What does “him as writ plays” (etc.) mean in old newspaper clipping?

Quotation from _A history of the cries of London ancient_ (p23). ![old newspaper clipping](http://i.stack.imgur.com/TMcnn.jpg) > ... famous theatre afterwards to be so widely known. The sunshiny time of > our literature and life, making a red-letter period in happy old England's > history. We were interrupted by a kindly-faced, round-shouldered man of the > bargee type, who asked us 'if it was Shakespeare, him as writ plays, we was > a torkin' on ; if so be it were, he could show us the werry 'ouse he used, > least ways, all as is left on it.' After a twisting tramp through Cardinal > Cap Ally, we were brought out opposite the public-house known by the name of > the ' Smith Arms,' which had just then only escaped entire demolition from > fire by a very near chance--(the damage done has since necessitated the > rebuilding ; so the sketch stands as a bit of rescued old London.) Especially，I don't know what is meant by "him as writ plays" and "the wery 'ouse": > who asked us 'if it was Shakespeare, him as writ plays, we was a torkin' on > ; if so be it were, he could show us the wery 'ouse he used, least ways, all > as is left on it.'


Difference between 'in order to', 'so as to,' 'to'

I'm a Korean and I learned in school that 'to' is equal to 'in order to' and 'so as to,' if they are used in expressing intent. Are the sentences "I study in order to achieve my goal" and "I study so as to achieve my goal" same, in terms of nuance? If there's even the slightest difference when viewed by a native speaker, please elaborate! :)


Meaning of "opps" and "come out of retirement"

What's the meaning of _opps_ and _come out of retirement_? > Whats the longest you've gone without having sex? > > 3 years. > > wo > > And get this, I've only slept with 2 women in my entire life. Was a save it > till you're married guy... 1st girl I was engaged to. > > Had plenty of opps before and after her. I really like my current girl so I > decided to come out of retirement.


How are embedded quotations used?

How would embedded quotations be used when quoting from passages/sources within an essay? What would be the difference between normal quotations and embedded quotations?


When should single quotes be used?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the Difference in Usage Between Using Single and Two Quotation > Marks/Inverted Commas? I know that they are used inside double quotes for a quotation within a quotation, but when else should they be used? I've seen them used in all sorts of syntactical situations, but where do I find a comprehensive guide to its proper usage?


What's the difference between using single and double quotation marks/inverted commas?

I'm quite unsure regarding the usage of single quotation marks (') and double quotation marks (") in English. I had thought that double quotation marks were usually used to quote sentences from passages/given sources, nouns/things ("Westminster Bridge", "alliteration", or "voice" regarding its usage in poetry), as well as some less common/important uses including being snarky and using them to indicate a sarcastic remark. Someone had told me today that you were supposed to refer to things with two inverted commas (") instead of one. Which one is correct? Could someone explain the usages between the two different types of quotation marks?


Difference in quote signs?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the Difference in Usage Between Using Single and Two Quotation > Marks/Inverted Commas? There are two quote signs, : > **'**   >  and > > **"** Is there a difference between these two and are there are occasions when one is used and not the other?


Dealing with multiple layers of embedded quotes

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How are embedded quotations used?   >  What's the Difference in Usage Between Using Single and Two Quotation > Marks/Inverted Commas? Let's say I want to write a question here at ELU about how to deal with punctuation in the case of embedded quotes. How would I deal with this three layered beast of a quote? "Something like "Is this meaning okay: 'The police suck because they are bad because they only want my money'?", perhaps?" I guess using a double for the first layer, single for the second and a double again for the third and so on would make most sense.


How to punctuate a quote within a quote?

> **Duplicate of:**   >  What’s the difference between using single and double quotation > marks/inverted commas?   >  How are embedded quotations used?   >  **And:**   >  When should end punctuation go inside quotes?   >  Is it correct to use “punctuation outside of the quotations”, or “inside?” Let me know if this belongs on Writers.se. Furthermore, I have a strong feeling this has already been covered, but I wouldn’t know where, since I don’t know what to name this situation. Moving on, I will express a dialogue like this: > A: “What did he say to you?’ > > B1: “He leaned close to me, and said in a gravely and drunken voice, “It’s > not easy.” ” Or would it be, > B2: “He leaned close to me, and said in a gravely and drunken voice, ‘It’s > not easy.’ ” Or, > B3: “He leaned close to me, and said in a gravely and drunken voice, “It’s > not easy”.” I’ve tried to be helpful (and probably failed), but let me know.


Usage of 'carved in stone'

I have always seen the expression 'carved in stone' used in the negative in sentences like: 'It is not carved in stone that..., Could this expression be used in the positive or, alternatively what other expression could I use to say that something is 'unchangeable' ?


Is there a word or expression to call someone who easily gives credit, especially to insignificant efforts?

A common example would be a professor who is too mild in his marking of a poor assignments. Another example could be someone who doesn't add or say much with his words, but still receives a lot of credit (*gets a lot of votes) from voters during an election. Another example might be a rather poor musical performance which, however, is being (too) highly praised by the audience. A mum, who praises her 10 year old son too easily on tasks (such as, getting dressed, drinking his cup with two hands, ignoring his teat) that a 4 year old would normally be praised on.


A single word describing something that needs attention

After a work is peer reviewed, it moves into a state in which the author of the work must review critiques and answer questions from the peer who reviewed the work. What would be an appropriate word to describe the state the work is in? E.g., in a state trail: > Completed → Reviewing → _____ → Fixing → Accepted


Looking for the opposite of "drill down"

I am a programmer working on a chart component that allows to drill down on selection of a node. Drilling down will show the details of that node (like its children etc.). But I am struggling to find out a word to describe the opposite of drilling down. "Drill up" sounds wrong. Does anyone have a nifty little word that conveys the opposite of "drilling down"? Something to convey the action of moving from something more specific to something more general.


Where does the sentence fit?

Look at the four letters ( **A** , **B** , **C** , **D** ) that indicate where the following sentence can be added to following passage. This explains how, for example, alpine cushion plants have been found growing at an altitude of 6,180 meters. Where does the sentence fit? Above the tree line there is zone that is generally called alpine tundra. **A** Immediately adjacent to the timberline, the tundra consists of a fairly complete cover of low-lying shrubs, herbs, and grasses, while higher up the number and diversity of species decrease until there is much bare ground with occasional mosses and lichens and some prostrate cushion plants. **B** Some plants can even survive in favorable microhabitats above the snow line. The highest plants in the world occur at around 6,100 meters on Makalu in the Himalayas. **C** At this great height, rocks, warmed by the sun, melt small snowdrifts. **D** The answer is D, but I see that the choice C is also make sense. Could you please help me with this problem? Thank you so much!


"Create an Account" or "Create Account"

I have a registration form I want to name. Should I name it: >  -  "Create Account" > >  -  "Create an Account" (or "Create the Account") Also, which words should be capitalized if this is a header.


What does this sentence mean ? "Heaven and earth, are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?"

In Pride and Prejudice, when an old woman (Catherine) asks a young lady (Elizabeth) whether she is engaged with her nephew or not, the young lady neither confirms nor rejects such relationship in a dissembling way.   Lady Catherine censures Elizabeth and criticizes the scandalous elopement of her sister. Then she says this sentence: > Heaven and earth! Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted? What does it really mean?


"Enter the password 1234" vs. "enter 1234 for a password"

Which sentence is correct? >   1. Enter the password 1234. >   2. Enter 1234 for a password. >


What should I do when two clauses that must be in parenthesis sit next to each other in my sentence?

I'm writing my thesis dissertation and in the results section I'm showing my results with this sentence: > A small correlation between hit position and time was found for SS2 > ($r=-0.143, p<0.01$) but not for SS1 ($p>0.05$) (see Figure 3.2). I believe I'm following APA guidelines for reporting statistical results and I want to show the reader the figure as it shows graphically my results. But, I don't like having these two parentheses next to each other. What can I do?


Phrase for the idea that we experience life as a narrative and contribute to it?

There is this poem by Whitman who paints a picture of life as a narrative that we contribute our story to: > **O Me! O Life!** > > Oh me! Oh life! of the questions of these recurring, > > Of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities fill’d with the foolish, > > Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who > more faithless?) > > Of eyes that vainly crave the light, of the objects mean, of the struggle > ever renew’d, > > Of the poor results of all, of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around > me, > > Of the empty and useless years of the rest, with the rest me intertwined, > > The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life? > > _Answer._ > > That you are here—that life exists and identity, > > That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse. My question is - **is there a phrase that describes this idea of life as a narrative?** (My guess is 'hi-story'. )


"Don't cry" or "Don't you cry"

"Don't cry." is universally accepted sentence form. But I also notice some books also provide "Don't you cry." Both means "not to cry". Are they all correct?


Is "encrusted with dust" correct?

> A big black vehicle rumbles through the streets of the slum. Its battered > exterior is encrusted with dust. "Encrusted" means that water or oil has been combined with dust (or something) and then applied to an object and allowed to dry as a crust. So I think "encrusted with dust" has to be wrong, but "encrusted with mud" could work. Am I right?


How should one punctuate a sentence like this?

How should one punctuate a sentence like the following? > If she were to find out about our . . . "secret plan" shall I say . . . it > would be the end of everything.


I need a synonom for the phrase "took place"

My sentence says "Tom Robinson's case..." I wanted to say "took place" but I'm using it in the sentence right after it. Help!


Word for "outside of school"

The word probably has the prefix "extra-", but I am not thinking of extracurricular, as that only pertains to that which is outside of the educational curriculum. Any ideas?


Lobbyist's Counterpart

A _lobbyist_ is a person tries to influence the votes of legislators on behalf of a special interest. What would the correct term be for the legislators being lobbied? _Lobbyee_ might be a logical conclusion, but it looks and sounds terrible (at least to me). Note: If the word you suggest has more subtle connotations, e.g. it describes a legislator that is particularly easily swayed lobbyists, please be sure to mention that.


What would you call a list of parts in a single word

What is a single word to describe a list of parts, tools, and instructions to be assembled later to form an object.   Examples:   Bag of parts/tools/instructions for a DIY crib   A group of parameters to be sent as an object with both properties and methods to describe how to build out the object _(software-factory pattern,IOC)_   List of car parts/schematics/assembly instructions to be assembled in the factory. To clarify, I am looking for a general term that could apply to any or all of the scenarios above.


Is there a less misleading way to write this sentence?

"The reason we hired an agent who's come back temporarily to be an instructor is..." The agent who has come back temporarily was hired to be an instructor. But another way to read this sentence is that the agent came back temporarily for the purpose of becoming an instructor and he was hired. Is there a way to word this so that the meaning is clearly the former? I should be a little cleared here as well. When I say, he's come back, I don't mean he stopped working there previously. I mean that he normally works somewhere else—like in a different country for example.


The problem with the word "quite"

"Quite" is probably the most ambiguous word in the English language. Merriam- Webster defines it three ways: 1: completely, wholly, totally (quite mistaken) 2: to an extreme : positively (quite drunk) 3: to a considerable extent : pretty, rather (quite near, quite ill quite rich) So if someone tells you someone else is "quite drunk", how do you know this person is: a) completely drunk? b) very drunk? c) pretty drunk? Or how about "quite difficult?" Does it mean rather difficult? Or extremely difficult?


Are these garden path sentences grammatically correct?

**Background** A garden path sentence is one that is exceptionally hard for the reader to parse. English is especially prone to this because it is an analytical language and so many words can be many different parts of speech. I read that as a person reads a sentence, he builds up a likely meaning for each word and a meaning for the whole sentence word by word, then if a "disambiguating word" appears that changes the meaning, he switches to the new meaning and continues. When the disambiguating word is far away from the ambiguous word, the sentence can be very difficult to understand. The classic garden path sentence, as far as I am aware, is "The horse raced past the barn fell." The ambiguous word is _raced_ and the disambiguating word is _fell_. For those who don't think this is a perfectly grammatical sentence, the meaning is the same as "The horse [that was] raced past the barn fell." Or perhaps more clearly using a different word, "The horse driven past the barn fell." Before I ask my question, since these things are so cool (to me, anyway), here are a few more examples:   * The old man the boats.   * While Anna dressed the baby spit up on the bed.   * The man returned to his house was happy.   * Fat people eat accumulates.   * She told me a little white lie will come back to haunt me.   * We painted the wall with cracks. **The Question – My Own Garden Path Sentence** After enjoying these and many other garden path sentences I read about, I invented one of my own. Recently I told it to a friend, but he didn't really get my example garden path sentences (the horse, the old, and Anna) and argued that they and mine were not correct grammar. So I submit it to you for your analysis:               The men run through the arches screamed.      As explanation, the men were stabbed in the feet, possibly as a form of torture. I swear I had several others I invented five to ten years ago, but I can't remember them. Perhaps I will invent some new ones. Is that sentence correct grammar? As well as the others? Feel free to edit my grammar. No comment necessary.


How do I ask for advice politely?

I came across the following phrase: > I was wondering if you might be able to give me some advice. Is it a natural construction for a conversational context? Can I use the following instead in order to sound less formal: > I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Or is it less polite? Or which phrase would be better to use instead?


Do you suppose the boys in her went before I knew her? (To Have and Not Have by Hemingway)

I don't understand the last sentence, "Do you suppose the boys in her went before I knew her?" This is from Hemingway's To Have and Have Not. > He sat at the table and looked at the piano, the sideboard and the radio, > the picture of September Morn, and the pictures of the cupids holding bows > behind their heads, the shiny real-oak table and the shiny real-oak chairs > and the curtains on the windows and he thought, What chance have I to enjoy > my home? Why am I back to worse than where I started? It’ll all be gone too > if I don’t play this right. The hell it will. I haven’t got sixty bucks left > outside of the house, but I’ll get a stake out of this. Those damn girls. > That’s all that old woman and I could get with what we’ve got. **Do you > suppose the boys in her went before I knew her?**


Is the use of "what" over "which" correct in this sentence?

I was filling out an application form, when I had noticed this sentence: > If bilingual, please provide in _what_ languages. If I was writing this, I'd form it as _which languages_ , instead of _what languages_. Is the sentence above correct?


What does "take out your book" mean?

What does this phrase mean? "take out your book" Because I have found no relevant meaning of take+out as a phrasal verb in the online dictionaries. Can any one help me?


difference between "to summarize" and "to recap"

recap: state again as a summary; recapitulate: a way of recapping the story so far | [ no obj. ] : to recap, it’s been a year full of ups and downs. Is there any difference among "to sum up", "to summarize", and "to recap"?


First Order Logic

IF "No first-order theory...has the strength to describe fully and categorically structures with an infinite domain", how then does the domain of the first order describe any real thing? Is this related in any way to the problem of induction?


Claim a stake or stake a claim?

Which of the following is a correct usage? > CLAIM A STAKE or > STAKE A CLAIM I am highly confused about these two. How to use them in sentences? Though the first one appears to be correct to me, the dictionary suggests the second. Why? Why is the first one wrong?


What is the meaning of "I don't give a damn for someone that can only spell a word one way."

What does it mean when a person says _"I don't give a damn for someone that can only spell a word one way"_ when talking about give and take relationship? The situation goes like this: My friend helped her classmate with her research paper. Then, after a week when my friend asked for help from her classmate, she refused to help back. That's when he said _"I don't give a damn for someone that can only spell a word one way."_


Origin of "you lot" and other plural forms of "you"

I've often heard the phrase "you lot" in British programs on PBS, e.g. "Oi! You lot! Shift y'selves" or thereabouts, and have sometimes wondered about its origin and how it gained currency. It seems both elegant (short, easily understood, and accurately expressing plural of "you") and crude (on PBS, only heard in broad comedy) or perhaps colloquial. Its use seems to have sharply increased ca. 1960. Why the increase, or is it an artifact of the corpus? Are "you lot", "you-all" and "you guys" (as mentioned in the middle of Wikipedia on "you") cognates? Is there a more appropriate term for the group?


"got to have" in a sentence

Is the following sentence right: "You got to have that satisfaction to never being satisfied" English is not my first language and a friend of mine wants this as a tattoo. I can't shake the feeling that he will be walking around with a wrong sentence the rest of his life


Why do Americans add "The" in front of a team name, but the British do not?

I'm not certain that there is an answer to this one: Americans refer to our teams as The > Example: The New York Yankees The British in my experience do not. > Example: Manchester United I know that occasionally the British will throw in a the, such as _The Arsenal_ , but I believe this is a nod to the actual Woolwich Arsenal. We also tend to pluralize our teams, where I don't believe the British do this typically. (Not certain on that one . . . A bit of help from across the pond would be appreciated.) Could the pluralization be compelling the usage of _The_? Of note, the only time _The_ gets truncated from an American team name is when it is used as an adjective. _e.g._ Legendary New York Yankees pitcher Mariano Rivera retired this past season.


"Longer running time" vs "high performance"

I am always confused about the correct usages of words like _longer_ , _less_ , _higher_ , _high_ etc., for comparing performance of two programs. For example, if a program A completes its work in 10 seconds, while another program B completes its work in 20 seconds, i.e., A gives high performance compared to B, then which one of the following sentences is best to express both _A is better than B_ and _The short running-time program is better_? Maybe the following sentences are bad. If so, please provide me your suggestions to improve them. I have seen that people use short sentences in parentheses as shown below in technical research papers. Can I use parentheses as below? I have also used google and google ngrams, and I could see that the words _longer_ , _short_ , _low_ , etc., all are used along with _running time_. >   1. B has a longer running time compared to A and therefore A gives high > performance. >   2. A gives higher performance (low running-time) compared to B. >


Use of majority to refer to quantity

Is it correct to use 'majority' to refer to quantity? For example: More than half the garbage in our city is recycled . The majority of garbage is recycled. If this is incorrect, why?


What is an alternative term for "Swiss army knife"?

What is an alternative term for _Swiss army knife_? As in a general multi-purpose tool. It is a word that everybody understands, but I would like to know some alternatives. Clarification: The term _Swiss army knife_ is often used to express a multi- purpose, versatile tool outside the contexts of knives or armies.   * The Swiss army knife for writing books.   * Perl is the Swiss army knife among programming languages.   * Swiss army knife of codecs (Google's search entry completion). I think that "multi-tool" or "one stop shop" are adequate alternative, maybe there are more?


Trolling: billy goats gruff or fishing reference?

Where does the internet jargon "Troll" come from? The way I see it. If it's a fishing reference, then you can't accuse someone of "Being a troll" and if it's a mythology reference then someone isn't really "Trolling" they're just "Being a troll". It seems like it has roots in both, because   * it's like they're waiting under a bridge to pop out and get you    * it's like dropping a line in and waiting for someone to take the bait while moving around a lot.


What's the meaning of the phrase "take cares of"?

What is the usage, and why use plural? The context is here: > The automatic support for long - running workfl ows that the WF > infrastructure provides is the most evident benefi t. The execution of a > long - running workfl ow can be suspended or resumed on multiple points, so > the internal state of the execution and activities must be preserved. WF > automatically **takes cares of** saving the workfl ow state through the use > of confi gurable providers. Therefore, you do not need to worry about these > details.


Okay to assume association between separate parentheses clauses?

Take a look at this: > By the way, I marked (the tag that includes) position 2854 (in the code that > the tag is inside). Is it okay to use a couple of clauses that are dependent of each others like this (in order to convey the right meaning)?


Classical language

What are classical languages? How they are different from other languages? Is English is an example of classical language?


Eddy vis vortex

**What's the difference between eddy and vortex?** When one talks about vortical flows what is more correct to use?


It is (was) ... that ... in plural forms for emphasis

I need to emphasize two items using **It is (was) ... that ...** grammar, but I am not sure in such plural forms, should I change to **They are (were) ... that ...**. Specifically, if I want to emphasize this sentence: He read three books in the library yesterday. Then, I can use: > It was he who(that)read three books in the library yesterday. > > **It was three books** that he read in the library yesterday. > > It was in the library that he read three books yesterday. Just want to make sure the second sentence is grammatically right.


Alternatives to leading a sentence with the conjunctive adverb "However"

The word "however" is used to lead off a sentence that counters a previous thought. Are there any alternative words or phrases that can substitute? I'm even looking for old English and obsolete words and phrases. I'm trying to add some creativity to my writing. I'll start by including words that are nearly as tired:   * Nevertheless   * Moreover (not exactly the same thing as "However" and "Nevertheless", but can in limited cases be used) Anyone have anything better?


"support to" vs. "support of"

Which preposition should be used in this sentence? >   1. Thank you for your continued **support of** the John Q. Public > scholarship >   2. Thank you for your continued **support to** the John Q. Public > scholarship >


Has there been an Anglo-Saxon movement in English?

We know there has been an influence (or attempt at influence) of Latin grammar on English, especially in the 19th century. And of course, many new words coined today in (say) the sciences draw upon Latin sources. In the opposite direction, I vaguely seem to recall reading about a movement (or several separate movements) in English that championed the use of words derived from Anglo-Saxon, eschewing words from Romance, Latin, and possibly Greek roots. For instance, as in the examples here, "people" would be replaced with "folk", "sense" would be replaced with "meaning", and so on. Does anyone know more details about such movements? Who were the advocates? How well did they succeed? And most importantly, are there examples of works written in (or "translated" into) such English? **Edit:** To clarify, the question is not about a mere _preference_ for Anglo- Saxon words, which quite a few usage writers have advocated, but a near- fanatical attempt to expunge _every_ Romance word from writing. I recall reading about some outlandish words coined as part of this attempt.


Does “bloodripe” actually exist as a word?

I’ve come on the adjective _bloodripe_ in Nabokov’s _Lolita_ (bold emphasis added): > . . . it had become quite a habit with me of not being too attentive to > women lest they come toppling, **bloodripe** , into my cold lap. The passage contains a metaphor likening women to ripened fruits, so _bloodripe_ is easily defined as _fully ripe_ (although it’s quite an ironic adjective for a paedophile, such as Humbert Humbert). Yet, I can’t find it in any of the dictionaries at my disposal: for example, it is not in Merriam- Webster or Oxford Dictionary. Does it actually exist, though not listed in the dictionaries, or is it Nabokov’s brainchild?


Word for mixing a dish with a fork or spoon

I am looking for a word that can serve in the following context: > After the pasta is cooked, put some sauce on top of it and use a spoon to > _mix_ it together. Mix seems to be too general, I am looking for something that is related to mixing with the use of a spoon or fork.


Can I "wear an umbrella"?

Does it make sense to say the following? > Yesterday I wore an umbrella and a coat.


"compiled with gcc" vs "compiled in gcc"

>   1. "This program was compiled **with** gcc." > >   2. "This program was compiled **in** gcc." > >   3. "This program was written **in** C++." > >   4. "This program was written **with** C++." > > Note: gcc is a widely used compiler by C/C++ programers. What are the subtle differences between the pairs of sentences?


On the expression "some... and not others"

I want to ask a simple question. One often uses _some_ and _and not others_ or _but not others_ together. For instance: > (1) Why does cancer attack **some tissues but not others**?   >  (2) Why do interventions work in **some places and not others**? Is _and not others_ or _but not others_ put after _some_ just to emphasize the noun after _some_?


Correct usage of the verb "do"

Is it correct to use the word "do" twice in a row? For instance; "I do do that" or would you say "I do that"? "You do do that" or "You do that"? Which is correct, or are they both correct?


Meaning of "run flat out"

What does "I can run flat out for a half mile before my hands start shaking" mean? It was said in The Bourne Identity. I am not a native English speaker. I know the meaning of the individual words, but have never heard the expression "run flat out" before.


complement vs adjunct

> “Funny, isn’t it,” she said, “how the law can have a soft spot like that? > No, someone had seen her in the village at the time Robin went missing, so > she wasn’t really a suspect. It was decided that because of her. . . because > she was . . . well, not to put too fine a point on it, that Meg was best (1) > **left** out of things entirely, and that’s how it was done.” > > “So it was Dieter who found the body then.” “Yes. He told me about it that > same evening. He was still in shock – hardly making sense: all about how he > had come (2) **racing** down from Gibbet Wood, yelling himself hoarse . . . > leaping fences, sliding in the mud . . . running into the yard, looking up > at the empty windows. Like dead eyes, they were, he kept saying, like the > windows of the Brontes’ parsonage. But as I said, poor Dieter was in shock. > He didn’t know what he was saying.” (The Weed that Strings the Hangman’s > Bag) I guess the first participial construction is a complement of the adjective _best_ , while the second participial construction is an adjunct for it’s not necessary to complete the meaning. Am I right?


"Sit down" vs. "sit up"

When someone is lying down, you say _sit **up_**.   When someone is standing in an upright position, you say _sit **down_**. What in the situation when you want to ask a very small kid to sit down to a chair, but the chair is too high for him so he has to _climb **up_** the chair to _sit down_ on it? See a picture. _Sit down_ sounds like not matching the context. Would you still use _sit down_? What I want to find is if for the native English speaker the phrase _sit down_ is stronger than the idea of the logical direction as in _sit up_ (which seems more natural to me as the non-native speaker). So if you really _had to_ choose and you had no other options, what would you select. (I believe this is not a duplicate of lying down and then sit up/down?)


"Add connections" or "Create connections"?

I am building an interface for making connections between items. When viewing a particular item, the user has the possibility of connecting it to other existing items, by selecting them from a list. Which expression is better? Is "add connection" even correct?


What is the term for a shortened word that is pronounced based on phantom letters?

I'm only posting out of curiosity. But recently I've begun to wonder what you would call a shortening of a word that only sounds correct when spoken, and the pronunciation cannot be inferred from its spelling because the pronunciation is based on “phantom" letters”. Offhand, I could only think of the example below. I'll add more if I remember them. For example: In England, someone might order a _Veg_ Meal. _Veg_ is pronounced /vɛdʒ/ but words ending in _g_ have a _guh_ sound. However, _Veg_ is pronounced as if the _egtable_ part was still there.


What is the standard rule for using or not using hyphen and diaeresis on the words like reelect , reexamine, and cooperate?

I found that diaeresis is used on the word, reelection in the following sentence of the article titled “Rational Irrationality” in the New Yorker magazine (April 27). > “This morning’s news that economic growth slowed markedly between January > and March is an unmitigated bad for Obama and an unmitigated good for > Romney. The President’s reëlection chances largely hinge on being able to > point to evidence that the economy is finally improving.” As I don’t think I’ve come across diaeresises being used in the articles of today's journals so often (Correct me if I’m wrong), I checked dictionaries at hand and online. Cambridge Dictionary online resisters reelection without hyphen nor diaeresis on ‘ee’, same as Merriam Webster online. Both Oxford Dictionary online and Oxford Advance English Learners’ Dictionary register ‘re-election’ with the former coming with the notation - Spell ‘re- elect’ with a hyphen after the first e. Other words beginning with re- that have a hyphen are re-educate, re-emerge, re-enact, re-enter. New Yorker used diaeresis on ‘reelection’ as shown above, and their separate article titled “The Curse of the Diaeresis’ (April 2) stated: > “The special tool we use here at The New Yorker for punching out the two > dots that we then center carefully over the second vowel in such words as > “naïve” and “Laocoön” will be getting a workout this year, as the Democrats > coöperate to reëlect the President.” I find no consistency of the use and non-use of hyphen and diaeresis among Cambridge Dictionary, Oxford Dictionaries and New Yorker magazine. What is the standard rule or custom of using, not using a hyphen and a diaeresis on the words including ‘ee’ ‘oo’ letters?


Why doesn't English use umlauts more frequently?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the standard rule for using or not using hyphen and diaeresis on > the words like reelect , reexamine, and cooperate? I was reading this article in the New Yorker when I came across the word _uncooperative_ spelled with an umlaut over the second 'o' ( _uncoöperative_ ). I'm assuming a magazine of that stature wouldn't misspell such a word, but then it got me wondering why the use of umlaut isn't more common in English, when clearly common use cases exist (uncoöperative, naïve, etc.)?


Writing double voiced vowels

I have a pretty straight forwards question I think. Of the following three spellings, which one is generally accepted as correct (I've seen them all, well, something like it)               reemerge     re-emerge     reëmerge      The first looks wrong, the second looks like there is emphasis on the "re" part, and the third is archaic (but I like it and it emphasises there are two vowel sounds).


Why do I never hear people say “I get to go now”?

This word _got_ has been confusing me for a long time. Is it against the rules of English grammar, because _got_ is the past tense of _get_? Why do I never hear people say it this way: > I get to go now.


Why "exclamation mark" but not "exclamation sign"?

I wonder, why **`!`** symbol is called _exclamation mark_ , but **`=`** symbol is called _equal sign_? Is it only tradition or there is something behind?


Meaning of "Taking a Glister"

I am reading _Candide_ by Voltaire. Candide urges a sick man to find a cure for his illness, and the man responds with > "Alas! how can I?" said Pangloss, "I have not a farthing, my friend, and all > over the globe there is no letting of blood or taking a glister, without > paying, or somebody paying for you." A search of the word _glister_ typically redirects to _glisten_ or _glitter_. But these lead to the expected definitions about the behavior of light. Searching the phrase _taking a glister_ led to a result that claims the action can break a fast, which may imply impurity or consumption. From the information I found I think it may be:   1. Slang for a hygienic (like "take a shower") or medical (with "letting of blood") practice    2. A form of measurement, perhaps like "take a pill"  What does the phrase "taking a glister" mean?


What does the term "Urban Legend" mean?

I heard a great story the other day about a guy with a bloody hook for a hand - but then, when I retold it to my kids at bedtime my Au Pair informed me that it was just a silly Urban Legend. What does she mean by that?


Why is this show called "Singapore Idol", not "Singaporean Idol"?

In other cases, a [country] Idol show titles use the demonym: _American Idol_ , _Malaysian Idol_ or _Indonesian Idol_. Why is this show called _Singapore Idol_, not _Singaporean Idol_?


"Cry" versus "weep"

When to use _cry_ and when to use _weep_? Which one goes more formal? Which one should have preference in general use?


How can I phrase a question about a theoretical event in the past, which cannot happen anymore?

I'll try to give some specific examples, as this one is rather difficult to explain. Example 1: Imagine you have been attending a kindergarten in Canada. Now you are 30 years old, so you won't go to kindergarten again, but I want to ask you whether you would be happier today, if you were attending a US kindergarten in the past. Would it be like this? > Would you like to have been attending a US kindergarten? Example 2: You have been brought up by a stepfather. Now you are an adult, so nobody is, nor will be bringing you up anymore. But yet, I want to ask, whether you would be happier, if it were your real father who brought you up. Would it be like this? > Would you like to have been brought up by your real father? Alternatives, or how are they different? > Would you have wanted to attend a US kindergarten? > > Would you have wanted to be attending a US kindergarten? > > Would you have wanted to be brought up by your real father?


Is there a word to describe indecisiveness between two things?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is a word/idiom for ‘unable to decide’? Is there a word to describe indecisiveness, specifically between **two** things? I tried online dictionaries, but did not find anything.


What one word means “unable to decide which one is correct”?

I am trying to find one single word in English that means “unable to decide which one is correct”.


What does "You have successfully split a hair that did not need to be split" mean?

What is the meaning of the following sentence? > You have successfully split a hair that did not need to be split. Source: this post on the Programmers Stack Exchange.


Why are only some "u" words pronounced with a glide in American English?

In most words with a long U that doesn't start a syllable, it is pronounced /uː/. Examples: _student, reduce, introduce_. However, in some words (such as _music, mule_ ) it is pronounced /juː/. I've heard that in other countries, even the first examples are pronounced like the second (/ˈstjuːd(ə)nt/, /ɹɪˈdjuːs/, /ɪntrəˈdjuːs/). What's with the discrepancies in the American pronunciation?


"Interfere in" vs. "interfere with"

I was taught that when _interfere_ is followed by _in_ , it means _to get involved in something that doesn't concern you_ ; when followed by _with_ , it means _to prevent something from being done_. And this is confirmed by British English speakers on the other sources I have read. However, when I looked up this word in Dictionary.com, I just found this entry: 2. to take part in the affairs of others; meddle ( **often followed by with or in** ). Is this a difference between American English and British English? As an American English speaker, will you also use **interfere + with** (as it says in Dictionary.com) when you are trying to express, for example, "Don't interfere in other people's business"?


What's the proper word for  a person waiting in a queue?

I have tried to use _candidate_ or _queue member_ to indicate a person waiting in a queue, but the former is not accurate and the latter is not a noun. Is there a better word for a person waiting in queue?


Etymology of "chatterbox"

Etymology Online dates _chatterbox_ to 1774, understandably as a concatenation of the words chatter and box. To me, it seems like the connection stems from "a heavy blow of gossip/chatter". When was this word first used and in what context, more specifically as a noun?


What is the opposite of "green"?

What best completes this sentence? > Joe, in opposition to environment-friendly sentiments, has decided to go > **___ __ ___**.


Which one is right? "Check out for... online" OR "Check out online for..."?

Which one would be right? Check out for offers online. OR... Check out online for offers.


Addressing religious authorities

I want to write letters with the same content but addressed to religious authorities of different religions and levels, from the local Christian priest to the Dalai Lama. Is there a greeting I can use for all of them or must I research the title for each letter recipent to ensure I am not offending them?


What does "white knight" mean in this context?

The term "white knight" has been well documented in places such as Wikipedia or various online dictionaries. But none of those definitions seem to encapsulate the meaning from this quote: > [White knights] are renowned for beating around the bush and not saying what > they actually think instead they cover their real thoughts with stupid > compliments. [White knights] also notice things that your typical man would > not (see below) > > Typical white knightish sentence to a girl: You look fantastic did you get > your hair done? > > Typical non white knightish sentence to a girl: I'm hungry/horny The above portion has a handful of various grammatical oddities but their use of White Knight does not fit the definition from the dictionary: > white knight -- > >   1. a hero who comes to the rescue. > >   2. a beleaguered champion who fights for a cause. > >   3. a company that comes to the rescue of another, as to prevent a > takeover. > > What does noticing new hairdos have to do with rescuing people?


Is my analysis of the grammatical structure of this sentence correct?

> If you want something in your life you’ve never had, you’ll have to do > something you’ve never done.   * Dependent clause      * _You_ — subject     * _want_ — main verb     * _something_ — direct object, assertive pronoun     * _in_ — preposition     * _your_ — possessive pronoun     * _life_ — noun, direct object   * Relative clause     * _that_ (elided) — relative pronoun     * _you_ — noun     * _have never_ (adverb) _had_ — present perfective    * Independent clause     * _you_ — subject     * _will have_ — main verb     * _to do_ — infinitive     * _something_ — direct object, assertive pronoun   * Relative clause     * _that_ (elided) — relative pronoun     * _you_ — noun     * _have never_ (adverb) _done_ — present perfective


Is there a better word than "just" for describing the recency of an event?

So, in the US, we make ample use of the word "just" in a context such as: "I just finished my homework." (I finished my homework very recently -- perhaps immediately preceding this statement) or "He had just gotten his driver's license when his father's car was stolen." (pointing out that there was very little [if any] time between the two events) I only recently learned that this is, apparently, an Americanism. Is there a better, more universally accepted way of expressing this? I feel that "recently" is not quite "recent" enough.


Pterodactyl and Archeopteryx: Silent P vs Voiced P

These words share the Greek root πτέρυξ (pteryx), meaning feather/wing, but the P in pterodactyl is silent (in the initial position), while the P in archeopteryx (in the middle of the word) is voiced. Why is this, and what's the rule? Is it just that that's how the ancient Greeks pronounced it, or is there something more subtle going on?


"Make a score of"

Besides for telling the score on a test (as in "He made a score of 88 out of 100 on the test"), can the phrase "to make a score of" be used to describe the score in a soccer/association football match? For example: > England made a score of two goals to zero. [If the final score is 2-0.]


Where do the idiosyncrasies in the spellings of English words come from and why do they survive?

For example:   * GH in _enough_ is pronounced "F"   * O in _women_ is pronounced short "I"   * TI in _nation_ is pronounced "SH" Why aren't the words spelled enouf, wimen, nashon, or why not spell fish "ghoti"? It seems like there are a lot of odd spellings in English, why is that? Over time I would have expected the odd spellings to have been replaced with more phonetically spelled versions, but that's not the case, why?


Should we use "come" or "comes" here

I ran into this sentence in a ESL testing, "It really is like a dream come true." Just wonder why should we use come instead of comes here.


If only you could see what I have seen with your eyes

I watch film science fiction The Blade Runer and man says this sentence. he is holding eye in his hand. I see in in a subtitle but I am not understanding this meaning. Can my friends in a Language and Usage website help me understanding meaning? Is this an idiom of English Language?


What is the word for "All Being" (similar to omnipotent for all powerful)

I'm looking for a word for "All Being" to describe deity existing, always existing, and existing for eternity. Other words often used to describe deity include:   1. omnipotent—all powerful   2. omnipresent—present everywhere at the same time   3. omniscient—all knowing None of these words describe a being/deity that has always existed and will always exist. A being that exists because he/she exists; i.e., needs nothing/nobody else to define his/her existence. Does such a word exist?


Meaning of the word "brook" in Rise Against song "Lanterns"

The song lyrics are here, with the following:               The black brook calls     It sings a chorus     While the gathering swells     The flames grow tall     Right before us     As drums keep pounding     And the masses now are fusing     Bodies pressed and tangled     As we revel in confusion     Our inhibitions thrown into the fire      Wiktionary lists the following meaning for the noun:   1. a body of running water smaller than a river; a small stream.   2. a water meadow.   3. low, marshy ground. Does this word really mean the soil, ground in this context?


Why are so many important verbs irregular?

In many languages, including English, the most important verbs are irregular. Examples include:   * to be    * to do    * to get    * to go    * to have    * to make The same applies (roughly) to many other languages I know about (Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Swedish) and presumably to many other languages too. Is there any reason why these everyday verbs tend to be irregular?


Is this the right way to use "wouldn't"?

I apologize if this is a duplicate or anything for that matter but I didn't locate any questions on it. I have this phrase I wrote and it is confusing me a little bit. > An OAHU Agent can help at no extra cost to you! _Wouldn't_ you want an extra > layer of protection during this very confusing time?    _Wouldn't_ breaks down to _would not_ if I am correct and which can also be written as in: > _Would not_ you want an extra layer of protection during this very confusing > time? That just doesn't make sense to me. I know I am not an expert in English language, but it does sound right as _wouldn't_. Any ideas? Am I using it wrong all together?


delutherer, deluderer

My dad (who is Irish) has been using the word "delutherer" since I was tiny. It derives from "to delude" and is used to affectionately/teasingly denote someone who is trying to trick you or cajole you by using charm. Today I googled it and to my astonishment found only one reference, via google books, in an old book called Humours of Irish Life. Yet I know it must be reasonably common in Ireland and I'm sure I've heard it used outside of my family. Does anyone know of any other sources where this word is used? Or have you heard it used?


"Write in the language you are writing" or "... you are writing in"?

So, I'm watching this lecture. One of the slides (at minute 27) in that lecture contains this sentence: > "Write in the language you are writing." But shouldn't it be: > "Write in the language you are writing in." It's about a programming language. Programmers _write in_ that programming language. They do not _write_ that programming language. ![Screenshot from Crockford's lecture](http://i.stack.imgur.com/gT8V1.png)


What are exchanges like "How are you," "I'm fine," and "See you later" called?

Some verbal/written exchanges convey almost no meaning but are part of the protocol of conversation. For example, somebody greets you with "How are you?" and they're not usually not listening for actual information, just for you to say, "Fine," or similar. Or when you go through any sort of service transaction, it seems like half a dozen "thank yous" are exchanged between both parties. Is there a term or phrase describing the phrases we use for maintaining the facade of politeness?


Meaning of "running off" in this context

I do not understand the use of "run off" in the following sentence. Neither was I able to find any explanation so I guess it is not a phrase? > If your generator (software) was running off a different machine you would > type the server name or IP address of that machine.


Preposition repeated twice

> For your perusal and evaluation, I have enclosed my curriculum vitae for > further information. My main problem with this sentence is the double usage of the word _for_. My idea was to replace it with _with_ , would that be better? Just clarifying: This is at the end of paragraph in which I describe my skills and such.


Correct usage of "parallel" versus "in parallel" versus "parallelly"

I wish to know if any of the following sentences are incorrect: >   * Using A and B parallel. >   * Using A and B in parallel. >   * Using A and B parallelly. > Now I suspect most people are going to simply recommend that I use "in parallel" since it is the most common. However, this is a question formulated to understand the underlying English theory. Apart from that, I'm mostly interested in using that theory to determine the use of _parallelly_ and whether or not it is correct. Now some research on my end. I've found the use of _parallelly_ in several dictionaries:   * Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)   * Century Dictionary Along with that, Wiktionary is quite clear on the use of the word. Along with some rules on how to use _-ly_ which do not mention that the use of a word such as _parallelly_ may be incorrect. I don't know how Wiktionary is fact checked, so I have come here instead asking the question to professionals. Being a non-native speaker and having no background in human language apart from high school (computer languages all the way) this question and the following debate interests me greatly. The answer I am looking for probably makes a distinction between variants of English. I'll flag the post which provides the most comprehensive answer as the accepted answer.


Punctuating "waste not, want not"

How do you punctuate a sentence to indicate that the second phrase is contingent on the first, e.g. _Waste not, want not_? You could read this typical punctuation as meaning "waste not and want not" vs. "waste not, and therefore want not". Same for _Well govern, well serve yourself._ Dashes don't work, I don't think.


"Wake up Joe" or "Wake Joe up"?

Are they synonymous, or not? Looking at _wake up_ as a phrasal verb it seems that the more correct way is "I will wake up Joe" rather than "I will wake Joe up", but the second rolls better off my tongue…   I had a look around but could not find a rule.


What is the meaning of the word 'should' in the following paragraph, and how does it function?

> You might also be curious why the productsList variable is initialized as > new list of strings at the start of the method, only for it to be > overwritten by the code in the try block. This is a defensive mechanism that > ensures that the productsList variable is always set to a meaningful value > **should** the code in the try block fail for some reason. You will see an > example of how such a failure might occur in Chapter 3.


Which is the correct way to refer to the letter "Z" — "Zee" or "Zed"?

So I am giving a presentation to an American audience tomorrow, and I have rather cluelessly labeled some components on a Powerpoint slide using the alphabet. When I talk about "component Z", I want to say the right thing. It's too late in the night now to re-label with numbers. I grew up calling it "Zed", but noticed many Americans prefer "Zee"; I want to be correct, not herd-minded.


"Liberty" versus "freedom"

What is the difference, if any, between liberty and freedom? Does it convey the same meaning if "Status of liberty" is replaced with "status of freedom" ? or every occurrence of "liberty" in Declaration of Independence is replaced with "freedom"? > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Doesn't liberty imply the pursuit of Happiness?


'co-opt' in US usage

'co-opt' in US usage means to take over for a purpose for which it was not really intended, having a slightly inappropriate connotation, while in the British usage it means to choose or elect as a member. I can find a single reference that says the US usage started in the 50's but with no further explanation as to the reason for the shift in meaning. Any help would be appreciated.


Those who were or those who are?

I'm confused whether to use were or are on this... I detest liars, especially those who were/are making it up as a go-to-excuse. Thanks


Difference between "spine" and "backbone"

Is there a difference between _spine_ and _backbone_ in use or in meaning? I think they both mean the same and can be replaced by each other. However, I'd say _backbone_ is used more in figurative speech, but this is just a guess on my part.


"The train will leave" vs. "is going to leave" vs. "leaves" vs. "is leaving"

From the grammatical point of view all are correct, just the meaning are different, please bring your clarification, thank you. >   1. The Train will leave at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >   2. The Train is going to leave at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >   3. The Train leaves at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >   4. The Train is leaving at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >


"Will" vs. "going to" vs. Present Continious

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "The train will leave" vs. "is going to leave" vs. "leaves" vs. "is > leaving" Here are three sentences: > David is going to play football next week   >  David is playing football next week   >  David will play football next week In fact, I don't think that there is a difference between them. Am I right?


Origin of "man!", "(oh) boy!", and "oh brother"

Where did these interjections:   * man!   * (oh) boy!    * oh brother come from, and why are they all male? If you don’t know their current meanings as interjections, it sounds very strange to say _Man!_ when you are disappointed or frustrated, and _Oh boy!_ when you are excited (although people are increasingly using it for other emotional contexts), and _Oh brother_ (well, I'm not even sure of this interjection’s usage). Why are they used as interjections, and why are they all male?


What is the origin of the knock-knock joke?

Almost everyone knows about knock-knock jokes. Who made them up, and why did they catch on?


Meaning of the idiom "here falls the shadow"

What does the expression "here falls the shadow" mean? The context is a list describing how to teach your kids to become entrepreneurs: >  6\. **Teach the mental nexus**. Here falls the shadow. Rational people do > not become entrepreneurs [...]


Is "lays important groundwork" appropriate usage

As in: "My project lays important groundwork for a future project." Is my usage of 'lays' correct? I'm not sure why I'm hung up on this, it just doesn't sound correct to me.


Did the term "multitasking" come from the computer realm?

Given my advancing years I remember when "multitasking" became a buzz-word in PC operating systems, notably with OS/2. Arguably, earlier version of Windows supported a multitasking as well but I don't think this was not sold heavily as a feature. Soon after, it seemed the term "multitasking" entered the vocabulary to describe when a _person_ does more than one thing at a time. Is this just a coincidence or did the computer term cross over into the general vocabulary? Large scale computers have been multitasking for decades prior so I'm guessing that it took the advertising of the day to make the term better known in the general population (like user-friendly). Long and short question: where did the term "multitasking" originate in the context of humans.


Using "seldomly"

I'm not a native English speaker. If at all possible I try to use spell checkers while writing anything on the web hence using one in Firefox as well. Whenever I try to write "seldomly" it highlights it as incorrect. Is it really? Example: > This particular word is seldomly used.


“This video was recorded with a sandwich”

It is a top comment from this youtube video. I'm sure it is a way of expressing sense of humor, but I just can't get it. My guess is that they are just saying the video is just as short as the time it takes to make a sandwich.


English usage: Every vs all?

Today I was writing a simple message to be shown to the user whenever at least one field was not supplied. > Every/All fields must be supplied. I'm in doubt about the usage of Every vs All, which one do you think is the most appropriate here ?


Is there a non-religious word for someone who takes suffering onto themselves for a particular cause?

I am looking for a word like _martyr_ , but without any religious implications. Also, the idea is that the person doesn't kill themselves, but instead just takes on a great deal of suffering for the good of the cause.


Meaning of "science" and "formal"

The definition of logic is: the science of thinking about or explaining the reason for something using formal methods. Which definitions of science from OALD or MW apply to the above definition of logic? And formal means very correct here?


What is the exact meaning of this sentence?

The encouraging mails were not restricted to readers but also to some of the regular contributors to The Hindu .


Does the phrase "who's in?" or "I'm in!" exist in (informal) English?

I really think I've heard it in some American sitcom/sitcoms, meaning something like _participating in_. "I want to play football. Who's in?" — "Great idea, I'm in!" Does it really exist, or am I wrong? I've tried to search for it, without any result.


What is the opposite of interorganization?

What is the opposite of _interorganization_? Is it even a correct word? _Interorganization_ means the things that happen inside the organization (I think). What about the things that happen outside of the organization?


A word (or expression) which means paying someone with counterfeit money?

Just as _shortchange_ means cheating someone by giving insufficient money as change, the word I am looking for means _cheating through counterfeit money_. There are words as simple as _deceive_ , _bilk_ , _swindle_ , _cozen_ and others, but I couldn't find a word that means exactly what I need.


Word for person who doesn't want to hurt others' feelings

What is a word for someone who has a hard time denying other people's requests and who speaks politically correctly because he will feel guilty making someone feel offended?


Britich accent help me

**Hello! What can you tell me about british accent? How to achieve it? I love british tv-shows, british music so much but I'm not confident in my pronunciation. Help me please. Thanx for answer.**


I need point of view of native speakers on the perfect tense

My question could seem to be very simple, but the reasons why I ask it connect with the understanding of fundamental principles of the construction of the English language. That’s why my question is aimed at native English speakers. I would like to know their point of view, not from the position of grammar but how they understand this aspect of the language. So, my question is connected with the perfect verb form. In grammar books it is said that this verb form is made with “have” + “past participle” (for example: _I have broken my phone_ ). They also add that the verb “have” in this case loses its own semantic meaning and is used for showing time and voice, and that the participle gives the semantic meaning of the action. But I wonder if “have” to native speakers not only shows time and voice but plays the role of a verb that expresses state, like in old English where to make the perfect verb form “be” is used instead of “have” - for example “autumn is come” (in this example verb expresses state and action at the same time). So, my question is - for native speakers is the perfect form understood initially as a finished action (using the perfect form, the speaker means result of action (or its connection with the present and so on, but in general it is the action)) or is the perfect form understood initially as indicating state? (in this example – “autumn is come” we see that this perfect form of old English expresses state, not action)? How is it for native speakers in modern English?


"Change" or "Changes"

Is the following sentence right or should I use **"changes"**? > The present study aimed at quantifying the **_change_** in surface air > temperature and monthly total rainfall Here, by change I meant upward/ downward trend or no trends or any other type of patterns in the distributions of temperature and rainfall


What is the i with a dot on top and dot on bottom called?

I was watching a foreign film and I saw a "i" with a dot on the top as usual and a dot on the bottom. What is it called and is there a way I can find it and type it? More details:   It was a Vietnamese film published by a French company. I think it was Vietnamese text.


What does 'sucker for' mean?

I recently came across a couple usages of 'sucker for' which indicates that it means 'crazy about', 'enthusiastic for', or 'interested in'. For example, 'I am a sucker for sports.', seems to say, 'I am a sports enthusiast.'. My questions are:   1. What does 'sucker for' actually mean?   2. Can you elaborate with some typical usage?   3. Is it appropriate to use it in formal conversations e.g. while talking to a client?   4. 'Sucker', afaik, is used to indicate a 'loser'. If my understanding above is correct... how does 'sucker for' becomes an indication of an enthusiast and not of a loser? (I know 'suck at' indicates a loser.) Thanks


Are 'rich' and 'cold' relative or absolute terms? I said to my boss yesterday, ‘Man, it's cold out!’ He said, ‘Cold is a relative term.’ He has also said that 'rich' is a relative term. If that's the case, then it seems that all terms can be relative, right? I truly don't understand this at all.


Confusion between colon and dash

For example, take a look at the following sentence: > There’s nothing to see — no one can handle you, dear. What are the general guidelines?


Is there a term or a phrase for something that is both literally and figuratively true?

For example, when I tried to do my best at dancing, I "put my best foot forward". This is literally true because in dancing I put one foot in front of the other, but it's also figuratively true because I was sincerely giving it my best effort. Is there a word or a phrase that describes something that is both literally and figuratively true?


"Flash (one's attention/eyes)" for "focus/direct (one's attention/eyes)", and "flash one's eyes at" for "stare with lust or passion at"

As far as your English variety goes, is it acceptable in every which register of speech and writing, and rather common usage, to say "flash" for "focus/direct (one's attention/eyes)", but also for "display/expose (a certain feeling)"? Likewise, is it okay to say "flash one's eyes at someone" to mean to stare at someone with a glow of fire in one's eyes? E.g. _They **flashed their eyes** at one another like teens_... _The tigers and wildcats glared and **flashed their eyes** at each other_... _And **flashed their eyes** at cruel but fundamentally decent counts_... _I **flashed my eyes** at him_... _Grandma Terrant **flashed her eyes** on her watch_... _Sissy and Mom **flashed their eyes** on me..._ _All the other cats **flashed their eyes** on him_... _I was just sitting here working and **flashed my eyes** on your last_... _Hutch **flashed his eyes** on the door_... _Napoli and Bayern Leverkusen have **flashed their interest** in the player_... _Both **flashed their attention** to the bird_...


Personal pronouns for animals

In my native language German, every animal has an article. This is understandable, if one wants for example to distinguish a male pig (boar) from a female pig (sow). But if one just talks about the animal in genral, the article is basically at random. But how is it in English, when there may be the same distinction for animal genders, but for the animal a such there are no articles? So why for example does one say to a meowing cat `She's hungry.` without knowing if the cat is really a `she`?


Should a comma, a semicolon, or a dash be used before 'trust me' at the end of a sentence?

For formal writing, which one is technically correct?   1. I don't give a damn, trust me. (Is this a comma splice?)   2. I don't give a damn; trust me. (Should a semicolon be used?)   3. I don't give a damn — trust me. (Could a dash be used?) Thank you.


What is the difference between "dichotomous", "binary", "boolean", etc.?

To classify species we use a method called: dichotomous biological key. It works base on true and false cycles. In computer sciences true and fulse working is called boolean and binary is a 0 and 1 system (which is like true and false). What is the difference between them? Can I use term "Binary biological key"? Are these really different? (I have edited this question following Daniel's and MT-Head's comments.)


What is the origin of the word "conk"?

Is it obsolete to use this word? Where does it come from? I couldn't find the origin of this term. Can I use the phrase "The machine conked out" or should I replace _conked out_ with something else?


What are single views of an online banner ad called?

I am developing a web application for managing banners, advertisements, etc. I am not sure what the correct name for one 'view' of a banner is. I need to name it somehow to be able to report information like 'View count', 'Number of views paid', etc. to the manager. I have found three possible names for this:   * Impression   * Hit   * View What is the correct term?


"In my spare time" vs. "on my spare time"

E.g., "On my spare time I'm working on an essay" or "In my spare time I'm working on an essay". Which is correct? Both in/on are prepositions, but "in my spare time" sounds more idiomatic to me. A friend corrected me, and now I'm curious. Which is correct (or are both)?.


Use of past and progressive tense

Can someone tell me which, if any, of the following sentences are correct: >   * When she walked in, he was laying on the bed. >   * When she walked in, he was laid on the bed. >   * When she walked in, he lay on the bed > To me, the first two seem correct, but I am frequently confused as to when it is acceptable to use the progressive tense when referring to past events. EDIT: To just clarify the purpose of my question. My intended meaning for this sentence is that "he" was already on the bed when "she" walked in. If none of the above sentences convey this meaning then how is this correctly phrased?


Minimum amount of time a job needs to wait before executing again

I am looking for a single word or a phrase for the minimum amount of time a job or task needs to wait before executing again.


What does "principle" mean here?

What's the meaning of _principle_ in this definition of _soul_ from Dictionary.com as in _body and soul_? > the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a > distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in > existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the > physical part. Does _principle_ in this context mean definition #7 of Google definition or does it mean something else that's not in this dictionary? ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/7qSa5.png)


Is there any difference between ‘wondering whether that hadn’t been Cedric’s plan’ and ‘wondering whether that had been Cedric’s plan’?

I’m thinking a whether clause with a negative sentence means the speaker thinks the situation is less likely. However, I can’t find any explanation in dictionaries at hand. > He snapped it shut again, worried that the sound would attract Filch, > **wondering whether that hadn’t been Cedric’s plan** – and then, making him > jump so badly that he dropped the egg, which clattered away across the > bathroom floor, someone spoke. (Harry Potter 4 [US Version]: p.461)[Bold > font is mine] **N.B.:** ‘It’ is a magical egg which is wailing loudly while being left open. Filch likes punishing students. Why did the writer use a negative sentence in the whether clause? I’m wondering if it has some nuance in it.


Can I say "take effort"?

It seems to me “take efforts”, “take a great effort” “take the effort to do something”, all three are ok. But I wonder whether you say “take effort” as a set phrase to mean something abstractly, for example: People always take effort to be a better person, though they may be ignorant of what it means to become a better person.


Subsequent, Consequent... Presequent?

Imagine the following: > A -> B B is _consequent_ (and _subsequent_ ) to A, because A implies B. How might one describe A relative to B? " _Presequent_ " gets a few search results... but perhaps there's a better-established word? Another example: > Because it rained, the grass is wet.` The wet grass is _consequent_ to the rain. How can one make a similar statement about the rain itself?


What’s the meaning of ‘go on’ here?

‘Go on’ has a lot of meanings in dictionaries, which makes me confused. What’s the omitted words and meanings of ‘go on’ in the following scene? (They are gambling on a sport in the magical world.) > ”I’ve already got Roddy Pontner betting me Bulgaria will score first – I > offered him nice odds, considering Ireland’s front three are the strongest > I’ve seen in years – and little Agatha Timms has put up half shares in her > eel farm on a week-long match.” > > ”Oh … go on then,” said Mr. Weasley. “Let’s see … a Galleon on Ireland to > win?” ( _Harry Potter 4_ [US Version]: p.88)


Which is the word that means neither "believer" nor "atheist" but somewhere in between?

What word means neither "believer" nor "atheist" but somewhere in between? The word starts with the letter 'A', I tried "agnostic" but according to my instructor there is another one.


What's the origin of 'ditzy'?

The Online Etymology Dictionary said it was unknown. However, it also says that one of the meanings of dis, as in _disrespect_ , was originally: > short for _disconnected_ in the telephone sense and used figuratively in > slang to mean "weak in the head" I'm curious if _ditzy_ may have come from _dis_.   Any thoughts on the matter?


Defining a list of terms and rules

I hope I put this question in the right place. Currently, I am working on a huge software project. Within this project, we use a lot of different terms, words and verbs. We want to write down all terms with an explanation of what we actually mean with it. Also, we want to write down when to use which word. For example, we have the term "challenge" with it's explanation. Whenever you are going to create a new challenge, the button should say "Create challenge". When you are in the form, the button to actually save it should be named "publish". I am wondering if anyone has some sort of guidelines or an example of how to write the terms with it's explanation down and all rules related to the use of words. I could of course create a glossary, but where to put all the rules then? Should it be 2 separate documents? Should I put the rules next to each word? Looking forward to what you all are thinking. Thanks in advance!


What do you call something that under-utilizes its space? Opposite of cramped

In terms of web design, there is a very specific amount of space between elements that make an interface look nice. Too little space and things look cramped, but too much and they look **__**. Words like _spacious_ and _open_ usually have positive connotations. I'm looking for a word to describe how something looks when there's too much empty space.


"Extensible" vs. "extendible"

Where does the adjective form _extensible_ come from and does it connote anything different than _extendible_? What's the difference, if any, between the two?


person who's too eager to ascribe malicious intent

What's the word (formal or slang) or expression to describe a person who customarily and too easily ascribes bad motives to other people's behavior that could also be explained differently? E.g. I would like to say: > to a sufficiently X person, that thing could be interpreted as such and > such..." or "if I were an X, I would think that...


"On time" vs. "in time"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "In time " versus "on time" I don't know if there is any difference. Which of the following should I use? >   * I'll be on time to catch the train. >   * I'll be in time to catch the train. >


Place your orders on time/in time?

If you want to inform someone in advance to do something early enough so the person won't be in trouble later, do you say on time or in time? It's not a specified time, like order it today between 12 and 2, it's more of a better do it now than later suggestion? What's right here?


"In time" or "On time"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "In time " versus "on time"   >  "On time" vs. "in time" I am confused between usages of "On" and "In" in following sentence: > Let the task be done **_** time. Should I use "On" or "In" in this sentence?


Is "bestowing anonymity" the right term or expression?

Is _bestowing anonymity_ the right way to say "keeping someones identity secret?" Basically the author is writing about someone, a fallen dictator and his nasty goings on, without using the name of the dictator.   Could you say he is protecting himself from further repercussions? Would he be _bestowing anonymity_ or is there another (nice) way of saying it? the anonymous person would be the dictator, not the poet


Can "concerning" ever be used to mean "worthy of concern"?

My daughter said "These photographs are concerning". Her intention was to convey that they were disconcerting, or alarming in some way. My impulse was to correct her, but then I doubted myself and thought that perhaps this is a legitimate use of the word. The two online dictionaries I looked in don't have secondary definition that fits the bill, so, I'm now once again reasonably certain that my impulse was correct, but I'd be curious what you folks think.


If prepend is not part of English, why is there no postpend or subpend? And who introduces them?

I wanted to ask it already for some time but was in doubt until I've read the comment by Stan Rogers to this answer: > In the case of prepend, we have created an artificial term that is > meaningless outside of the "in group", since to append means merely to add > -- it does not have a positional implication; it can be prepositional or > postpositional. If "prepend" is not an English word. It was created to sound like the opposite of "append," which means to add to the end. The correct English word is "prefix; and Although it sounds correct, prepend is not an English word. It was created to sound like the opposite of "append," which means to add to the end. The correct English word is "prefix;" then why there are no words "postpend", "subpend", "sidepend", "uppend"? Who does introduce incorrect words into English which are not English words?


What is the commonly accepted pronunciation of FAQ?

I hear FAQ(s) pronounced like a word in "FACK(s)", while I go letter by letter. In usage, what is more common? (Similar to SQL vs Sequel)


"Where is" versus "where are"

Is it correct to use _is_ rather than _are_ in this question? > Where is my mother and father? Grammatically, it should be _where are my mother and father?_ but, for some strange reason, I think I would use _where is my mother and father?_ and I can't explain why that is. Perhaps, I used this structure before while growing up, without knowing all of the grammar "rules"; if there is an explanation for it, that would be great.


What do you call a row of keys (music)?

What do you call a single row of keys on a keyboard if it has more than one (for example on an organ)? Is "claviature" the right word for it (example: "The keyboard of the organ has 4 claviatures.")?


What is the word for someone who initiates group social interaction?

Example scenario: a youth hostel employs someone to try get guests to be social and interacting. In a common area (lounge), the person may bring together various solo guests into a group and get everyone playing board games. The end result being a better experience for the guests. The guests then being more likely to leave a positive review. I experienced this some years ago at a hostel in New York. The social man later said he worked for the hostel to start such social activity. Long after, I saw a volunteer advertisement for the same thing somewhere else. I'm sure in that advert they had a word for the person who starts such social activity - I just can't remember the word. Edit: Perhaps another take on this is someone who is planted within a group of people with the goal of influencing the group toward a desired outcome.


Difference between "meant to" and "supposed to"

Those two expressions have close meaning: > He is not **meant to** do this > > He is not **supposed to** do this What is the difference between them, and when I should use one or the other?


What is a new coinage to describe the style of articles that starts with number such as “7 Things happy people choose to do every single day."?

I saw a new compound word of something that related with “number” and “article” that describes the style of articles that start with number such as "7 Things happy people choose to do every single day," “10 paragraphs about lists you need in your life,” and “20 things you need to know about Einstein,” in an article of _today’s_ NYT, or Time magazine, or New Yorker. Wikipedia carries this word as a compound of ???+aricle. I forgot what ??? was. In other word, it’s an itemized style of writing under, for instance, Rule 1, 2, 3.. I thought it a very convenient word to describe “X number reasons, things, ways, tips for sucess, a better bargain, and persons who ....” style articles now in fashion, but, I forgot to note it down. Could you teach me the word, if you can think it up, or have read the article?


Noun for receiving end of promotion?

When promoting someone or something to a higher standing, is there a noun that can be used to describe the object of the promotion? Something equivalent to "the guy being promoted" is basically what I'm looking for. My first thought is "promotee" but that just strikes me as odd/wrong for some reason.


"Bury" — noun meaning?

I would swear that years back I saw a definition of the word _bury_ and it contained a noun, not only a verb. If my memory serves me well, the noun meaning was associated with church. Today I cannot find even a trace of a noun _bury_ -- only verbs. Could anyone definitely confirm or deny such noun exists, please?


we take safety measures, do we also 'take' control measures?

Someone provided me with a PowerPoint presentation and instructed me to convert it into a word document with sentences rather than point form notes. Here is what the PowerPoint slide said: "Control Measures -Provide an easy exit -Wear protective equipment" The slide talks about what to do when you are working in a tight, enclosed and confied space. Basically, the slide says that when you are working in an enclosed and confined space then 'take' the following control measures: provide an easy exit (that is, make sure it is easy to get out of the enclosed area) and wear protective equipment while working in a confied space. My question is, does it make sense if I say "When working in a confied and enclosed area, 'take' the following control measures: ensure that there is an easy exit provided to the individual who is working in the confined space, and ensure that the individual working is wearing protective equipment." Do we 'take' control measures, just as how we take safety measures? If no, what is the correct way of saying what I said in the paragraph above? Note: I do know that the 'control' measures stated above are really just safety measures, but I'm just wondering if we 'take' control measures like how we take safety measures.


Is this expression correct: "It is A and B who [verb]"?

I have no problem with the following sentence: > In this book, [it] is the father who tries to murder her However, what if I want to substitute a plural noun (or two names) for `father`? Are the following sentences correct? If not, how should I change them? > In this book, [it] is the father and John who try to murder her > > In this book, [it] is her parents who try to murder her I am struggling with associating `[it] is` with a plural noun. Even if I add `[it] is [...] *who*` the sentence sounds wobbly. PS. I am _not_ reviewing a book, in case you are wondering.


Is final /n/ sound reduced / nasalized in American English?

When my 6-year old daughter spells words phonetically, she regularly drops final 'n' at ends of syllables, after vowels, like "rabo" for "rainbow", "lach" for "lunch". This made me wonder, are we all dropping the distinct /n/ sound in these words? Is this a regular phenomena in American English, and what's the name for it?


Using "reduction" in a title

I am writing a paper where I will use the title _Reduction by half_. This is supposed to describe a method which reduces something by half, but I am not sure if _Reduction by Half_ is the right way to do this. Any ideas? Does _Reduction by Half_ sound weird?


What is the V-shaped thing called one puts in a checkbox?

What do you call the V-shaped figure one uses to check a checkbox? How about the X-shaped figure?


What is 'draw on'

This question was asked earlier (not by me), but closed and deleted by a mod. But I thought it was interesting, because I didn't know the answer. So I'm reposting it.... * * * The verb phrasal 'draw on' seems to have two conflicting definitions: > dictionary 1   >  to come closer in time "It became colder as night drew on." > > dictionary 2   >  (of a period of time) pass by and approach its end:   >  "he remembered sitting in silence with his grandmother as evening drew on" How is 'draw on' used by native speakers? * * * ...that's the original. Here's my own additional research from OED: > **draw** B.VI.70 _To draw near or approach in time._ > > **draw in** B.VII.82.f _Of a day or evening: To draw to a close, to close > in. Also of a succession of evenings in late summer and autumn: To become > gradually shorter (as if contracting or shrinking in)._ > > **draw on** B.VII.86.d _To advance, approach, draw nigh._   >  86.e _To draw near to death, be in a dying state._ So, to restate the original question, which of these does _as night drew on_ mean? (I've no idea!) > 1 _as night approached_   >  2 _as night passed_   >  3 _as night drew to a close_


definite article with plural hypotheses

Is it correct to write "scientests can test a hypotheses" even though hypotheses is a plural?


When you have 5 instead of 4, what's the word instead of "quadrant"?

...or, to phrase it differently, like one of those silly SAT questions... please help me fill in this blank: **4 is to 5 as "quadrant" is to ????** (Does that make sense?)


Use of different tenses to express present fact on past action

I am trying to write a recommendation letter. The following two sentences sound quite awkward. Is it correct? I mean what I am doing describing all the events on the past tense and on that base I am implying some attribute of the present (this is the only sentence in present tense). > He frequently interacted with teachers and colleagues on the subject and he > demonstrated insight on what he studied. Also he possesses an excellent > communication skill.


"Bash" vs. "party"

Our management team ask us to join a pizza/beer **bash** , which is essentially nothing but a pizza lunch held for all employees. My concept of the word **bash** still remained somewhere near the name of the famous Unix shell until I looked it up online. As expected, a bash means a party or a celebration. It's a slang. Anyway, I have a hard time distinguishing between **bash** and **party** from online resources. Maybe someone who themselves has been to both of them could tell the subtle difference.


"Instantly" vs "instantaneously"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Instant" vs. "instantaneous" I know there is a similar question already answered, but I still have doubts. I was doing a word formation FCE exercise where I had to form an adverb from the word _instant_ in the following sentence. > The artists created their own style and use of colours, which is > **instantly/instantaneously** recognisable. Is _instantly_ the adverb I should use?


What is the origin of "number" as in song or dance?

What is the origin of _**number**_ as another word for a song or dance? For example: > And then, when Astro came out to perform his sing-off against Ms. Francis > for the right to stay in the competition, he gave the judges and the studio > audience a bucketful of attitude. He said he didn’t think he should have to > perform. Then he asked the audience if it wanted to hear him **do a number** > (which, of course, it did). And he rolled out a less-than-his-best rap over > “Never Can Say Goodbye.”.


What is the proper alternative for 'credentialize'?

Usage: > The emergence of a second competitor in the market will help _credentialize_ > the product and the vision.


I read an article, here is the original words: > Lennon even created his own comic strip, which he called "The Daily Howl". > This contained drawings, frequently of crippled people, and satirical > writings, often with a play on words. For example, in one page, Lennon wrote > a weather report saying that "Tomorrow will be Muggy, followed by Tuggy, > Wuggy and Thuggy". Could someone tell me about the meaning of ""Tomorrow will be Muggy, followed by Tuggy, Wuggy and Thuggy"? This is hard to understand for me since English is not my mother language.


What does "topline issue" mean?

What does "topline issue" mean in a business and other context that neither refer to gross sales or revenue, nor allude to anything related to a company's income statement? Normal definition > A reference to the gross sales or revenues of a company, or an allusion to a > course of action that increases or reduces revenues. The "top" reference > relates to the fact that on a company's income statement, the first line at > the top of the page is generally reserved for gross sales or revenue. A > company that increases its revenues is said to be "growing its top line", or > "generating top-line growth". > > This contrasts with net income (or net earnings per share), which is usually > the bottom line of the company's income statement.


"How to [...]?" and "Where to [...]?" Questions that are not questions. Is this defensible?

Adding a question mark to the end of a "How to" or "Where to" sentence appears to be quite common. Here are two examples from this very site: **How to punctuate a list of questions?** (link) **Where to put the periods when using a parenthetical sentence?** (link) In my mind, the question mark doesn't belong at all, and it bothers me. Am I being unreasonable? Is this practice defensible?


Help diagramming a sentence

Can someone diagram this sentence: > I thought it was best to let you decide to whom this needs forwarded. In addition, is the sentence grammatically correct? If not, why?


Idiom Meaning "Ready to Correct One's Mistake"

I'm looking for a concise way to describe this situation: > Person A compliments B's team at a competition. But B does not respond to > this compliment gracefully, even though it means a lot to him. B senses that > doing this has hurt A, but pride or shyness get in the way of him clearing > the air with A about this for a while. When B works up what's needed to talk > to A, unforeseen circumstances change B's plans and he loses touch with A. > Years pass, but B continues to feel an urge to fix his mistake. B does not > actively seek to fix it (aside from learning from it), but if the > opportunity to do so presents itself he has told himself to take it. One idiom I've considered is _turning over a new leaf_. But this phrase seems better for a personality overhaul than for repairing one mistake. Is there a word/idiom/phrase (WIP) to describe a person who would leap if given the chance to correct a specific mistake he made? **Edit** : I have received some great answers, but I've realized I have one more condition I'm looking for: I'd prefer a casual/conversational WIP. Thanks!


Word that categorizes this set of words: {forewords, preface, prologue, chapter, author's note, etc}

I am looking for a singular word that categorizes this set of words: {forewords, preface, prologue, chapter, author's note, etc} The best I can come up with right now is Section Heading which is obviously not one word.


What’s a word for people sharing a common culture?

_Tribe_ is good. But what more? I need more words, but exactly mean “they have same culture, traits, etc.”


Professor Bob's lab

I know "Bob's house" and "Bob's" mean the same thing. Question 1: Is there a name for this grammatical phenomenon? Can one call it an abbreviation? Question 2: In the context of within a university, can I simply call "Professor Bob's lab" "Professor Bob's"? Example: I am interested in the labs of Professors A, B and C. I also like Professor Bob's. Is the example sentence formal and correct? Do people understand that I'm referring to the lab of Professor Bob?


Exchanging Experience or Exchange Experience

I am now studying at XXX University as an exchange student. Is this my "exchanging experience" or my "exchange experience"? Am I actually an "exchanging student"?


Is there an acceptable corresponding negative to "well off"?

When we wish to refer to people who are living an affluent lifestyle or simply enjoying favorable circumstances in any particular area, we often say they are _well off_. So far so good. But listening to a podcast this afternoon, I heard the host try to express the opposite condition, and the term he used ("badly off") clanged in my ear. It just doesn't sound right. Still, if we look at the positive expression "well off" we might judge that _well_ functions as an adverb and _off_ as an adjective. So if you want to introduce the negative condition, the corresponding adverb is _badly_ (or _poorly_ , etc.). But it still sounds awful. Funnily enough, my ear's inner alarm remains silent when I hear someone say _bad off_ , as in "They were pretty bad off in those days." So is that the answer? If so, why doesn't it yield to my immediate grammatical analysis? Why should _bad off_ sound acceptable in that context but not _poor off_ or some other combination of adjective/adjective? And it's not as if I'm trying to force-fit the corresponding negative construction: those already exist, and are heard all the time. What gives? Note that I mean this question in the very narrow scope described above. I am **not** looking for synonyms of the negative. I don't want _destitute_ or _unfortunate_ or any of the others, and I will scowl at those who attempt to run me through with a thesaurus. **Well, well** I like J.R.'s contention that the word _well_ is problematic in and of itself. Still, I'm not sure the other part of the team, _off_ , should get off scot free. It has been overloaded in meaning for centuries. It can mean _apart from_ , _in a state of disuse_ , _rusty_ ["His game was off due to a hangover"], _not operational at this time_ ["The oven was off"], _inaccurate_ ["The figures are off"], _extending from_ , _abstaining from_ ["He's been off alcohol for years"], and so on. Which is why when I hear "badly off" it makes me feel that _off_ is being emphasized when it is not meant to carry the semantic freight with respect to positive or negative values. **Off with their heads!** Additionally, and with respect to the latter point, I see in the comments that some of you are trotting out Google word and book searches, which may or may not apply here. (Full disclosure: I have mixed feelings about the use of such sources.) So it is worth pointing out that, taken out of context, the terms "bad off" and "badly off" do not always refer to the purported opposite of "well off": > _He aimed for the target, but was badly off the mark._ > > _They were badly off in their estimate of how much time the project would > take._ > > _Her performance was bad off the get-go._ That last is colloquial, and may be straining the issue, but even if the search fails on account of the ambiguity of one term, it nevertheless fails for both.


When do I use "can" or "could"?

When should I use _can_? When should I use _could_?   What is right under what context?


Is either "can" or "could" more polite?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When do I use “can” or “could”? I wonder which of the following is more polite: >   1. Can you please change my email address? >   2. Could you please change my email address? > The second one sounds to me as if the request is more urgent. So I would choose the first. But I heard that "could", "should", etc. forms are more polite forms of "can", "shall", etc. Is this true at all and if so, what is the underlying reason?


Can or Could - which one is correct to usein question

Can you please shift a little? or Could you please shift a little? which one of the two is correct?


Correct usage of "Could" and "Can"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When do I use "can" & "could"? In a company, the HR asked me: " _Could you please sign here_ ". I want to know whether it is correct or " _Can_ " should be used or simply " _Please sign here_ " is sufficient. When to ideally use _Could_.


"Can" vs. "could" in asking a question

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When do I use “can” or “could”? I am a little bit confused about asking a question: > Can you please tell me my next work? or > Could you please tell me my next work? Which is more correct?


"Can I have one apple from your box?" vs "Could I have one apple from your box?"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When do I use “can” or “could”? I was doing some reading on usage of _can_ and _could_. I understand that _can_ is used when asking for ability, and _could_ for willingness. I would use _can_ in the following sentence. > Can I have one apple from your box? After reading about the usage of _can_ and _could_ , I am confused. Actually, this is not about my ability of taking the apple; of course, I can take (snatch) the apple even if he/she does not give it to me. So I guess according to the above rule I should be using _could_ and not _can_. Using _could_ here somehow does not sound correct to me. So I just wanted to confirm whether it is correct or not.


Meaning of 'his bled'

This is an extract from 'The Sheltering Sky' by Paul Bowles: One day a Targui comes, he is tall and handsome, on a beautiful mehari. He talks to Outka, Minouna, and Aicha, he tells them about the desert, down there where he lives, **his bled** , and they listen, and their eyes are big. Then he says: ' Dance for me' , and they danced. What's the meaning of 'his bled' here? (Pag 33 e-book version)


Technical(ly) vs technological(ly)

Technical and Technological Technically and Technologically Can these be used interchangeably? Is there a difference?


Plural of looker-on and terminus

I found the plural for Looker-on as both Lookers-on and Looker-ons!!   Is this possible? Also the plural for Terminus is given as Termini and Terminuses!   Please clarify the plurals for Looker-on and Terminus...


A real-word synonym for the non-word "trustedness"

I always thought that _trustedness_ was a word, but apparently it isn't. What's a real word that means the same thing, namely _the quality of being trusted_? Note that this is a different meaning from _trustworthiness_ , which means _the quality of being deserving of trust_ , not of actually being trusted. To clarify, I am looking for a word which devorces _popular_ judgement from my _personal_ judgement. If 99% of people trust a person, but I don't, I would say that he is _trusted_ , but not, in my opinion, _trustworthy_. I'm looking for a noun form of the former specifically, or a synonym if it doesn't exist (I don't think it does).


Is there a term for someone who "can see multiple perspectives"?

A colleague of mine is trying to describe herself as "capable of seeing a situation from multiple perspectives" or "able to look at the big picture from various viewpoints". I feel like there must be a better way to get this point across. Is there a more concise way to describe this characteristic?


Should rhetorical questions end with a period?

Would it be appropriate to end a rhetorical question with a period, to show that it is not intended as a question that one should ponder or attempt to answer? For instance: > Why do I eat so much(?)(.)(!) I don't want anyone to answer it, but it's still phrased as a question.


Use of the word "have"

In a menu title/button, does "have" need to be used? Is "1" okay or should "2" be used?      1) People who contacted you in the last 24 hours   2) People who have contacted you in the last 24 hours      This is for a website that uses friendly, informal (American) language. It basically goes by native speech, but as I have been living in a non English- speaking country for a while my intuition is a little rusty.