What is its correct usage? Excerpt from where I read this phrase: > ... Hold on, for this deal, one that does not exist anywhere outside a very > fertile imagination, could actually be a **lemon on** at least five counts. > These are the lures that should alert you and beg a recheck before you book > the deal. Source: How to Avoid Common Travel Traps


Is it "bear" or "bare" with me?

Is it "bear" or "bare" with me?


Earthling/s equivalent for Mars and Venus

> The first earthling in space was a dog. What about Mars or Venus. marsling? venusling? I am looking for a word for an inhabitant of Mars (and another word for the inhabitant of Venus) that "feels" the same as **earthling**. **Martian** seems to me more like the equivalent of **human/man** than an general living organism living on the planet Mars. For example, most people don't imagine a bacteria from Mars when you say "Martian". They imagine homanoid-like creature from the planet Mars. That is why I see the word martian as an equivalent of human or man and not an equivalent of earthling. Any idea?


Is my use of the word "award" to describe a blog tagging game correct?

Anybody ever run into the blog post tagging? Like when somebody starts posting about certain topic (for example answering certain questions like what are your 10 habits, etc) and then they tag other people to write about the topic too in their own blog. I've never started a game like that but yes, when friends tag me and when I feel like it, I do the homework and pass the tag. Recently, I realized that the tagging game sometimes has a name. It's called award. I've got the "You're Going Places, Baby!" award from a dear friend of mine. The rules: describe where you think you'll be in 10 years and then pass it along to other bloggers. Until now, my understanding about the 'award' usage is something given or rewarded because of certain acts (honorable acts). Is 'award' normally used in more generalized definition or is it just in that bloggers game case? For the bloggers case, I think award only means something assigned/given.


What word describes the amount an object is filled towards its capacity?

Given an object that can hold a _capacity_ of something, is there a word which describes the current amount it holds towards that capacity? For example, if an elevator has a capacity of 20 persons, and the current number of occupants is six, the elevator's `<some property of the elevator>` is six? **Update:** The commentary on @jwpat7's excellent answer made me realize something which hadn't occurred to me: the nature of the container and the things it holds have an impact on the appropriate description. I picked an arbitrary example using people, but the reason I've been seeking this word is to describe discrete (i.e. not something like liquid in a tank) _inanimate_ contents. A better example would be: an egg carton has a capacity of 12 eggs. It currently holds 7. How does one describe the amount currently held: **"The carton's`<this>` is 7 eggs"**?


Is "not at all" still alive and doing well?

I was taught to use "not at all" as a rather polite, standard reply to "thank you". However, I don't see it being used at all nowadays. Can I still use it? Would it be widely understood? Should I be aware of any differences between using it in British, American, Canadian, and Australian English? (As in, are there better alternatives in any particular dialect?) **Edit:** A (German) friend of mine who spent a year studying in Edinburgh says "not at all" is still fairly common there.


"in the year 1908" or "in the year of 1908"

Do we need preposition **"of"** after a **year**? > Freud is a visitor at James’s Sussex residence, Lamb House, in the year 1908


A word for "taking some foods from pot and putting it in to the plate"

What word you should use to tell someone to "take some foods from the pot and put it into the plate"? You can say stuff like "take some food" but it does not exactly mean the act of "taking food from the pot and put it into the plate". Is there a word for that in English?


How should I greet a close friend from the United States?

I (male) have a very good (female) friend over in the south-western United States that I met one year ago and we're exchanging mails or messages from time to time. We're both not older than 22 and I consider her a very open person. Note that this is not about dating her—just casually writing mails. What would you suggest to end the mails with? It shouldn't sound too stiff, but also not too intimate. I definitely don't want to send "Kind regards", but also no "kisses". In addition, I'd like to know if "cheers" is possible with US-American people?


what is the difference between 'same', 'typical' and 'similar'?

What is the difference between **'same', 'typical' and 'similar'** , as all conveys the same meaning.


Use of the word 'relishing'

Recently when talking to a friend about the lack of elevators in Asia he told me. > You should be relishing stairs As a native English speaker the use of the word 'relishing' here sounded strange to me, although I can't quite figure out why, it seemed like a very odd thing to say in spoken English. Why does it sound strange? Is there anything wrong with this construction?


Meaning of "shed all gentlemanly reticence"

Please explain the meaning of the text in bold, taken from this Bloomberg article. > Ah, yes. They have **shed all gentlemanly reticence** over dragging former > allies into court.


Term for security checkpoints separated by sex

In some places, a security checkpoint has two areas, one for checking men, and another for checking women. I'm looking for the term which describes this segregation by sex. This would be the opposite of how "co-ed" is used for schools which allow students of both genders. An example usage might be: > Just inside the entrance, past the [multi-gender-word] security, sinks were > placed for the washing of hands.


Origin of "can't be asked"

I was wondering about the phrase "can't be asked" and I haven't been able to find out anything definite about it. Does it have an earliest known usage? Is it an accidental or a deliberate mutation of "can't be arsed"? Is it local to the UK (or even more local than that) or does it come from US English? Thanks


What does this phrase mean ‘so much for something’?

I was reading an article on ESPN and at the end it said ‘so much for team loyalty’. Can anyone explain what this means?


word "suggested" for already accepted proposal

Is it possible to say "suggested" about something that was suggested and got accepted/approved? Is it common? For example, > I suggested a tag synonym on this; the suggestion got a few votes and was > accepted.   >  Nobody can accept or reject it now because it is already decided. Is it still possible to say "suggested synonym"?


After beginning a sentence with "The question is," should the question itself use inverted or straight syntax? >   * The question is, when is it worth doing, and when is it not? >   * The question is when it is worth doing, and when it is not." >


Was making 'dyslexia' hard to spell, a sadistic act?

![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/YKihW.jpg) Dyslexic (n.) is first recorded 1961; dyslectic (adj.) from 1964. My point is this - the Latin "legere" was already sufficient, "lexis" was contrived (I jest) out of the 'confusion' (see image) of "legere" and "legein". Unnecessarily I would suggest. The word could have easily been "disleger", without any confusion of readability or spelling whatsoever. Although some negative connotative association surrounding leg removal may have arisen.


'in appreciation' vs. 'appreciatively'

Is using the adverbial prepositional phrase _in appreciation_ in place of the adverb _appreciatively_ convey exactly the same meaning? I'm attempting to avoid the use of the adverb "appreciatively" in the following sentence: > I whistled in appreciation. "Wow." Am I missing the spirit of the thing, or is this acceptable (i.e. not likely to lead to the bad habit of showing instead of telling)? If not, what would be a good way to indicate that somebody is whistling to show that they appreciate something? Note: I am not indicating a "wolf-whistle" in this sentence.


Meaning of "It's not in the bag."

The Context > Important rules of job interviews: > > A. Repeat to yourself: "It's not in the bag." > > B. To answer the question, "What would you do?" think of the correct answer > to "What should I do?" and give that as your response. > > C. Laugh at their jokes, but don't offer your own.


Couldn't be parked: Ngaio Marsh

In one of her novels, Dame Ngaio Marsh has Roderick Alleyn propose marriage to Agatha Troy, who responds she "couldn't be parked." In context this appears to be equivalent to "couldn't be more certain" that she does lobe him, but I can't see how you get from the latter to the former.


Can 'Rock-God' be applied to musicians other than rock musicians?

I saw the following sentence in today's New York Times. I understand 'Rock- God' means an artist almost deified by fans because of his or her performance and reputation. Can 'Rock-God' be applied to musicians other than rock singer? > Billie Joe Armstrong, the Green Day frontman, brings a jolt of rock-god > electricity to the Broadway musical "American Idiot."


Meaning of "meta-"

I am trying to figure out the meaning of prefix "Meta-" in English.   1. Quoted from Wikipedia > Meta- (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with", "adjacent", "self"), is > a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a > concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or > add to the latter. > > In epistemology, the prefix meta is used to mean _about (its own category)_. > For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what > format the data are in and so on). Also, metamemory in psychology means an > individual's knowledge about whether or not they would remember something if > they concentrated on recalling it. Furthermore, metaemotion in psychology > means an individual's emotion about his/her own basic emotion, "or somebody > else's basic emotion". > > Another, slightly different interpretation of this term is "about" but not > "on" (exactly its own category). For example, in linguistics a grammar is > considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, or a sort of language for > describing another language (and not itself). Any subject can be said to > have a meta-theory which is the theoretical consideration of its meta- > properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility. I was wondering what is the slightly difference between " _about (its own category)_ " and "'about' but not 'on' (exactly its own category)"?   2. My original problem is to understand the meaning of "metalogic" and "logic". Quoted from Wikipedia: > Metalogic is the study of the metatheory of logic. While logic is the study > of the manner in which logical systems can be used to decide the correctness > of arguments, metalogic studies the properties of the logical systems > themselves.1 According to Geoffrey Hunter, while logic concerns itself with > the "truths of logic," metalogic concerns itself with the theory of > "sentences used to express truths of logic."2 > > The basic objects of study in metalogic are formal languages, formal > systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of formal > systems is the branch of mathematical logic known as model theory, while the > study of deductive apparatus is the branch known as proof theory. In this case, is it correct to understand "meta-X" as some study that treat something (here logical system) as a whole without going inside it, whereas "X" study the same thing by going inside it?   3. How would you explain the relation between "metaphysics" and "physics", and between "meta-stackoverflow" and "stackoverflow"?


What's a better word for "pensive" in this situation?

I just used the word "pensive" to describe the feeling of a system administrator's state of mind while waiting for a long-running task to complete successfully, but I don't think that's the right word. I am trying to describe the feeling of waiting for the results of a task; a feeling of anxious anticipation, hoping things will work out for the best but planning one's next move in case things don't turn out as one had planned. Is there a better word than "pensive"? **EDIT:** I am questioning my word choice because Merriam Webster defines pensive as: > suggestive of sad thoughtfulness and sadness isn't part of the emotion I'm trying to convey.


“She got her first child” vs. “She had her first child”

I am not a native speaker and yesterday someone told me that "She got her first child" would be misunderstood and "She had her first child" is correct. Now I wonder if this is a 'local' thing here in Wales or a general 'rule'.


Educational course nomenclature

I am looking for a noun to describe an individual meeting of a **course** , as in a course of study at a university. **Class** is not an option in this case. Thoughts?


Is the meaning of "This is it" figurative?

The phrase " _kick the bucket_ " is a figurative phrase - it means " _to die_ ", although using it does not imply any actual kicking or any actual buckets. The question I am asking is if the phrase "this is it" is figurative or literal? Let us look at an example: > Well boys, I reckon **this is it**. (from _Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_ , written by Stanley Kubrick, Peter George, Terry Southern and uncredited Peter Sellers and James B. Harris; based on _Red Alert_ by Peter George) I take the meaning of the phrase as literal, as I can interpret the meaning straight from the definitions in dictionaries; without a need to reach for metaphorical explanation. **NOTE** : this is related to this question/answer. EDIT: I am looking for good _arguments_ to either side.


How would you say 'go round the houses' in a formal way?

I am writing a memo (quite formal) and I need to mention that the attitudes in the previous meeting were really offtopic, the team didn't focus on the important matters. Were it informal writing I would use **go all round the houses**. Which expression would be adequate for a formal context?


Referring to objects as "she"

Sometimes people are referring to mechanical objects as "she": > I love my car. She always gets the best service. Are there any rules when it is appropriate to use "she" instead of it, and is "he" ever used in such context?


Identifying the implied gender of nouns

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Referring to objects as "she" English officially does not have genders like German or other languages; for example, a chair is an _it_ , not a _he_ or _she_. However, when you refer to a spaceship you say _she_ , and you say _daughter molecule_ in DNA replication narration, which implies a molecule is a she. Where can you find out the “hidden” gender of nouns? Is there a rule to go by? Why not say “son molecule”?


"sheds some important insights"?

Could we say "sheds some important insights"? E.g. The discussion sheds some important insights for optimizing an HTML parser If this is not appropriate, what is a nice way to express the same idea?


Was the word "nigger" an expletive in Mark Twain's day?

Was the word "nigger" a deliberately derogatory and offensive word in Mark Twain's time, or was it just a normal word to describe an ethnicity in those days? **Background** : I'm curious as to whether Twain could have anticipated the use of the word being so controversial nowadays (though discussing the Bowderlization of Huckleberry Finn is off-topic for this web site).


Is there a classification for words combined with hyphens used as adjectives?

Is there a term or classification for words (non-adjectives, for lack of a better classifier) that are combined with hyphens that serve the purpose of an adjective? For example, " **run-of-the-mill** applicant" or " **less-than- ideal** scenario." Are there any specific rules that dictate how these word groupings are handled?


Usage of Repetitive words

we often repeat few words in like little little , different different etc . Are these valid english usage?


Is there a word for using a word twice to imply something different? eg. > Are you done, or are you done done?


What's the deal with "colonel"?

Why does the word _colonel_ (as in military rank) have such a strange spelling compared to how it's pronounced (or vice versa, although I don't know how you would pronounce that)?


Why is stainless steel "stainless"?

Inox steel is stainless because it does not stain, but is stain the same thing as rust? I just want to understand since stain reminds me of clothing stains, for instance, and I am rather curious as to why one would call inox steel stainless steel. Where does it come from? I've just found http://www.stainless-online.com/why-stainless-steel- stainless.htm It doesn't explain what I want to know. Is stainless steel an American word? Would a Brit call inox steel stainless steel?


"get well soon" OR "feel better"

When to use “Get Well Soon” and “Feel Better”, I mean in what situations? Should “Get Well Soon” be used only when person is unwell for many days? And should I use “Feel Better”, if colleague message me that she will take off as she is not feeling well.


Tuques and dialects - What do you call a knitted cap in your region/dialect?

In Canadian English the word tuque refers to a knitted cap for use in cold weather. I'd like to know what such an item is commonly called in other dialects and regions since most people are utterly bamboozled when I say "tuque". So sound off and tell me what you call this!


Is "not only... but as well..." grammatical?

I was given a text to read by my teacher which contains the following sentence: > Speaking a foreign language one can not only read the papers, magazines and > original books by outstanding writers, but as well watch satellite > programmes, use the internet, travel easily to different parts of the world. Is it correct to use _as well_ at the beginning of the phrase after _but_? Should _as well_ be set off by commas in this case?


Use of "not merely" in a sentence

I'm doing SAT writing practice questions, and I came across a problem I believe has multiple solutions. The incorrect sentence is as follows (i shortened it): > He was _not merely_ expected to work hard, _but_ to help others. And the error occurs at _not merely_. According to the site, the sentence should be corrected like this: > He was expected not merely to work hard, but to help others. Isn't this sentence also gramatically correct though? > He was not merely expected to work hard, but also to help others. Thanks everyone.


Two or more words with the same plural

Let a _multiplural_ be a word that has more than one singular form with different meanings. For example, AXES is the plural of both AX and AXIS and so is a multiplural. I have found these multiplurals: AXES ELLIPSES TAXES Is there a name for these other than the one I just made up? Are there others without the -ES ending? Can anyone find any others? EDIT: The new list I have after looking at the answers (and adding one more I missed) is as follows: AXES BASES CAVIES DOES ELLIPSES TAXES TRIES


Parentheses around more than one paragraph

Does English allow one to put parentheses around more than one paragraph? Example: > Paragraph 1. > > (Paragraph 2. > > Paragraph 3.) > > Paragraph 4. (Of course, this is just a simple example. In reality, it looks more clean since the paragraphs are more than one line long, and are not separated by an empty line.)


"After all 7 8 9" joke?

I know that it is very important to be aware of "hidden meanings" of words and phrases. (Especially if the meaning is sexual.) That is why I love Stephen Colbert's "The Word" segments and usually spend some time to "decipher" all the puns But I am really stuck with the recent one. Particularly I cannot understand the `"After all 7 8 9"` line here. From the reaction of the audience I can tell that it is something pretty funny. And from the context I feel that it is something pretty dirty... I really don't want to be misunderstood by saying bunch of numbers. So can someone explain what is going on here, so I can avoid that?


What is the difference between a phrase and a clause? I tried looking this in dictionary but can not identify the difference. It would be great if I could get an example and formula of what makes a phrase and a clause.


Is "ringing somebody up" exclusive to telephone use in British English?

Is ringing somebody up exclusive to telephone use, or can it be used to say you made a call on somebody's person? **EDIT** : Note that my question is specifically asking about _British English_ ; I would love to hear from _an actual Brit_ the answer.


Narrating a story in simple present

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why the use of 'would' in the following When we tell a joke or narrate a story in simple present can we use 'would' in some cases? For example: > He goes up to this man and punches him in the face. The man looks straight > into his eyes and tells him that he **_will take revenge_** > > He goes up to this man and punches him in the face. The man looks straight > into his eyes and tells him that he **_would take revenge_**


A "Frankenstein's monster" similar metaphors

Although originally it's a novel character, a "Frankenstein's monster" became a metaphor for _"something that cannot be controlled and that attacks or destroys the person who invented it."_ However, are there similar _"ruined by own creation"_ metaphors or poetic expressions in British English?


Does the word "welfare" have an abbreviation?

I was listening to a lecture about Mercantilism where I heard a word that sounded like _Welf_. I tried to find if this word exists but I didn't find. In the lecture I heard this: > The amassing of gold in payment for exports in excess of imports would allow > a nation to build the _welf_. By the context I suppose that _welf_ is an abbreviation of "welfare", but I'm not sure. Can you tell me what is the word heard? Or, if _welf_ sure is an abbreviation of "welfare"?


What is the correct word to follow consensus?

When using the word _consensus_ in a sentence, is it correct to say consensus _on_ , _over_ , or, _of_? For example if someone were to say, > In 1960s British politics, there was consensus [correct word] the National > Health Service?


Should the first word after a dash used as self-interruption be capitalized?

When writing dialogue, a dash can be used to denote interruption. For example: > “Hello, can I ask you about—” > > “No.” If a character is interrupting themself, should the first word of the interruption be capitalized? In other words, should the word _oh_ be capitalized in the following quote? > “Have you seen — oh my God, you’re him!”


How to call someone that acts only by instinct without being rude?

I know there's the phrase "You are an animal", but depending on the context, cultural background, etc. the recipient of the saying may not end very happy. Is there another way to describe someone that acts solely by instincts without the danger of being read as rude?


Using the definite article before a country/state name

> The Punjab is a rich state. Is it correct to use _the_ before Punjab?


Why is it wrong to use “The India”

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using the definite article before a country/state name We say “The United States of America” but not “The India”. Why is it so?


significance of "The" before country name

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using the definite article before a country/state name I am from India, and I do not say that I am from “the India”. But someone from USA would say “I am from **the** United States of America.” Why do you need to use the extra “the” in the second case?


Why is Ukraine often called "the Ukraine"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using the definite article before a country/state name Hearing _the Ukraine_ used to make me unsure whether Ukraine was really a country. Now though I have realized Ukraine to be a country on the same level as Austria, for instance, I still don't understand why it is often _the Ukraine_ in English, but never _the Austria_ or _the Poland_. Where did that odd phrase come from, and why is it in use?


Usage of "The" before a nation name

If USA is referred as "The USA" , why not "The India" ??


Why 'The' is used?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Using the definite article before a country/state name Why do we write: > The UCI Road World Championships 2012 (when the year is mentioned) > The Republic of India (when there is only one nation) but NOT The India? > The Monaco Grand Prix (only one place which holds GP with that name) > Lake Baikal in South of the Russia (why not Lake Baikal in the Russia?) I know the answer: The grammar usage is **Definite Article** but I'm looking for a clear explanation to this question.


The meaning of "all the world"

"All the world and his wife were at the ball." This is a sentence I found in a text book. Does "all the world" simply means "everybody"? China is experiencing a great change, all the world is looking at it, because it is also consequential for them (self-made). In the second sentence, is "people all around the world" better than "all the world"? I tend to think that "all the world" is better than people all around the world, because the latter only refers to individuals ,whereas the former may mean Brookings Institute or the Pentagon.


When to use "nowhere" and when "not anywhere"

What is the difference between "nowhere" and "not anywhere"; both means the same thing, I guess. Is one of them more polite or more formal? What is the defining factor to decide which one to use?


What is the formal plural of the word theorem?

The word _theorem_ comes from late Latin theōrēma and the Greek θεώρημα . If one wanted a plural form other than _theorems_ that reflected its etymology, what would it be? I understand the standard plural is _theorems_ but I would still be interested to know.


What is "outheroding"?

I have been reading Scott's _Ivanhoe_ recently and have come across a word I cannot find a meaning for: _outheroding_. In the novel it appears in a discussion of footwear: > Fur and gold were not spared in his garments; and the point of his boots, > _outheroding_ the preposterous fashion of his time, turned up so very far, > as to be attached, not to his knees merely but to his very girdle, and > effectually prevented him from putting his foot into the stirrup. A search of the internet produces a reference here where it appears as > The characters in this act frisk about, here, there, and every where, as > teasingly as the Jack o' Lantern-lights which mischievous boys, from across > a narrow street, throw with a looking-glass on the faces of their opposite > neighbours. Bertram disarmed, _outheroding_ Charles de Moor in the Robbers, > befaces the collected knights of St. Anselm, (all in complete armour) and > so, by pure dint of black looks, he outdares them into passive poltroons. which doesn't help much in establishing what the word means. Does anyone know what _outheroding_ is?


What's another way to say "Is this on your horizon?"

What's another way to say, "Is X on your agenda?" or   "Is X on your horizon?"


What is the word for "showing that something is meaningful"?

If I conduct an experiment and get results, and I can then relate those to real life in a way, what is the verb that this link to is doing? My first thought was validate, but that isn't correct.


"As if" & "As would be the case if"; Also, "As though"

On a Q&A site in Japan, I read an expression that **_as if_** comes from _as (would be the case) if_.   1. Are both about the same thing?   2. Is this claim historically true?   3. If so, what does " ** _as though_** " come from?


"It was still bright/light outside." Is one of these incorrect?

If I want to say it's still somewhat early in the evening and it's not so dark outside so that you can still see things quite clearly almost like during daytime, which of the following sentences would be a better fit? >   1. It was still **bright** outside. >   2. It was still **light** outside. > I was told that one of them is incorrect, but both of them seem right to me.


Party organized by the students of a department

At German universities, there student councils, called "Fachshaft", which is an extracurricular representative structure for students. Each year (or semester), the student councils organize parties for students of their universities, called "Fachschaftsparty", in order to collect money for serious things and to provide socializing activity for the students. How do you translate "Fachschaftsparty"?


Meaning of "How'd you know?": "would", "did", or "do"?

Does the question "How'd you know" mean: >   1. How **do** you know? >   2. How **did** you know? >   3. How **would** you? >


What is the meaning of "within next two days"?

Is it, within today and tomorrow or within tomorrow and day after?


Does the term "within 7 days" mean include the 7th day?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is "in [some period]" different from "within [some period]"? The title states it all: When an author says "within 7 days", does the author mean include the 7th day? Or, does it mean up to but not including the 7th day?