Does the word "but" sound odd here?

I'm being influenced by another language, which is why this might sound so natural to me. Still, I wonder what others would think about sentences like these. "I realized it when we were shopping earlier, but you have really good taste in clothing." Is the "but" in that sentence awkward?


Geopolitics *and* economics?

What word or concise phrase in English covers international politics and economics? My Merriam-Webster defines geopolitics as "politics, esp. international relations, as influenced by geographical factors." Is there a word that covers this AND international money issues?


What does "Tingling toes" mean?

I was listening to a song _Top of the world_ by _Bridgit Mendler_. She sung some words > I'm weak in the knees when... You're holding me close.. got tingling toes > tonight What does **tingling toes** mean here? I know the meaning of both words separately but it is not making sense together for me.


Partially same authors

Is there a word or common phrase that expresses the idea that two works have some but not all authors in common? For example if I have these papers > (1)How to Count Red Bottles, Gee M. S., Queen H. R. H., Bacon K., Damon M.   >  (2)Bottle Counting Meta-analysis, Queen H. R. H., Damon M., Goldblum G., > Kendal F. Is there a word or idiomatic way to say > _Partially same authors_ argue in (2) that... _Partially same authors_ does not seem a common phrase after searching Google.


Which tense to use in this situation?

I am writing a summary for last year and I have just realized that I do not know what tense to use in the following situation: Since 2009 I have been developing a computer program. As I am describing what I was working on last year, what tense should I use? I think I cannot use simple past tense because I am still working on that. I also think I cannot use present perfect because the description will relate to period of time that passed. Could anyone help me on this? Thank you


Differences between "tutorial", "guide" and "how-to"

The categorization on Android Wiki looks pretty arbitrary and redundant to me contemplating the single articles in the categories. In every one you find a _tutorial_ , _guide_ and _how-to_ on for example _How to root an android phone_ , so these are mostly step-by-step instructions or a numeric list on how to proceed. This differentiation seems kind of pointless to me. Aren't they all synonyms? Only _guide_ and _how-to_ imply to me something like a written manual, while _tutorial_ can also be verbal instructions in a seminar or a YouTube video. But on a webpage with only written articles, does this differentiation make sense?


When is "L" doubled?

Some verbs can have double Ls in the gerund form; for example:   * modeling; modelling    * traveling; travelling Which form should we use, or which form is used more in the literature?


"Canceling" or "cancelling"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is "L" doubled? I'm confused about the two spellings. In which contexts do I have to use _canceling_ or _cancelling_? Google returns 15.6 million results with canceling and 18 million with cancelling, so I don't know what is the good spelling. Why are both possible, and are there other such pairs?


What's the difference between 'modeling' and 'modelling'?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is "L" doubled? If I am using the word _model_ in the context of financial models and the UK, then which of these words should I use? Also, are there any key difference in the meanings of the two?


"Traveller" vs. "traveler"

There was a time when _traveller's cheques_ were emitted and sold by the banks in England and by Thomas Cook. However the cheques emitted by American banks/American Express were named _traveler's cheque_ , with a single L. I have always wondered why. My English dictionary only has _traveller_ with two Ls.


Signalling or signaling?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is "L" doubled? Most of the spell checkers are correcting it to be single `l`, from the other side many official technical documents/standards are using double `l`.


Meaning of sentence with 'would'

The sentence is: **What would the people eat?** Can it mean "What are the people going to eat?" in future Or, "What were the people going to eat?" talking about future from past Or, both?


"Lead to" vs "result in"

I am bit confused about the differences between _lead to_ \+ gerund and _result in_ \+ gerund. Example: > This process might **lead to** increasing the costs. > > This process might **result in** increasing the costs. In essays, should I prefer one of _lead to_ and _result in_ to the other? Why?


Difference between "response" and "reply"

As far as I understand, _replies_ are a subset of _responses_ : A _reply_ is a response in words or writing. However, _responses_ can take many different forms, e.g. when a country responds in force to some perceived aggression. Is this correct? What is the difference?


Why are "bollocks!" so often "old"?

Prompted by this question _(How old is “Bollocks!”?)_ , I wonder why it's so often " **old** _bollocks_ ". Where I live (South-East England), _"giving it all that old bollocks"_ is a fairly common expression in certain circles. That's probably quite localised dialect, but googling the net suggests that _a load of old bollocks_ , _the same old bollocks_ and other _old_ variants are quite common in the world at large. When people say _"Don't give me that old crap!"_ , it normally means they've heard your line before, and don't want to hear it again. But I don't get that implication of repetition with _old bollocks_. With _"That's a load of old bollocks!"_ I can discard _"a load of"_ and/or _"old"_. None of the variants seem to imply I've heard it before. I don't feel quite so comfortable with _"That's old bollocks!"_ though - maybe I only accept it at all because it sounds like _"That's_ **all** _bollocks!"_ I hear plenty of _"That's balls!"_ , but they never seem to be _old_. Why is this?


Correct meaning of paraphrase

I've always understood paraphrase to mean the repeat a quote without using the exact words. However, recently I've seen increasing use of the word paraphrase to mean repeating a famous quotation with a twist. I.e. the original quote is given almost verbatim but applied to an entirely different area. Am I correct in understanding that this second usage is incorrect?


"Whether they are congruent"

A geometry test asks a student to find the length of two pairs of line segments and then instructs the student to > tell **whether they are congruent** for each pair. Is the student obligated to tell if a pair is **not** congruent, or only if the pair **is** congruent?


-ed and -ing adjectives

What is the difference? > I am interesting in mathematics. versus > I am interested in mathematics. Murphy intermediate grammar Unit 97 tells me that I cannot use the former. Extended and general explanations will be appreciated.


"Description to follow"

My co-worker sent me a message with the text below: > "description to follow" Actually this is the only text inside of the message where there are some pictures attached. I got what it says "Description will follow" or similar to that but what I want to learn is which grammar rule can explain this type of usage?


“Leakage” in context

I have been reading a text about spotting lies by analysis of voice, gestures, etc., and cannot understand the word _leakage_ in this sentence: > ... clues of emotions... These are what provide leakage or deception clues. Is it related to clues (leakage clues or deception clues), or does it mean leakage on the liar’s side (unintentionally revealing he is lying)? All dictionaries mention only two meanings of _leakage_ : physical (such as of liquid) or deliberate disclosure of information. Neither fits here for me.


“bigamy” and “digamy”

* _**bi‑_** from Latin with the meaning of _two_.    * _**di‑_** is the Greek counterpart of _bi‑_ , with the same meaning of _two_. Are _bigamy_ and _digamy_ words with the same meaning. If not, why?


It might be defined different/differently?

In the following example, `realtype` stands for a computer data type defined by a computer. The data type might be different on different computers; _ie_ the definition of `realtype` is machine-dependent. > If my [computer] code is executed on another system, `realtype` might be > defined { different / differently / something else }. Which of the alternative endings should I choose? Please say why, in plain English. I prefer an answer with simple rules that I can remember and easily apply. I tried to understand an earlier question, to no avail.


"Support team lead" or "support team leader"

Which is correct: _support team lead_ or _support team leader_? I think _team leader_ should be correct since _leader_ is a persona while _lead_ looks more like a verb. But I see some multinational companies use _team lead_ in their job description. Is there something I am missing?


Meaning of "That is not anything much yet"

Could you explain the meaning of the sentence in bold? Does it use an idiom? > Sesame Street is...with lapses, the most intelligent and important program > in television. **That is not anything much yet**. _Renata Adler, The New > Yorker, 1972_


Correct way to say "km^2"

How do we say _km 2_ in words? Do we use _km exponent by two_ , _square kilometer_ , _kilometer squared_ or something else?


What is the service that hotels offer called?

I am developing a service for hotels to increase their bookings. How is the hotel business called? Is it correct to say "to increase your bookings" where I mean to get more customers?


There were injured on both sides - grammar

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-says-30-pro-russian-insurgents- killed-071845546.html > Avakov said Monday that pro-Russia forces in Slovyansk, a city of 125,000, > were deploying large-caliber weapons and mortars in the region and there > were **injured** on both sides. Government troops were facing about 800 > insurgents, he said. Is the way it's written grammatically correct? Do we not have to precede the word with **the** to denote that we are talking about a group of people?


How to use "resulting" and "resultant" as qualifier properly?

If I say that "the resulting object A" and "the resultant object A", do the two statements mean the same thing always, sometimes, never?


What does "our Mayan moment" mean here?

In a brief article I read, it is stated that: > For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment: 2012 is when the > nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between > rounds of drinks. Could anybody shed any light on what an author is likely to mean when referring to something as "our Mayan moment"?


Is it possible for a new irregular verb to appear in English language?

Consider these verbs in past tense: > faxed, emailed, googled they are all regular verbs made out of new nouns.   Are there any new _irregular_ verbs that I'm not aware of?


Is it "to shave my beard" or "to shave my face"?

> I shaved my beard this morning.   >  I shaved my face this morning. Which one is the correct sentence?


What is a word that means someone who is involved in the arts without implying a specific type of art?

Is there a word that encompasses artist, poets, architects, dancers, musicians? The correct word to use is surely "Artist" but in my context that word is confusing as it connotes someone involved in the visual arts making it unacceptable for me. Is there a word that covers creative pursuits?


What is the correct usage of the word "Cartesian"?

While working on an essay for my English class I included this sentence: > The best solution is to take a page out of Cartesian theory and take a > proven approach. However, my teacher corrected it as follows: > The best solution is to take a page out of **Cartesian's** theory and take a > proven approach. However, this strikes me as wrong, "Cartesian" is not a person and this correction doesn't seem to make sense to me. I would understand if it was "Descartes' theory" as that would make it the theory of Descartes, but I don't understand how you can use a possessive with an adjective like in the correction. My teacher hasn't been very helpful, her best explanation is "English is just like that". But I still would like to understand it, could someone explain it to me? I also would like to know if there's a need to capitalize "Cartesian" in this case.


Is there a synonym for "satisfied customer" or "one who can testify"?

For example, I wish to borrow a book from someone. In order to assure that person that I will treat their book carefully, I want to refer them to someone I have already borrowed a book from in the past who knows that I am responsible. What is the word for that person who can recommend me?


Ellipsis or Ellipses?

Inspired by this question: What is the correct term to use when describing the "three dots" (. . .), ellipsis or ellipses? And are either of these terms considered plural? For example, if I wanted to say "the **x** is/are in the wrong location", which sentence is correct?   1. The ellipsis is in the wrong location.   2. The ellipsis are in the wrong location.   3. The ellipses is in the wrong location.   4. The ellipses are in the wrong location. My gut instinct would be #4, with #1 a close second. #3 seems likely to be wrong, and #2 is a wild card.


Single word for someone who is being impersonated ("impersonatee"?)

I'm writing about impersonators and people being impersonated in general terms and having 'the impersonator' and 'the person being impersonated' is cumbersome at best. 'Impersonatee' sort of works, but isn't great. Any ideas?


"The wind is blowing of the fan" vs. "The wind is blowing from the fan"

What is the difference between "of" and "from" in the following sentences: > The wind is blowing of the fan. > > The wind is blowing from the fan. Not sure if they are properly worded!


When did Greenwich begin to be pronounced as "Gren-ich"?

I just read an interesting question here on Greenwich Mean Time. I'm interested to know when **Greenwich** received its peculiar pronunciation. Has it always been pronounced as "GREN-ich" (/ˈɡrɛnɪtʃ/), and is it just a simple contraction or something more? I'm from Northern England and would say that GREN-ich is used nationally and globally, but I agree with Wikipedia that I've heard it pronounced GRIN-ich in London.


What does “goo up” mean? Is it a well-received idiom?

I found the word, “ _goo up_ ” in the following statement of New York Times’ (April 2nd) article titled “Desperately seeking synonyms,” which was written by Constance Hale as a series of writing lessons. Though it’s a little bit long quote, I thought the lines being of particular interest to foreign English learners: > Writers sometimes forget that the primary role of nouns is to paint a clear > picture, and they pile up abstractions and leave us clueless as to the > people, places, things or ideas they are writing about. > > Sometimes this is intentional, as when a spokesman for Hasbro said that the > closing of a Scrabble plant in Fairfax, Vt., in 1999 was part of a “global > improvement product.” Other times, it is unintentional, as when novice > writers _goo up_ descriptions with a lot of lush adjectives, rather than a > few precise nouns. I can vaguely imagine what “ _goo up_ ” means from the word “goo,” but am not very clear. Cambridge English dictionary registers “goo” only as a noun meaning “an unpleasantly sticky substance. No mention on verb. Oxford English Dictionary registers only the definition as a noun meaning, 1. Sticky or slimy substance. 2. Excessively sentimentality. No mention on verb. Google Ngram registers usage of “goo up” declining since 1900. Though I think the writer used the right word in right place as this is a part of series of “How-to write” lesson, can “goo” used as a verb, which neither CED nor OED does provide? Is “goo up” popular or well-worn idiom? What are its exact meaning and easier analogues?


"if you were" vs. "if you did"

In the following two sentences "did" and "were" seem to be conveying the same meaning. If that's the case, what is the difference between the two and which one is more preferred? > If you studied, you would pass the exam. > > If you were to study, you would pass the exam.


What is the difference between "Come on home" and "Come home"? In this case "Come on" is a phrasal verb?


Is "premises" always plural?

On-premises ... On-premise I see these terms frequently used to describe software systems hosted within a company's datacenter vs. software systems hosted externally by a third party (in the "cloud"). The term is also frequently abbreviated to "on-prem" or "OnPrem" or similar with the same meaning. The full spelling is the issue. I take "premises" means the environ of a company or organization, whereas I take "premise" means the basis for a logical argument. Is there any valid usage of "premise" sans "S" to mean a company, or is it simply slangy misspelling of "premises"? Related: As the plural of "premise" in the logical argument sense is "premises", does this cloud the issue a little?


Etymology of "to be cuter than a monkey with a puppy"

I think that this is an idiom, but I didn't find any explanations. I wonder about the _monkey_. Just _to be cuter than a puppy_ would be clear. _Monkey_ 's (if it refers to the animal) are known for being silly or a bit stupid, primitive. Doesn't it have a slight negative connotation? Why is it called " _to be cuter than a monkey with a puppy_ "?


"Nose" is to "nasal" as "throat" is to what?

We use _nasal_ as an adjective for something related to _nose_. What is the word to refer to something related to _throat_?


desired vs. desirable

I have written a paper and the reviewer said me that I must change "a more desired solution" to "a more desirable solution". I am not sure about the differences. I have also some similar usages of this combination. It would be grateful if you could suggest me which one is more applicable. N.B: I have a number of solutions (points) that the data publisher checks them and selects one of them, or in another scenario, she first states her preferences, and our algorithm finds the best one for his. Similar usages:   1. ... or even direct the method toward a desired point.   2. He checks it with different parameters to attain a desired trade-off between A and B.   3. ... which usually results in an undesired quality degradation of published data.   4. with the possibility to direct the anonymization process toward a more desired trade-off point.    5. it to reach a desirable trade-off point.   6. results in the desired partitioning.   7. After applying X, the desired partitioning is produced.   8. ...explicit expression of the desired values of the objective functions makes the algorithm more effective.   9. It can converge toward the desired point in an effective manner.   10. ...to achieve a desirable trade-off point.   11. ...that usually results in an undesired decrease of information utility.    12. ... and capture some undesired information.   13. ... to reach a desired point.


Got their wires crossed.

Regarding a policy meeting I read: _the meeting was a complete disaster, all members got their wires crossed before everybody left._ Does it mean that they quarrelled and came to blows?


Double prepositions: 'a rate of around 30%' or 'a rate around 30%'?

> "The treatment has a complete necrosis rate of around 30%." Or should the preposition "of" be deleted: > "The treatment has a complete necrosis rate around 30%." To me both sentences mean the same, but which one is grammatically correct?


Is "try taking these ones" correct? (doctor speaking to a patient)

A patient is complaining that the pills that he had given her a week ago don't help, so he opens a drawer, takes another pack of some other pills and says: "Try taking these ones". Is it correct to say like this? Does it sound natural?


Is the usage of among in "Some philosophers are addressed, among who Deleuze, Derrida,..." right?

I would like to know whether my usage of _among_ in the following sentence is correct or not: > Thus, a dialogue is developed with some philosophers who discuss and unfold > the concept of ‘being’, among who, Deleuze, Nietzsche and Foucault.


Is 'mind you' a question tag?

> “That plate is hot, **mind**.” (Angela Downing, English Grammar)   > Prof. Angela says ‘mind’ above is a question tag.   Is ‘mind you’ below the same tag?   > "Don't know why he's so bothered," said Ron. "If I'd brought a toad I'd lose > it as quick as I could. **Mind you** , I brought Scabbers, so I can't talk."   >  (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)


"had initially" or "initially had"

As in "I initially had planned to cite my sources" vs. "I had initially planned to cite my sources"


What is the best word for "brain drain" within a company?

I'm writing a proposal for work. For it, I would like a word that describes the concept of brain drain - lots of people leaving the country and taking their knowledge with them - but that is limited to within the same company. Wikipedia (and others) defines brain drain as: > ...the large-scale emigration of a large group of individuals with technical > skills or knowledge. What I'm looking to describe, however, is a situation where one or two very knowledgeable people change jobs, switch departments, or leave the company (not necessarily leaving the country) without imparting that knowledge to others. Is brain drain the best fit or are there better words?


"When it comes to doing something" Are there alternatives?

Do you think " _When it comes to_ " is a formal or informal expression?   I want to use this in the TOEFL writing paper.


Can you use a semicolon after an interjection/exclamation?

The usual form for using interjections involves following them with a comma, period, or exclamation point. For example... "Well, I honestly have no idea."   "Dude! Where's my car!"   "Wow. I have nothing to say to that."      You get the idea. So! Can one use a semicolon after an interjection? I had never seen it done, prior to today, and I was curious.


learn how to [verb] vs. learn to [verb]

1. "learn to [verb]"   2. "learn how to [verb]" Is [1] merely a less formal version of [2]? If not, does [1] communicate something subtly different? Consider the following: In [2], the object of learning is explicitly "how to [verb]" (for instance, "I will learn how to speak French"). Is the object of learning in [1] "to [verb]" or is it something implicit and abstract that allows the subject "to [verb]"? For instance, in "I will learn to speak French", the object of learning would be the prerequisite elements for speaking French: "French phonemes, grammar, syntax, etc.".


Can "respectively" be used to refer to more than two items in a series?

Is the following a proper use of "respectively"? And if it is not, what is the proper construction of this sentence: > Counts 10, 12, and 14 of the indictment charged Mr. Client, along with Mr. > Co-client, with First Degree Murder While Armed (Premeditated), in violation > of D.C. Code §§ 22-2101, 4502, 2104.01(b)(4), 2104.01(b)(6) (2001 ed.). > Counts 11, 13, and 15 charged Mr. Client, and Mr. Co-client, with Possession > of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence or Dangerous Offense, in violation > of D.C. Code § 22-4504(b) (2001 ed.). Each of those counts related to one of > the homicide charges. Count 18 of the indictment charged with Mr. Client > with Carrying a Pistol Without a License, in violation of D.C. Code § > 22-4504(a) (2001 ed.). Count 29 charged Mr. Client with Obstruction of > Justice, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-722(a)(6) (2001 ed.). When the > charges were submitted to the jury, the above listed charges were > respectively renumbered 1-6 and 8-9.


When could we use perfect tense?

Could you recommend me any grammar taskbook like Murphy with a lot of tasks and explanation of perfect tense? I haven't quite understood the meaning of the perfect tense and all cases when it should be used. I have to train much more...


How do I reply? 'It's time you started [to trust me]' or 'It's time you started to [trust me]?

Given the following sentence: 'I don't trust you' - what's the proper way to end the following reply:'It's time you started' or 'It's time you started to'? Is there a rule governing the inclusion/omission of 'to'?


"Uncapable" or "incapable"?

In Microsoft Word, _uncapable_ is marked as wrong. It sounded pretty alright to me, thus, I checked it up on the Web and found that many dictionaries do not have "uncapable" in their entries, but dictionaries such as Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster list it to be a synonym of _incapable_. My question is: is _uncapable_ considered a "proper" word?


"Same old, same old"

"It is the same old, same old style." In this sentence, what kind of phrase is _same old same old_? Is it a adjective?


Is there an English word meaning "snacks eaten as an accompaniment while drinking alcohol"?

I'm currently travelling in Korea and Japan and learned that both languages have words specifically for snacks that accompany alcoholic drinks, or at least go with beer and spirits such as sake or soju. It can include but is not limited to chips and nuts, sometimes salty or spicy. But it occurred to me that English doesn't have an equivalent word. The best I can think of are "snack", "munchies", "nibbles", and "finger food". For those wondering, the Japanese word is "おつまみ" (otsumami) and the Korean word is "안주" (anju). What's the best English word for a drinking snack?


Using "can" to express future ability

To refer to future ability we should strictly use _will be able to_ in certain instances, while in other cases it is possible to use either _can_ or _will be able to_. Why? How can one account for that convincingly? For example, > _I'll be able to use a typewriter perfectly after a few more lessons_ > > but > > _We can/will be able to sit at home tomorrow and watch the match in > comfort_.


What is the difference between "information", "data", "knowledge", "science"?

I know it may be dumb but what is the difference between the following words?   * _information_   * _data_   * _knowledge_   * _science_ Especially the difference between _data_ and _information_? I know it but cannot explain it well to my teacher.


Difference between "would have + past participle" and "would + bare infinitive" in the main clause of a past subjunctive sentence

I'm wondering about the difference in meaning, if any, between the two sentences in each of the following examples. Example 1. > a. If he was a serious leader, tackling the debt would have been a pillar of > the speech.   >  (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > b. If he was a serious leader, tackling the debt would be a pillar of the > speech. Example 2. > a. I am sure your father would have been upset if his boss got a gigantic > raise and he got nothing.   >  (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > b. I am sure your father would be upset if his boss got a gigantic raise and > he got nothing.


Division of a sentence into structural and functional parts

When I’ve first come across descriptive grammar it was really challenging for me to grasp the idea of division of a sentence into its constituent parts. As far as I remember, I failed to indicate the proper units constituting the structural and functional layers on many occasions, not to mention the time elapsed between the start and end of the task. Fortunately, after a while it all became clear and quite interesting to my surprise. With the following question and answer I would like to share my personal experience as an English language learner. > What is the difference between the **structural** and **functional** parts > of a sentence? > > Do these parts **overlap** with one another within a given syntactic unit? Feel free to improve my answer or post one yourself.


Use of "separation of church and state" in non-Christian countries

Does the term _separation of church and state_ also apply in non-Christian countries, for example Egypt? Can we say _separation of mosque and state_? Is there a generic, politically correct alternative that works for any country?


What is the difference between institution and department?

When I submitted manuscript to journal, I was asked to finish information on institution and/or department from, I'm a teacher of a college in an university, so, I filled the college in the institution column and university in the department column. it's right or not?


What is the difference between "cosmos", "world", "universe"?

Are these words different in meaning: _cosmos, world, universe_? Does _world_ mean just the Earth and not other planets?


Why place a hand on the Bible instead of the Judge's genitals when taking an oath?

Etymonline gives the etymology of _testify_ as > ...from testis "a witness".. + root of facere "to make"... Biblical sense of > "openly profess one's faith and devotion" is attested from 1520s. Related: > Testified; testifying; testification. (also, testament, intestate, etc.) In Biblical times, to swear a most sacred oath, the swearer made his oath by holding on to the oath-giver's genitals. > Abraham... said to the senior servant in his household... **Put your hand > under my thigh. I want you to swear by the Lord**... that you will not get a > wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites... So the servant **put > his hand under the thigh of his master** Abraham and swore... (Gen. 24) and > When the time drew near for Israel _(Jacob)_ to die, he called... Joseph and > said to him, **“...put your hand under my thigh and promise that you will... > not bury me in Egypt..."** Then Joseph swore to him, and Israel worshiped as > he leaned _on the top of his staff_. (Gen. 47) Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki (aka Rashi) explains in his commentary: > Since one (a Jew) who swears must take with his hand an article related to a > mitzvah... and circumcision was his [Abraham's] first mitzvah, and he had > fulfilled it with pain, **[Abraham's circumcised penis]** was dear to him; > so he took it. ( _bracketed expansions mine_ ) Others interpret (reason?) that this oath was sworn by holding the oath- giver's **testicles**. The Latin word for "witness, one who attests" is **_testis_** , as well as _testicles_ (from Latin testiculus, diminutive of testis). The Greek for spermaria is similarly derived. So, how did _testify, testimony, testament, protest, detest, contest,_ even Old and New **Testament** diverge so wildly from it's origins, to swear while holding someone's penis or _testicles_? Why don't we swear _by our balls, soft bits, tallywags, twiddle-diddles, goolies, trinkets, bollocks, nuts, or cojones_? Was there ever a time when such little things didn't make such big promises?


What do you call a man who knows well how to fix his household appliances?

Some men are really good at fixing things, especially the household appliances while they're not specialists or technician. Is there any words to explain these people?


How to pronounce the programmer's abbreviation "char"

In many programming languages, _char_ is a type name for character values. The word _character_ is pronounced with a [k] sound, but what about _char_? While trying to find the answer elsewhere, I learnt that there is an English word _char_ which is pronounced [tʃɑ:(r)], but it has nothing to do with characters. How would you read the following piece of code out loud?               char a;      Is it [kær], [tʃær] or [tʃɑ:(r)]? I've always used the last but I have no idea whether it's correct.


For those who know (who knows)

Which one sentence is correct: `"For those who know"` or `"For those who knows"`? Google gives me about the same number (1 070 000 vs 783 000) of search results.


Word for describing in a positive sense

What is a word that means to say in a positive sense? For instance, when writers say that a person was _sexually assaulted_ instead of saying _raped_. Or people use _let go_ instead of _fired_. What is that called?


Is this a Grill door? how do you narrate if some one opens or closes it?

![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/FQAhx.jpg) Is this a grill door? if not what do you call this type of doors? Old elevator systems uses this door. If a hinged door is opened, we use "push open", "pull open", "heave open", "dash open", "bang open" etc... How will you narrate the operation of this type of door.


Term for a quote's 'author' or 'creator'

I am looking for the correct term to describe a quote's author or creator. For example, the quote is: > If you are going to go through hell, keep going. The quotee/quoter/author(?) is: > Winston Churchill


"As evidenced by" or "as evident by"?

I have this sentence: > Group theory is one of my favourite areas in mathematics, as evidenced by > the fact that I chose to do two group theory modules in my undergraduate > course. I am wondering if it should be _evident_ instead of _evidenced_.


What is an adjective for "almost, but not entirely correct"?

I'm looking for an adjective, and I'll use an example to describe what I'm looking for. John says: _"It is impossible to stand on one hand."_ When in reality, it is _unimaginably difficult_ (one might also say, _statistically impossible_ ) to stand on one hand.* John's statement isn't necessarily _wrong_ , it's just incorrectly "rounded off" the slightest amount, and "technically correct, but not completely". Someone pedantic could correct John, saying: _"Your statement is ** ___ __ ___**."_


Present Perfect Continuous vs. Present Perfect

Which is correct, are both equally possible? "I've had a cold for the last three days." or "I've been having a cold for the last three days." "I haven't felt like this for ages." or "I haven't been feeling like this for ages." Is there a rule? I browsed similar topics here but I can't find an answer.


Does "abstruse" carry a positive or negative connotation?

_Generally_ , does the word "abstruse" give positive or negative (or neutral) connotations? For example, "daedal" and "profound" would generally be considered a word with positive connotations, whereas "confusing" would have negative connotations, and "abstract" would be neutral. I am aware that the entire sentence needs to be taken into context before we can determine the connotation, but with _just the word_ , what connotation does "abstruse" give generally?


I emailed a professor at Harvard for graduate study and he said he was nearing retirement and recommended his student working in Minnesota. I was going to reply him. Should I use this as a beginning: "It is a pity for me that I could not have the opportunity to work with you and under you supervision" It feels so weird. Thank you all~


What does “Live goes on, Wills to a heart” mean? What is the origin of this phrase?

I saw the phrase “ _Live goes on, Wills to a heart ... Japan_ ,” as the ending line of the article of Time magazine (April 6th), titled ‘A hard look at Japan’s debt problem.” Could you tell me what this line means, and where it came from. The article ends up with the following paragraph: “The leak from the reactors can be hazardous, but the patriotic Japanese can deal with it in a unison effort; even though the disaster may last a long time till there is a resolution to the destruction of Fukushima nuclear plants. _Live goes on, Wills to a heart--Japan.”_


What is the opposite of “patricide”?

What’s the opposite of the word _patricide_? I’m looking for the word that describes the act (or the person, to keep in similar vein with _suicide_ , _patricide_ , etc.) of a father killing his son out of malice. I’m not looking for _matricide_ , which I consider to be a related but not opposite term for _patricide_.


Can the name of a country always convey the name of a nation?

There is an old name of a country and its description: > Persia: The **land** and **people** in southwestern Asia from the ancient > Sassanian empire to the modern nation state of Iran, prior to 1935. I found the description wrong grammatically because the name only refers to the land not people who are Persians/Iranians not Persia. Is it correct to use the name of a country for the land and its people both in standard English? P.S: It is the link: http://meta.history.stackexchange.com/questions/416/some- mistakes-in-persias-tag-information and here: http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/persia but according to the link which has been sent by coleoptrist as a comment under this topic they have added something to the tag Persia recently so the content has changed!


Is there a difference between "opt" and "choose"?

Could you give examples where one is better suited than the other one? Or are they completely synonymous? (I'm not a native speaker.) **Update:** I'm writing a piece software documentation and I wonder if it's better to use _choose_ or _opt_ : > ... Note that these components can receive input themselves (although they > may **opt/choose** not to). ...


"England in sight of victory" vs. "Victory in sight for England"

> England in sight of victory This was the headline in a leading newspaper but I can't help but feel that there is something wrong in it. I would have phrased it as: > Victory in sight for England Which one is correct?


Should I write "that being said" (vs. "that's been said" or "Having said that")?

I often write what "sounds" right (being not a native English speaker/writer), and I believe the expression "that being said" to be fairly common, as opposed to a more complete form like "that's been said" or "Having said that". In doubt, I turn to google fight, which seems to confirm the common usage. (not exactly the right reference, I know.) Yet, I don't think that "that being said" is correct, especially in writing. "That said" is even more common. Is it also acceptable in writing? What expression would you use in formal writing? (Not too formal though: like a technical forum)


"That said" vs. "That being said"

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Should I write "that being said" (vs. "that's been said" or "Having said > that")? Is "that said" proper English? I see people use "that being said" more often, but I am not sure if this is correct. Thoughts? I've included an example of how I recently used "that said" below. > Most startups are looking to sell, whether that means selling early or > holding out for an IPO. **That said** , this is probably the best thing that > could have happened to Gowalla.


Having at one's disposal

> One has at one's disposal ... Is the following an acceptable synonymous phrase? > One has (the) disposal of ... It made sense to me initially, if a little more active than the first. But I've now said it so many times it's starting to sound right, wrong, and not like words at all.


"Border protection" vs "boarder protection"

Is the term _boarder protection_ valid? It has 52,500 results on Google. What is the difference between _boarder protection_ and _border protection_?


Is there such a word as 'tractless' and what does it mean?

I recall hearing the phrase 'tractless wilderness' but no dictionaries has 'tractless'. Up until now, I believed the meaning to be 'expansive'. There is a possibility that I'm confusing it with 'trackless', but I don't see how this would convey the same meaning as 'trackless' simply means without tracks.


Which tense should use? Present Perfect or Past?

Which of the following sentence is correct? "I have talked with him today. He wants to do the work" or "I talked with him today. He wants to do the work." Which tense I need to use at the sentence? Present Perfect or Past tense?


What is the basic meaning of 'blueprint'?

I just want to know the meaning of _blueprint_. Some websites say it's a method of printing, some say it merely means a pattern or design used by engineers or architects to document their ideas. I am really confused. Can someone explain to me the basic intention and meaning that underpins this word? If so, it would be much appreciated.


Why is "chore" pronounced differently from the "chore" in "choreography"?

How come the word "chore" is pronounced like it is, when the word "choreography", which has the same initial letter combination, is pronounced differently? Is there a phonetical rule to explain this?


In this interview on the TV show The Wire, David Simon (the show's creator) says: > Much of our modern theater seems rooted in the Shakespearean discovery of > the modern mind. [The show is] stealing instead from ... the Greeks ... to > create doomed and fated protagonists who confront a rigged game and their > own mortality. The modern mind ... finds such fatalism ancient and > discomfiting ... We are a pretty self-actualized, self-worshipping crowd of > postmoderns and the idea that for all of our wherewithal and discretionary > income and leisure, we’re still fated by indifferent gods, feels to us > antiquated and superstitious. We don’t accept our gods on such terms anymore > ... we don’t even grant Yahweh himself that kind of unbridled, > interventionist authority. What exactly is meant by "the Shakespearean discovery of the modern mind"?


Are the commas placed correctly?

Are these punctuated satisfactorily with the commas? If not, where else would you put them? He said that he didn't want to go, and quite frankly he shouldn't have. We can bill you on our customary terms, or if you'd like we can charge you directly. We can bill you on our customary terms or, if you'd like, can charge you directly.


How to categorize "grrrr", "errhh", "argh",..?

1. What are these called in English?   2. Are they same thing as "Gosh" or "Gee"?   3. Maybe sounds of emotional changes?


Overall structure, dashes and commas

The following sentence comes to me a bit intricate: > The ultimate responsibility still rests in the hands of Internet users who > vote – they, along with the officials elected to serve them, make up the > global community. I didn't understand the understand the use of the dash and the commas and what does the expression `Internet users who vote – they...` mean? Why did the writer use the personal pronoun "they " to refer to internet users? Does he need a new subject after the dash? What is after all the grammatical structure of this sentence? I need an overall explanation of this sentence, please!


"She" or "her" following "no one but"?

Which pronoun is correct in the following sentence? > No one but **her/she** ever made a perfect score on the test The answer according to the book is _"her"_ , but it is getting on my nerves. I tried solving it by making a different statement as follows: > She made a perfect score on the test Why does using "No one but" change it to accusative case?


History and heritage = hypernym and hyponym?

I'm not quite sure how to phrase my question...but anyways. History and heritage are often confused with one another. "Heritage is owned by someone or some group; history is not. History is what people study in order to preserve and extend their heritage." So, in a relationship between history and heritage, is history the **'hypernym'** and heritage the **'hyponym'**? I am not sure how correct these terms are, as it is my first time seeing them. I found them, with examples, on this website: http://www.fun-with- words.com/nym_words.html


What does "Every once in a while, however, you’ll find yourself crafting " mean?

My English is not good and I'm trying to improve it. I came across this sentence while reading an article, and I want to know what it means: > Every once in a while, however, you’ll find yourself crafting.


When ending a list with "etc", should there be a comma before "etc"?

When listing items and ending the list with "etc", should there be a comma before "etc"? E.g.               red, green, blue, etc      or               red, green, blue etc      Related question, though this one involves the word "and", so I am no sure if the answer applies to this question or not: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/412/comma-before-last-item-in-a- list


The first forty years of life give us the text, the next thirty supply the commentary

What does the following sentence mean? > _The first forty years of life give us the text, the next thirty supply the > commentary_ I can't see the link between the text and commentary.


"Perhaps" versus "probably"

Can I say > Perhaps the most natural option is to... instead of > The most natural option is probably to... Do these two sentences have the same meaning? Generally speaking, should I prefer one above the other?


Did English ever have a word for 'yes' for negative questions?

The Germans have _doch_ and the French have _si_ as a word that means "yes" in response to a negative question, such as: > Don't you want some ice-cream?   >  Yes [I do]! In English, we only have _yes_ (as far as I know) and further clarification is required in order to be unambiguous. Did we ever have such a word in English and, if so, what happened to it? If not, given the French and Germanic influences on English, any idea why not?


Can one be *highly* ambivalent?

I've always felt that it's something of a contradiction to be _very_ or _highly_ ambivalent. It's grammatically correct, as far as I know, but is it stylistically acceptable, or is my sense of linguistic style correct?


What does the phrase "point-blank" mean in "she refused point-blank to join in"?

> So she refused point-blank to join in. What does the expression _point-blank_ mean in this context? Could you give me some more examples of situations where this phrase could be used?


Is the word "throwee" acceptable?

I wanted to have a word to refer to the thing being thrown, so I decided to use the word "throwee". I can't find this word in online dictionaries, so I guess this word does not exist in the English language. However, I really like this word and I would like to continue using it in my written communication. I'm not a native speaker, but from my experience with the language, "xee" means "object/person being xed" (where "x" is a verb, e.g. "employee" - "person being employed"). So, what do you think? Is the word "throwee" acceptable? Is it OK if I continue to use it? Should I use a different word? * * * To provide context, I'm a JavaScript programmer. In the JavaScript programming language, there exists a `throw` statement, which throws values of various types (e.g. strings, numbers, objects).               // code examples     throw 123;     throw "Invalid argument";     throw new Error;      An usage example would be: > If the throwee is a _Number_ value, then... . which is more terse and IMO more readable than: > If the value being thrown is a _Number_ value, then...


Clear way of saying that one set of rules overrides another, if contradicts

I'm working on updating a constitution, but as it is for a non-incorporated entity it doesn't have to be legally perfect. I'm much more interested in clarity. Here is what I have at the moment: > If any of the regulations of the Guild, the rules of Societies Council, or > other provisions enrolled upon the Guild Statutes Book should disagree with > this any portion of this Constitution or with any Regulations, then those > rules shall be overruled. _Regulation_ is defined earlier in the document as > a rule or law that is passed by committee, with on going consequences to the > club. Basically: > If A,B, or C contradicts X or Y, then uses A, B or C instead


"Is" or "was" written by?

We usually speak of the events of a work of fiction in present tense, even though they may clearly have happened in the past: "Macbeth hallucinates a dagger floating before him." This is because the events of the work in a sense unfold as you're reading them, so they are always in the present. But does this extend to facts about the work itself? Specifically, does it extend to discussion of the work's authorship? Which of these sentences is more correct?   * _A Brief History of Time_ is written by Stephen Hawking.   * _A Brief History of Time_ was written by Stephen Hawking. Does the age of the work in question matter?   * _Macbeth_ is written by William Shakespeare.   * _Macbeth_ was written by William Shakespeare. Does it matter if the work is an ongoing series?   * _Welcome to Night Vale_ is written by Joseph Fink and Jeffrey Cranor.   * _Welcome to Night Vale_ was written by Joseph Fink and Jeffrey Cranor. Are there other subtleties I haven't thought of?


Difference between venture and adventure

Is there any difference between usage of words _venture_ and _adventure_? Is _venture_ a short form usage of _adventure_?


What is a better word for "works with" or "supplements"?

_Situation:_ A device does not require other special devices but works with standard equipment (and requires it to function properly). It is more that the device supplements the other devices. I am now looking for a different way to express something like this: > ... and does therefore **work with** standard equipment. Is there any better word for this?


What's the meaning of "lose steam"?

This is part of a comment made from a discussion on homeless people: > ...It would be nice to think that I'm going to be able to help turn his life > around but we'll have to see if he loses his steam or falls off the wagon. What does _lose steam_ mean? Since _falling off the wagon_ means to resume drinking after having stopped. I'm guessing _lose steam_ means something like to resume using harmful drugs after having stopped?


as of late vs of late

Which is correct? Is it "as of late" or "of late", is the "as" part necessary? Also, can you give me a couple of different examples of sentences using the two? Is there a word that is used similarly to those particular words, that i can use to substitute the words "as of late" and "of late" with, so i don't get confused and know how to use them? Does the following sentence "and as of late he has agreed to return home" make sense? If not, then can you restate the sentence? EDIT: The thing is I've already used the word recently (twice) in the same paragraph and i'm meant to be writing a formal letter. Is the sentence correct or not? Because this is the first time I've used this site and the answers are "disorderly". Thanks again :)


Alternative to the idiomatic phrase "highway robbery"

I was wondering whether there were any other alternatives to the phrase "highway robbery". I am trying to say the same thing in a light-hearted, but not too casual way.


Is there a word for a concept defined by the lack of something?

I have been trying to find a word that describes a concept that is only defined by the lack for something. For example, there isn't really any such thing as cold, it is a concept we use to describe the lack of heat. So is there a word to describe the kind of word that "cold" is?


Established as a rule through experimentation or statistics

There's a word that's slipped my mind. It's used for example to qualify findings through tests or statistics as opposed to formulae or hard science. Any ideas?


Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors - what category?

Is there a single-word category for the status Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors? I've heard it called as "batch status" but can't seem to find the right single-word category for it.


Is there a word for "umming"?

Is there a word for saying "um" or "uh", etc, during speaking? Or a word for "um" and "uh", etc?


Is it okay to say "that which"?

I know that there are certain times to use "that" (for restricting the noun) and certain times to use "which" (for adding information). How about "that which"?: > Truth is **that which** conforms to reality. "That" is here a demonstrative pronoun, but it seems that this usage of _which_ is incorrect. Is this okay? If it's not correct, how could I restate that sentence?


The difference between "take" and "last"

We say: "the meeting will last two hours". But we say: "how long does the flight take?" Please let me know the difference between _last_ and _take_ and when we should use each.


My leg is sparkles, my leg is pins

I am trying to improve my vocabulary translating lyrics of songs I like. Today is "Slow Show" by The National. Everything is pretty clear, but for one line: > My leg is sparkles, my leg is pins My understanding is that his (the singer's, speaking in first person) leg feels "pins and needles", numb. But I am not sure this is the case. For example, I didn't understand why "sparkles" and "pins" are plural while the subject is singular. In case you need context, you can find the lyrics here.


Equivalent of "anthropomorphism" for babies

_Anthropomorphism_ is about attributing human emotions to other animals. I have a one-month old baby at home, and was wondering if there was a corresponding word for attributing _adult_ human emotions to infants? If I say "she looks guilty", am I being _adultomorphic_?


Can "the fact that X" imply "X is a fact"?

> **A** : How do I know if my professor is good? > > **B** : Do you understand what he says? > > **A** : Yes, but that might be because I'm a natural genius, and not > necessarily the fact that he is good at teaching. > > **B** : Oh, you said _"the fact that he is good at teaching"_ \- so you are > already taking for granted that he is a good professor! > > **A** : You're an idiot. This scenario was just made up - this never actually happened to me. However, I thought it is possible nonetheless (very rare though). **Can** saying _"the fact that X"_ imply _"X is a fact"_? What could **A** say instead to _prevent_ **B** from using that logic?


What word could I use to describe this?

I'm trying to talk about how well two designs complement each other. My exact sentence is: "I will use the focus of the designs as a measure of complementness." However, "complementness" isn't a word (recognized by major dictionaries). What can I use instead to convey the same meaning?


Phrasing "An hour's rest"

I was just posting a question to the Homebrewing StackExchange, and I found myself pondering the proper way to express my sentiment. I first wrote "an hour's rest", but upon review, I deemed the apostrophe extraneous. What is the proper way to form this phrase? I can't make a case for the word 'hour' being plural or possessive, so I'm beginning to think the whole letter 's' is unnecessary. Thoughts, anyone?


"at the floor" vs. "on the floor"

For the following sentences: >   * He threw the book _at_ the floor. >   * He threw the book _on_ the floor. > I know the book hit the floor in both sentences but which one is more commonly used and also what's the difference between 'at' and 'on'? Do we acknowledge the exact position from 'at'?


Name and rules of this construction: "A somber man privately, Johnson had an acid humor."

I'm reading a book right now that in my opinion overuses a certain construct. It's used so much that it distracts from the content. Some examples: > Eccentric and egotistical, Berkeley was not so much interested in dance > steps as he was in camera movement. And: > A somber man privately, Johnson had an acid humor, quite different at the > dinner table … from what reached the screen. And: > Solely a screen actor, Gary Cooper mastered his craft so that he knew > exactly how to react for the camera.    ## 1\. Is there a term for this construct? I'm thinking maybe it's some kind of topicalized apposition? So you could start with > Gary Cooper, **solely a screen actor,** mastered his craft so that he knew > exactly how to react for the camera. and then pull the appositive phrase to the front to make the sentence interesting: > **Solely a screen actor,** Gary Cooper mastered his craft so that he knew > exactly how to react for the camera.    ## 2\. What is the relation between the phrases? There does seem to be some relationship between the phrases in the particular constructs I quoted: Johnson's somberness and acid humor obviously contrast one another; Cooper's mastered the specific craft of the screen actor; I suppose Berkeley's eccentricity accounts for his interests. That last one's less clear to me. But is this kind of relationship a requirement? Say I combine two phrases: > A big man, John Doe loved the color yellow. Could that just be one way of expressing two unrelated things in one sentence, or would the reader expect them to have a bearing on each other? I'm curious about the "rules" (whether written down somewhere, or the conventional usage, or your intuitions) of the relationship between the phrases in this construct.


Like Phrases like phrases

Phrases in a sentence such as: Like a bat out of hell. Like a scowled dog. Like a rabbit in heat. What are these "LIKE" phrases called?


Hyphenating spelled-out fractions with large numerators and/or denominators

I find myself in the awkward position of needing to systematically spell out fractions where the numerator, the denominator, or both have three or more digits, and I'm not sure about the hyphenation. For example, 124/145:   * one-hundred-twenty-four one-hundred-forty-fifths?   * one hundred twenty-four one hundred forty-fifths?   * something else?


What's the opposite of "precede"?

In the particular context that I'm in, I was writing about several lines of programming. For simplicity, let's call them:               line a     line b      First, I described `line a`. Great. Then I wanted to write about `line b`, but couldn't think of the way to describe the relationship between `b` and `a`. The closest I could think of was "follows", but to say "the following line" is ambiguous: it can refer to either the line of code after `line a`, or it can imply that I'm going to copy and paste `line b` into my text and reference it there (which was not the case). I ended up saying something to the effect of "`line a` precedes some code that...", but was wondering: If `line a` "precedes" `line b`, then what is the proper and unambiguous term for the relationship between `line b`, relative to `line a`? Postcede?


Is "once you stop to think about it" ambiguous?

I tripped over a phrase in a book similar to "Once you stop to think about it, the existence of rainbows is pretty amazing." Now, in context, it is pretty clear that I am supposed to stop my usual thoughtless existence to take some time thinking about rainbows, but literally, the phrase could mean that I should stop all this useless thinking to have time to appreciate rainbows more. Is the phrase "stop to think about it" actually ambiguous or is it always used in the sense of thinking?


Use of possessive form in this phrase?

In the following phrase, we are debating if a possessive genitive form should be used or not: > "Such mapping enabled the use of the classical statistical mechanics' tools" Should "classical statistical mechanics" be modified with the apostrophe to express a genitive form?


Is there a word that means, "Group with a distinguished member?"

A group can be defined as (link): > a number of persons or things ranged or considered together as being related > in some way. Now suppose one of those persons is a distinguished member - like a leader, or a shaman, or a coach. Is there an alternative to the word "group" which would emphasize this? I'm looking for a word that emphasizes that some particular member is "special", but not that they are necessarily "better", nor that people are arranged in some sort of a hierarchy.


"would I need" or "will I need" What is the correct sentence?

I don't know which sentence is correct for my formal letter?   1. As a foreigner will I need any work permit or personal accident insurance?   2. As a foreigner would I need any work permit or personal accident insurance? My teacher said that "will" is not correct but she also said that "summer" has to be "Summer", so I don't know if this sentence is correct or incorrect.


"Will graduate" vs. "will be graduated" vs. "is going to graduate"

Which of the following sentences are correct? >   1. He will graduate in May. >   2. He will be graduated in May. >   3. He is going to graduate in May. > Issue 1: Is the second one grammatical?   Issue 2: There is high uncertainty that cause he may not graduate in May, like fail one course?   Issue 3: In a formal letter, which one is correct? Besides, I heard from one of my friend whose mother tongue is not English: "I have been graduated from Boston university". Is that one grammatical as well? I know the second one is passive and not correct but in this article I saw somebody use it. Therefore I am confused.


_animus_ has the etymology of "breath, life", just like _animate_. How does animus have the meaning of ill will?


Could I use 'this' to introduce a person?

Which of the sentences below are correct? > This’s my best friend, William.   >  Those’re my classmates, James and Harry.   >  That’s my teacher, Mrs Wilson. UPDATE: I just took an exam. The correct sentence is the last one, but I don't understand why.


frontend, what does frontend mean?

front means ahead, infront , forward end means last point, finishing point, but what does FRONTEND mean? for example engineering design is clear to me, but "frontend engineering design" what exactly wants to tell us about engineering design? i am looking for an explanation for frontend without any prefix of suffix actualy. purely for " frontend".


Why use BCE/CE instead of BC/AD?

When I was a kid, I was always taught to refer to years using BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini / year of our Lord). However, I somewhat regularly hear people referring to years as in the CE (Common Era) or BCE (Before the Common Era). Why do people use the latter terminology? For one thing, I find it confusing. It doesn't help that BCE is similar to BC. But moreover, there is only one letter of difference between the two terms, whereas with BC and AD, the terms are clearly different and I find it easier to distinguish! Were BCE/CE established earlier than BC/AD?


Which of these sentences is correctly written?

Someone edited my message on StackOverflow, but it really bugs me out. I'm not sure what's wrong with it:   * As you see, the bigger the circle becomes, the more vertices I need for hiding the straight lines.   * As you see, the bigger the circle becomes, the more vertices I need to hide the straight lines. The latter (corrected) sentence just bugs me out for some reason. It would sound better if there was a comma after the word "need", perhaps, but I guess that would be even worse in means of grammatical correctness. Can someone explain why is the first sentence bad and the second sentence correct? And could there even be better solution to fix the first sentence?


Looking for a word that states an instance is immutable

If I have something that I don't want to change, is it proper to attach "candidate" to the end of it? So if someone applies for a job with an application, I would consider them to be a candidate, but would that also imply that the application would not change? (because perhaps a candidate is immutable) Is there a better word to use for an instance of something that is immutable?


Is spell-checking software becoming a linguistic authority?

It seems that‒whether intentionally or not‒spell-checking software in web browsers and productivity suites heavily influence our use of language. For example: in drafting a document, I found that my spelling dictionary did not include the word _unbeknownst_. The average user would likely take that as an indication of the word's obsolescence or nonexistence. Is there some discussion in the linguistics world around this impact and the effect it may have on the field?


Should "brother" be capitalized in a letter salutation?

John Smith, a member of my congregation, would be addressed as _brother_ in face-to-face conversation. If I write a letter to him, should I capitalize this word? For example, as in: > Dear Brother Smith,


Attribution: Quoting a Fictional Character

Famously: > "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."   >  \-- Yoda Thing is, this is from a movie. A writer wrote it and a voice actor spoke it. Is there a correct form of attribution for a case like this? If so, what?


Can a spoof and a dark comedy be the same?

I and a group of friends were watching a video on TV when one idiot from the group (who wasn't my friend but a friend's friend) wanting to sound intellectual claimed that the video was based on "dark humour". The rest of us downright disagreed and said that the video was a spoof or a satire but could never be dark comedy. This idiot not wanting to give up then claimed that the video was both a spoof and a dark comedy. We did not argue with him further on this as there as no point. But what piqued my curiosity was that could a film/video or a work of literature be both a dark comedy and a spoof? By the way I am not a native English speaker but have taken every care to write in proper English and I would appreciate it if you could correct any errors I've made and also answer my question.


"Which" or "where"?

A question of mine on another SE site was corrected from: > I am trying to determine where on Earth has the lowest gravity. To: > I am trying to determine which on Earth's surface has the lowest gravity. Why is "which" preferable to "where" in this sentence? **EDIT:** The intent of the original sentence was to express "At which location at or near the surface of the planet Earth will an arbitrary mass experience the least acceleration roughly in the direction of the planet's center of mass, assuming that no outside forces are bearing on the mass."


Possessive of "day" for "day's leave"

I need to request leave for one day and for more than one day. What's the correct way of using the word _day_? Which is correct for a single day of leave? >   * 1 day's leave >   * 1 day leave > What about more than one day? >   * 2 day's leave >   * 2 days' leave > Please clarify with explanation.


If an adult gets kidnapped, would it still be considered "kid"napping?

What's the other terms if adults get kidnap?


"I can't remember things as I used" — why not "as I used to"?

There's a line in _Alice in Wonderland_ : > I can't remember things as I used—and I don't keep the same size for ten > minutes together! I wonder why the 'to' has been omitted from the verb 'used to'. Shouldn't the line read "I can't remember things as I used to—and I don't keep the same size for ten minutes together!"?


Idiomatic phrase

What's the meaning of > ARE THE BLOODY COCKS STILL RUNNING THE COOP? Quote from the movie "Young Guns II" For those who are not native English speakers (85% of the world) these kind of phrases are almost unintelligible.


Grammatically correct form of "Way <infinitive phrase>"

There's a reasonably common idiomatic phrasing in the form "Way <infinitive phrase>!" that denotatively means "You did a good job of <whatever>", but is almost always used ironically. Examples include "Way to go!" or "Way to bury the lede!". (These are actually ironic in different ways, in that the first, presumably, is encouraging a good action when the action was bad, whereas the second is ironically encouraging a bad action.) This has been touched on before in Way to do something, but my question is: **What is the grammatically-correct complete sentence version of this formation? Or is it already and I'm not understanding how?** (Bolded because I've buried the lede.) I can't actually think of an instance where you'd need to use that basic formation formally; I just can't figure out its basis.


Comma after To at the beginning of a sentence

I am just writing my master thesis and I am unsure whether to place a comma in sentences starting with "To". Here are some examples:   * To be able to improve the performance[,] it is important to discover the performance issues first.   * To create consistent plans[,] there are two basic directions of planning: top-down or bottom-up.   * To acquire query plans[,] EXPLAIN PLAN statements have to be injected in the statements within the context of the application. Is the beginning an introductory phrase? I am German and therefore not familiar with English punctuation yet ...


What word or phrase describes pulling a fish out of water?

What would be the fishing word or phrase that describes pulling a fish out of water?


"Neither a minute" usage?

Which of the following sentences is more idiomatic or is there any other way to say it? >   1. In case neither a minute has gone since you left. >   2. In case a minute hasn't gone since you left. >


"Masters degree" — capital M or not?

When someone states "I have a Masters in Computer Science" should the word _masters_ have a capital M? I've seen arguments for both and can't determine which is correct.


Is there an apostrophe in a master's degree?

The question asks it all really. When referring to a master's degree, do you use an apostrophe or not? That is, is it "a master's" or "a masters"?


Does a person have two “masters’ degrees” or two “master’s degrees”?

When someone has more than one master’s degree, should these be described as have several _masters’_ degrees or several _master’s_ degrees? In other words, which of these two applies:   * (singular) a master’s degree > (plural) several **master’s** degrees   * (singular) a master’s degree > (plural) several **masters’** degrees Please note that this is a **different** question from what this has been marked as a duplicate of. That addresses the question for the singular. This question is about the plural case. There is definitely an apostrophe, but the question is where it should go.


Meaning of "throw some work your way"

I think probably the expression means to find job for someone, Is it a common expression or a word made inside the movie? > _I talked to him. He said he can "throw some work my way"._


what does "fancy-ass" mean?

What does **fancy-ass** mean in the following sentence: > _And after that, getting hired by some "fancy-ass"._


Is a comma followed by 'and' grammatically correct? For example: > This Agreement, and any and all disputes directly or indirectly arising...


Significance of BrE vs AmE in the US

I've been working on a thesis concerning the differences between British English and American English. I studied that in the past a standardization of American English was refused, even if spoken and written language were two different things in the United States, and this was because of the opposition of English purists. Today, American newspapers and academic books are written in American English? I mean, for example, they try not to use the past perfect or the present perfect where the British would use it and they prefer the past simple? In the educational system, is standard English that is taught or American English?


Consonant transposition: Why is "Wednesday" pronounced "Wensday"?

It appears like a couple of consonant sounds have been transposed. How, why did that happen?


Percentages of meanings in an English dictionary

Often when you look for some new word in a dictionary, you will find many definitions or meanings of the one word. For example when you look for a word _to_ in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary you will find the sorted list of 18 possible meanings of the word. The easier part of the question: The words are sorted according to what? The word frequencies? Is meaning number 1 is most often used? The harder part of the question: Is there a dictionary evaluating each item of the list (of meanings) with percentage? For example for the word _to_ it would look like:   1. in the direction of something; towards something (in 60 % of meanings)   2. to the something (of something) located in the direction mentioned from something (in 22 % of meanings)   3. as far as something (in 10 % of meanings)   4. ... (in 5 % of meanings)   5. ... (in 1 % of meanings)   6. ... (in 0.3 % of meanings) ... 18 ... (in 0.0001 of meanings) If such a dictionary does not exist and you know about some research about this, you can cite such a source.


Where did the phrase "I don't give a rat's ass" come from?

I would love to know the origin of this saying.


Should the word "then" be used instead of the word "than"

"If a size '2' is beautiful, than my size '22' must be glorious." I believe the word "then" should've been used instead of "than". Correct?


"Why couldn't" vs. "why couldn't you have"

Reading Harry Potter 2, I came across the following, and I wonder if the use of _couldn't have_ is the equivalent of _couldn't_ in this context? > "I have got a question, Oliver," said George, who had woken with a start. > "Why **couldn't you have** told us all this yesterday when we were all > awake?" If we change it to the following, how does it change the meaning of it? > "I have got a question, Oliver," said George, who had woken with a start. > "Why **couldn't you** tell us all this yesterday when we were all awake?" And what is the difference between the following? > If you **couldn't** do it, you should have told us yesterday. > > If you **couldn't have** done it, you should have told us yesterday.


Meaning of "I've been doing this long enough to drink"

Here is the context > I've been a software developer for twenty-one years -- among other things, > that means I've been doing this long enough to drink! ;-) But seriously, > though, I can't imagine doing anything else as well or as joyously as > programming. I'm apparently one of those rare birds that really love this > job. Is this an idiom ?


Is it awkward to use the word "aubergine" instead of "eggplant"?

According to Google Ngrams eggplant is far more common (although in British English aubergine seems to have a small advantage over eggplant). So, not being a native speaker of English I wonder whether using the word "aubergine" would be considered smug or weird by native speakers. The thing is that I find the word "aubergine" a bit more natural because it's basically the same as in German ( _Aubergine_ ) -- which happens to be my native language.


How do you say in English to "Declare something ownerless"?

What is the act of making something ownerless? All I've seen is to "declare something ownerless". However, in this statement one isn't so much as announcing as he is transferring something property. Moreover, if one wants to discuss his act of transferring, it wouldn't make sense to use the word "declare" (i.e "his declaration of making this item ownerless was ineffective" sounds like a mouthful).


What is the correct verb corresponding to the noun "summons"?

I have just seen this usage: > ... you have been summonsed ... My immediate reaction was one of (let's say) surprise; I would have thought the correct form was: > ... you have been _summoned_ ... Is there, in fact, a verb "to summons", and, if so, where did it come from?


How do you call the fact of taking a personality test?

I am looking for a noun that represents the fact of a user taking a personality test. I was thinking about `examination`, but it sounds like education/certification. _Context (unnecessary):   My website allows users to take personality tests.   It is a REST website, which means I have to use a noun for each type of data object.   The wording is quite important as it appears in the users' browser URL bar._


Why is "herself" required in this particular sentence?

Why is a reflexive pronoun, i.e. _herself_ , grammatically required in the following sentence? >   * I gave Susie a picture of herself. > Compare with: >   * I gave Susie a picture of her. > This sentence doesn't seem to be able to mean _I gave Susie a picture of Susie_. It means I gave her a picture of someone else. I've looked at the following page, but this type of usage doesn't seem to be covered there: >   * When is it correct to use “yourself” and “myself” (versus “you” and > “me”)? > The answers there suggest that we use reflexive pronouns when the subject and object of the verb are the same entity. _Herself_ isn't an object in the example above, and _Susie_ is not a subject either. The syntax in this example seems to be entirely different. Also, why is the following sentence not grammatical? >   * I went there by me. > ... as opposed to: >   * I went there by myself. > This last example, of course, is perfectly fine. So the question here is why does this so-called 'idiomatic usage' contain a reflexive instead of a normal pronoun. Lastly, why is a reflexive required in this imperative? >   * Do it yourself. > Compare with: >   * Do it you. > Note that _yourself_ isn't an object in that first sentence. (It would be if the sentence was _Watch yourself_ , for example. The object in the example, however, is _it_.) What then are the grammatical rules that stipulate the use of reflexive pronouns in these examples? **Edit note** I've changed the order of the examples here to take the focus off the probable emphatic usage in the imperative (although I'm still interested in the grammar here). I've also added a third example, which highlights more clearly the two issues I am most interested in hearing about:   1. Examples where we need a reflexive pronoun, but the pronoun isn't the object of a verb.   2. Examples, where the _antecedent_ , the original person or thing that the reflexive is duplicating, is not the _subject_ of a verb.  Any answers with relevant observations and or research would be very gratefully received, whether they address the whole question, or just parts of it. **Observations about the imperative example** Although I'm most concerned with the photograph example, I hereby offer some observations about the imperative one. Some of the interesting comments below suggest that _yourself_ here is an emphatic version of _you_. As RegEdit's answer points out, the example with _yourself_ seems to be contrastive. The sentence with _you_ , on the other hand, does not give the same reading. I wonder why that is? I note in passing that _yourself_ seems to be an adjunct ('adverbial') here. This makes it different from another emphatic use of pronouns, which is when a pronoun appears as the subject of an imperative:   * _You_ do it!  I originally gave the imperative example for two reasons. Firstly, the reflexive pronoun here is obviously not the object of the verb. Secondly, however, I gave it because there is no antecedent _word_ in this sentence which could be the _subject_ of the verb, or, which represents the same person as _yourself_. I am curious as to whether the rules requiring reflexive pronouns in emphatic usages, are basically the same ones that require us to use them the rest of the time. In other words, I return to my original question: Why is a reflexive pronoun required in this case?


The fear of not seeing one's mother ever again

Is there a word to describe the fear of never again seeing one's mother (or at least any person)? I have already checked the list of phobias that Wikipedia offers but could not find anything that fits the specific meaning I am looking for; perhaps there is such a word, but it does not have the word _phobia_ attached to it. Thanks.


help with the verb "is"

My friend told me about auxiliary (is); we are using _is_ after _what_ in questions like "What is his name?" and 'why there is' questions like "What season is it?". The main question is when to put _is_ after what and when to put _is_ after season and why ?


Idiom for "doing something pleasant and useful at the same time" with positive connotation

Is there a phraseme or idiom for "doing something useful (necessary) and pleasant at the same time" with positive connotation? For example - using a bike to get to work and back home is useful (because it allows you to train your body), and pleasant (if you go through the park or a forest, etc.). Or, another possible example - a boss may convince an employee to sign in for a business trip (to the North Pole) because it is useful to the firm and may be pleasant because the employee is an amateur photographer and will have a chance to take a photo of a polar bear. There is a Russian phraseme that is usable in both cases, but is there a similar one in English for at least one of the cases?


Any other way of saying "I share your opinion"?

"I divide your position" is the first that came to my mind, but I think it's definitely incorrect. Is there any phrase like this with "position", not "opinion"?


Is there word for person who committed suicide?

A person who committed a theft is a thief. A person who committed murder is a killer(or murderer?). What is a person who committed suicide?


The Usage of "Like Anything"

I am a non-native English speaker from India. I would like to know the usage of "`Like anything`" when you want to emphasize something you want to say. For example, "`He beat him like anything`", "`She laughs at me like anything`". Do native speakers use this kind of language when they want to intensify their sentences? Out of all, is it correct to use "`Like anything`"? Can someone please shed some light on this. Thank you in advance.


Is it correct to say "one year up in India"?

I want to say that I have just completed one year in India. Is the following sentence correct? > One year up in India...


Language settings description

I need a short description for some language settings in an app. You can set a text field behavior to support Latin characters (read left to right), Arabic and other languages that read right to left and languages like Greek that read left to right. How to describe that?


"By a certain route" vs. "via a certain route"

Which one is correct: >   * by a certain route >   * via a certain route > If "by a certain route" is beyond doubt, then when do we use "via"? I always thought that if we go along something (in this case, go along a route), then "via" is used ("via a route").


"You need to undergo the medical tests within 6 months from the departure date"

I want to make a statement that means you need to undergo the medical tests _not before_ 6 months from the date of departure. In other words, the medical tests should not be taken earlier than 6 months or trying again "within 6 months period prior to the departure date". I am confused as to which one is correct: >   1. You need to undergo the medical tests _within_ 6 months from the > departure date. >   2. You need to undergo the medical tests _not before_ 6 months from the > departure date. >   3. You need to undergo the medical tests _within 6 months period prior_ to > the departure date. > Please help with the correct wording. Emphasis used only to illustrate the troublesome part.


How could I explain this situation in email?

My PM given me project and told me develop new project using existing code, but existing project is not good written. I mean they written very difficult code for very simple things. I am quiet confuse, how could i write in mail that the existing project is not worth using. Please help me..


Is there a rule for the pronunciation of words with the suffix -ative?

I have observed that there are, at least, two patterns of pronunciation for words ending in _-ative_ :   1. The first syllable is stressed and the suffix is pronounced as `/eɪtɪv/` (e.g. qualitative)   2. The second syllable is stressed and the suffix is pronounced as `/ətɪv/` (e.g. declarative) Is there a way (other than memorizing them all, of course) to know how a certain word ending in _-ative_ is pronounced?


Is “Studying will help me with achieving my dreams” grammatical?

I need to take sentences out of a transcript, so I can’t change the structure of this particular sentence. I can either use it in my work as a grammatically correct sentence, or I can't. I just wanted to know whether the sentence is grammatically correct.


Question regarding “Two kinds of”

Which of these two is correct, and why?   * two kinds of televisions    * two kinds of television


"Except for" vs. "except on"

I want to say that I have time to do the homework _only_ on Sunday and on no other day.   So can you help me choose which of the following sentences are considered idiomatic and common for native English-speakers or, if none of my examples is acceptable, suggest what I might say instead? >   1. Except on Sunday, I do not have much time available for doing the > homework. >   2. Except for Sunday, I do not have much time available for doing the > homework. >   3. Besides Sunday, I do not have much time available for doing the > homework. >   4. Other than Sunday, I do not have much time available for doing the > homework. >


Past perfect sentence construction

This is an example sentence demonstrating the usage of past perfect: > I checked with the supplier and they still hadn't received the contract. In this case the timeline rule works out as it should. Now, if I modify the sentence a little bit. > I had just checked with the supplier and they still haven't received the > contract. Is the second sentence grammatically correct? If so, which one of these would one say as verbally pleasant?


What's the opposite of "omniscient"?

What's the opposite of _omniscient_ , which means having infinite knowledge, or simply "all- knowing"? Thesaurus.com shows these possible words:   1. **stupid** (opposite of being clever, which ≠ being omniscient)   2. **unknowing** (opposite of being knowing, which ≠ being omniscient)   3. **fallible** (opposite of being infallible, which means "not able to make mistakes", which ≠ being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes)   4. **erring** (which means "capable of making mistakes", which ≠ being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes)   5. **imperfect** (opposite of being perfect, which is a superset of being omniscient... how could I be perfect if I'm both omniscient and fallible?)   6. **faulty** (which means "to have fault(s) / defect(s)", is the opposite of "to have no fault(s) / defect(s)", which means being perfect, which ≠ being omniscient)   7. **ignorant** (which means "having inadequate knowledge", is the opposite of "having adequate knowledge", which ≠ having _infinite_ knowledge)   8. **uneducated** (opposite of being educated, which ≠ being omniscient)   9. **unaware** (opposite of being aware, which ≠ being omniscient)   10. **uninformed** (opposite of being informed, which ≠ being omniscient) Yet, none of them are _true_ antonyms for _omniscient_. Is there an alternative? What's another word for "not knowing everything"?


Talking about skills level, which adjective fits better: "intermediate" or "medium"?

I thought "intermediate" was the appropriate label for the second of a three- level system of grading skills level, but I just saw a CV template on which the levels are defined as "basic", "medium", and "advanced". This made me wonder which one is more appropriate.


Is it grammatical to finish a sentence with "also"?

In the following text, I wonder if it's grammatical to finish the sentence with _also_. it does sound weird to me. The sentence sound incomplete somehow and makes the audience wait for more. > Here this equation must be understood to mean not only that both sides have > the same value when they are defined, but also that when either side of the > equation is undefined, the other is also. I know it's _the other is also [undefined]_ , but I've never seen a construction like that. If it's grammatical, what is it called?


'by mistakenly, he dropped it' is it grammatically correct?

Can I use both words 'by mistakenly' together? I feel that either I can put it as ' by mistake' or as' mistakenly' but not together.


What is the difference between "any" and "all"?

I am currently designing a web application, and have got into a bit of an argument with the boss over the correct language to use on a search form. Below is the form in question: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/RBs0d.jpg) The options here will filter the results, so for example if nothing is selected from the Status dropdown, all jobs will be shown regardless of status, whereas if a status is selected, only jobs with that specific status will be displayed. A job may only have one status, and be assigned to one client. The wording of the text for the default Client & Status texts are causing some confusion. At present they are set to "All Clients" and "All Statuses", however it is being argued that this should read "Any Client" or "Any Status". Which would be the correct text to show in this situation, and what is the difference between "any" and "all"?


Divide two into four and Divide two by four

Why does "divide two into four" equal **two** , and "divide two by four" equal **one half**? Correct if I am wrong, but this what I have learned recently.


Origin of the word "spraunce"

I was recently talking to someone who said a restaurant was **spraunce** , meaning it was well-presented and high-quality (that being the sense I was familiar with). We briefly discussed the fact that he thought _spraunce_ also implied _expensive_ , whereas I wasn't aware of that connotation. I was surprised when it turned out none of several other people in that conversation knew the word at all. Even more surprised to find out later that it doesn't seem to be in any dictionaries. And positively gobsmacked after going online and discovering even Google doesn't seem to know it. It took me several minutes to unearth this single reference, where it's actually _to spraunce up_. That clearly suggests alliteration / confusion with to _spruce up_. I'm happy to accept that as being a possible component of the origin, but it doesn't really feel like the whole story. Does anyone else know the word? Or anything about its origins and usage?


Opposites, when dealing with adjectives and objects together

If we have the sentence, "Bob had blinding love for Susan." would the opposite be: "Bob had blinding hatred for Susan" or: "Bob had clear hatred for Susan"?


/ð/ → /d/ shift in English

As a result of a /d/ → /ð/ shift, _fæder_ became _father_ , _hider_ became _hither_ and _togædere_ became _together_ , giving us our modern English forms. However, I know that _murder_ and _burden_ have archaic forms- _murther_ and _burthen_. This means a shift from /ð/ → /d/ also happened, doesn't it? The High German Consonant Shift turned /ð/ →/d/, a change that affects modern German and Dutch. The English _that_ and Icelandic _það_ versus the German _das_ highlight this change, but it also went the other way- German _tot_ versus English _dead_. My questions: 1.) When did this consonant shift happen in English? Etymonline mentions 12c. 2.) What are some more examples of the /ð/ → /d/ in English words? 3.) How is the shift mirrored in other Germanic languages?


"Complement" or "supplement"?

On a site similar to this one I answered a question and the OP made a comment which prompted me to complete my answer in an edit. I called it "an example" but I originally wanted to call it "supplement" or "complement". So, I wonder: is either of these titles correct in this context? Both? Both with a different nuance of meaning?


Meaning of "fl." and "seq."

Currently I am reading a book titled _Configurations of culture growth_ by the American anthropologist Alfred Louis Kroeber. Part of his book consists of tables that iist eminent people from all fields of human activity (science, literature, drama, painting, sculpture, ...). Next to some of the names are abbreviations like "b." (born), "d." (died), "r." (reigned) and "ca." (circa). But there are two abbreviations whose meanings are unknown to me, namely "fl." and "seq.". Do you know what they mean? Here is an excerpt from Google Books: ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/1ugKg.png)


How to divide words into syllables?

For example "my class" - are the syllables in this "mike" and "lass" or "my" and then "class", another one is "recent" - are the syllables "reese" and "ent" or "ree" and "sent"?


Use of "concretely" for "specifically"

I have sometimes seen people using _concretely_ in places where I would normally use _specifically_. I am not sure if both words correctly apply or if _concretely_ is just a mistranslation from another language. For example: > We do have contacts with people abroad, **concretely** with various trade > unions... > > We will only deal with mathematical problems, or, more **concretely** , with > a certain subset of such problems. > > We detected certain problems with some measures, **concretely** with the > extreme values obtained from some indicators. Is this correct?


"Niveous" poetic synonyms

Are there any more poetic synonyms for "snow-white" and "niveous"? I was searching but I've only found "nival".


“Most of them plant based”

> What's remarkable is that so many of the claims made for some of these > remedies, or at least their ingredients, most of them plant based, have > since been found to have at least some basis in fact. I am confused by **“most of them plant based”** Is the word _plant_ acting as a verb in this sentence?


She was eight years her elder!

Would you please tell me what the following sentence mean? Who is older than who? Janet's sister was eight years her elder.


Word for secret or in-joke

There is a word, somewhere in my dictionary, that means a joke that only a particular group understands i.e., _in-joke_. I can't remember it and have failed to find it with an online thesaurus, but it is particular to the idea of a joke and not just secret knowledge such as _arcane_ or _esoteric_.


Meaning of “it” in “it [. . .] settled into its unbreakable parts”

Please help me understand the meaning of “settled into its unbreakable parts” as used in this excerpt below from Flannery O’Connor’s _The Violent Bear It Away_ : > He was sitting forward on the seat, looking out the window at a hill covered > with old used-car bodies. In the indistinct darkness, they seemed to be > drowning into the ground, about half-submerged already. The city hung in > front of them on the side of the mountain as if it were a larger part of the > same pile, not yet buried so deep. The fire had gone out of it and **_it_ > appeared settled into its unbreakable parts**. > > The boy did not intend to go to the schoolteacher’s until daylight and [. . > . .] Please tell me what the _it_ refers to here. Is it the _city_ , or the _fire_?


An idiom meaning someone's doing something useless and has no result at the end

In my native language, we use an idiom to warn someone that they're doing something which has no result at the end: > Trying to convince him is like squashing water ... Is there any idiom in English with the same meaning?


Is there an American English equivalent of the British idiom "carrying coals to Newcastle"?

I'm an American living in the Netherlands who is learning Dutch. There's an idiom in Dutch that describes performing a needless/futile activity, "water naar de zee dragen," which literally translates to "carrying water to the sea." My Dutch parents-in-law asked me if there was an English equivalent, but I couldn't think of one. In doing some searches online, I found that the English translation given for the this idiom is always "carrying coals to Newcastle." This was the first time I'd ever come across the phrase, and subsequent searches revealed that it was indeed of British origin, though one site I found did claim that it was an American phrase. However, neither I nor any of my culturally American friends have ever heard of this phrase. Is there an American English idiom or phrase that carries the same connotations for carrying out a futile activity?


Can I use an explicit verb in a comparison clause?

It seems that I often write something like this: > The sizes of these datasets seem to grow faster than the processing power of > computers does. Now, a longish text I'd written was proofread (by a non-professional) and in every case the suggested correction was as follows: > The sizes of these datasets seem to grow faster than the processing power of > computers. (Yes – only the last word was deleted by the proofreader.) Being a non-native user, I'd like to ask if the way of writing that I've adopted from who-knows-where is always wrong. (Personally, I feel that in some cases – too long sentences maybe – it clarifies my intention slightly.)


Can you "regret" someone else's action?

I have rarely heard _regret_ used like this, and while it sounds wrong to me, the dictionary doesn't appear to preclude this usage. Dictionary.com: > **Regret** > > **1.** to feel sorrow or remorse for (an act, fault, disappointment, etc.): > _He no sooner spoke than he regretted it._ > > **2.** to think of with a sense of loss: _to regret one's vanished youth._ For example, is the following correct? > He always regretted her impulsive decisions.


What is the origin / history of "can't seem"?

The construct "I _can't seem_ to X" is widely used and considered normal, as far as I know. However, looking at the meanings of the verb "to seem", I can't find any that would fit the use in this phrase. Has "to seem" ever meant something else? Is this phrase a contraction of a longer phrase?


Why does my grammar check want to correct "versus" to "or"?

I typed the following sentence into Google Docs: > The calculation becomes more involved, since there are several different > ways to use the silicon wafers (polycrystalline versus monocrystalline). The word _versus_ was underlined in red, and right-clicking yielded > Did you mean: **or** What's going on here? Fwiw, it does the same thing if I use _vs_ instead of _versus_.


What are the meaning and possible origin of "word!" and "word up"?

Several times, I have had conversations, all over instant messenger, finish with "word" or "Word up G". As it ends a conversation, I am guessing it is like "goodbye". My question is what is the meaning of "word" and "word up g"? Also, what is the origin? I am more interested in the meaning as that will help with understanding its usage.


Word up, and where it came from

I'm aware of English's unpredictable nature in wording, but this phrase got me thinking. What is the origination of the phrase `word up`... a lot of times shortened to just `word!` I understand the meaning of the phrase to be:   * Great!   * Alright!   * Ok!   * I agree!   * That's awesome! , but how did `word` end up being a synonym for these?


A phrase for "extremely bad luck"

Is there a (short) phrase or idiom meaning that someone had `extremely bad luck`? In the context of a sports match: as you would have a "perfect game" or the even more specific "perfect hand" (when playing cards); that would mean having such good luck that you couldn't possibly lose. I'm looking for a phrase with the opposite meaning: having such bad luck that the players can't possibly win, no matter what they do. I'm looking for something with a stronger implication than just _"a bad luck streak"_. For example, similar in meaning to _"a terrible game"_ or _"a disaster/debacle"_ , but which also implies that it was based solely on chance, not on the players doing something wrong (the way _"terrible"_ implies). Is there a way to convey this meaning in a single phrase, without an additional clause or sentence explaining it? Either a general-purpose or sports-related term would do