How did the letter Z become to be associated with sleeping/snoring?

In cartoons and comics it's not uncommon to see a series of Zs to indicate that a person is in deep slumber, such as in the following political cartoon. ![enter image description here](http://i.stack.imgur.com/LVs33.jpg) How and when did the letter Z become to be associated with sleeping?


What's the point of omitting the "e", as in "sceptered" going to "scepter'd", in English poetry?

These are a few of my favorite lines of Shakespearean poetry: > Methinks I am a prophet new **inspir’d** ,   >  And thus expiring do foretell of him:   >  His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last,   >  For violent fires soon burn out themselves;   >  Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short;   >  He tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes;   >  With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder:   >  Light vanity, insatiate cormorant,   >  Consuming means, soon preys upon itself. > > This royal throne of kings, this **scepter’d** isle,   >  This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,   >  This other Eden, demi-paradise,   >  This fortress built by Nature for herself   >  Against infection and the hand of war,   >  This happy breed of men, this little world,   >  This precious stone set in the silver sea,   >  Which serves it in the office of a wall,   >  Or as a moat defensive to a house,   >  Against the envy of less happier lands,   >  This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England. What I don't understand, though, is the removal of the 'e' by Shakespeare, and other poets who do this, like Tennyson. I've always read diacritics are applied by some poets to change the pronunciation, so as to keep the meter, but how on Earth is _inspired_ pronounced differently from _inspir'd_ , or _sceptered_ from _scepter'd_? Why are they doing this?


Why do they call a murder a "red ball" case?

Not being a native speaker, I wonder why they call a murder a "red ball" case ("redball" or "red-ball") in certain TV-shows and films. Specifically this expression is often heard in TV-shows like The Wire and not least in the film Minority Report (2002). Where does the expression come from?


"Do you still want me to do X" vs. "do you still want that I do X"

Which is correct? >   * Do you still want me **to** do the project for you? >   * Do you still want **that** I do the project for you? >


What is the meaning of "is must to "

I have read this sentence but I can not understand it. Under which circumstances is this type of sentence is? Also, please tell me which grammar rule has been applied. > they will open our salary account so it is must to bring the originals Can anyone explain it?


An abundance of knees

Terry Pratchett is particularly fond of knees. More than once, he has used an expression describing an abundance of knees, or an excess of knees, or suddenly growign extra knees, to describe his characters. While the concept is, visually, one I can understand, I feel like I am not quite getting the exact meaning of this 'knee-abundance' he writes about so often. Particularly in Mort, where the main character has an abundance of knees, and in Jingo, where a camel grows 'extra knees' as it speeds up. The former being used to describe an unfortunate trait that I don't quite get, and the latter simply describing the camel's sudden increase in speed. Is this a regular expression in British English, where a person grows or has an abundance of knees? Or is Pratchett just making up an expression that manages to fly over my head?


What is a catchy word that means (non-)self-descriptive

I'm having fun with paradoxes, and I'm trying to come up with a catchy word for non-self-descriptive. Maybe "autosemantic" fits the bill for self- descriptive (definitely open to other suggestions!), but I'm having a hard time negating it in a natural way. For an example of the sentence I'm trying to construct: > Is "inautosemantic" inautosemantic? It just isn't flowing.


Is it correct to say "quantitative zeal" to mean an enthusiasm for maths?

If one was wanting to say that someone had a passion/enthusiasm for something like mathematics, can it be said that "they have [a] quantitative zeal" or "they are full of quantitative zeal"? I normally think of zeal to mean excitement or enthusiasm; however, I felt that saying something like: "they had a zeal for mathematics" seemed awkward, and I would probably look for something else if I couldn't use the first usage I mentioned.


Term for someone who has experienced many hardships

I was speaking with an acquaintance recently and a discussion came up in which I desperately needed a word to describe someone who has experienced many hardships throughout his life. Does such a word exist, or would I have to make do with a phrase? **EDIT:** Thank you all for your answers; it is greatly appreciated. This question has gained popularity, but none of the current answers provide a word that matches the description I was looking for. I'll elaborate a bit based on the comments on this question. The person experiencing the hardships gained much knowledge and wisdom from them. Their life was not necessarily affected negatively or positively by the hardships that they faced. Good luck in searching for the word (and even though I no longer need it, I'm dying to know).


comma before subordinating conjunction "where"

I have three examples **where** I am confused about comma usage with the subordinating conjunction 'where': a) The primal algorithms broadly correspond to implicit congestion control mechanisms **where** noisy feedback from the network is averaged at some sources using increase/decrease rules, which are commonly found in ..." b) For relatively explicit algorithms, they broadly correspond to congestion control approaches **where** sources can adjust their sending rates according to certain algorithms in response to the congestion information fed back by links." c) The fully explicit algorithms broadly correspond to the explicit congestion control protocols **where** the links directly allocate their capacities to the passing flows by feeding back the allowed sending rate back to sources. My question is this: Should I precede the subordinating conjunction 'where' with a comma in the above cases? In addition, is it always the case?


The condition for saying “You’re the door on the right.” etc. and its construction

This question is a spin-off from “Is _you’re the door on the right._ grammatically correct?” . After the original question, some ideas came to me, about its conditions and construction. I opened this question to see if my ideas are worth considering and to organize them. > "There." They had reached the second landing. " **You're the door on the > right.** I'll call you when it's over!" And she hurried off downstairs > again. ( _Harry Potter 5_ [US Version]: p.62) [Bold font is mine] **N.B.:** The speaker is Mrs. Weasely, who led Harry to his room. **Questions:** **1\. Just from the sentence _You’re the door on the right._ , would you have an impression there’re other people than _you_?** (I believe that the form of the sentence implies **the existence of a group of people**.) **2\. In new situations** (This time, the subject is _I_ ) **1) There’s no assignment.** The rooms are available on a first-come-first-served basis. Mrs. Weasley brings Harry upstairs just to let him know where the rooms are and to tell him he can choose whichever he likes. In this case, can Harry say like this? :“Oh, I see. Thanks. I’m the door on the right (meaning ‘I’ll use the room on the right side’)” **2) There’s an assignment.** The guests including Harry knew the layout of the rooms and already decided the assignment of the rooms by themselves. Mrs. Weasley, who doesn’t know which room is assigned to whom, brings Harry upstairs just to let him know where the rooms are. In this case, can Harry say like this? : “Oh, I see. Thanks. I’m the door on the right (meaning ‘my room is at the door on the right.’)” (I believe that **some assignment in advance** is one of the most important conditions of this form, whether the subject is I or you. Therefore if such assignment doesn’t exist, the acceptability of this form, I think, is lower or zero. I would think 1) is less acceptable than 2).) **3\. Can Mrs. Weasley in the top citation say “You’re the room on the right.” instead of “You’re the door on the right.”?** (I believe that **the subject of this form includes the thing which assigned to him or her.** I wouldn’t think she can say you’re the room on the right. because the subject you already has room in it.) I know these questions are not enough to understand the form completely, but I hope I can get some clues about its conditions and construction. Thank you.


> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Origin of the phrase, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." what is the origin of the expression "there is more than one way to skin a cat"? I can't find a good reference for it.


the phrase "to skin a cat"

i've been informed that this is actually an incorrect rendition of an old english nautical term (there is more than one way to swing a cat) referencing the use of a cat-o-nine tails under different circumstances (below decks/limited height, etc.) Any verifications?


"As the song says"?

I want to quote something from a song and say something like "this is just like in this song." What is the correct phrasing between the following sentences? > But, as song says, "now you have it, now you don't."   >  But, as THE song says, "now you have it, now you don't." Based on some answers I added an extra question. Would the following sentence be more correct? > But, just like in the song, "now you have it, now you don't"?


A word for the feeling of not being able to stand the smell of alcohol

Is there a word for the feeling someone may have who recently had a blackout or was so hungover that they can't even stand smelling something alcoholic? You know what I mean; the feeling that makes you throw up if you smell or drink an alcoholic beverage. Something like alcoholo-phobic?


We can see the shrine "become/becomes" big

I'm correcting some writing and the student wrote, > We can see the shrine **become** big, little by little, from the ferry. As far as I'm concerned, it's grammatically okay, but I'm having trouble explaining why it shouldn't be 'becomes big'. For the life of me I couldn't find the correct way to refer to the grammar involved here. Also, I feel like _becoming bigger_ or _getting bigger_ might convey her meaning more accurately, but that _become big_ still gets a pass. Am I right? I appreciate any help you can give me.


Reasons why is English the best language for scientific papers

**Can you help me with some good arguments to prove that English is the best language for scientific writings?** (some hard-core scientific articles would be nice). I'm from Slovakia. Few weeks ago I receive a response from my University which states that I am not allowed to write my "pre-dissertation" thesis in English. I have a plan to write an "open letter" to the University. note: _I am fully aware that my English is not as perfect as of native speaker. But writing thesis in international language is a way how to easily train to write articles to scientific journals._


Putting “interested”  before the noun

Why can’t words like _interested_ and other similar past participles, which are adjectives, be placed before their noun? I was taught an adjective can be placed before noun to describe it. When asked, my teacher does not seem to give me a clear explanation why I cannot put an adjective like _interested_ before noun.


What happened to the “‑est” and “‑eth” verb suffixes in English?

What happened to them, and how were they once used? Straining my mind to sound archaic, I came up with the following: > Dost thou **thinkest** thou can escape thy sins? and > **Bringeth** me mine armor and favorite sword. I’d like to use these suffixes intelligently, so my questions are: how are _‑est_ and _‑eth_ properly appellated in conjugations, and when and why did they disappear?


Is the expression "What hath alienators wrought" correct, concordance-wise?

I have seen the phrase "What hath alienators wrought" in the name of an article. Searching throught the web I learned that "hath" is the version of "has" in old English, but in the singular case (mostly used in the phrase "What hath God wrought", I guess it's biblical). Therefore, I am guessing that the phrase "What hath alienators wrought" is wrong and should be "What have alienators wrought". Can someone tell me if I'm correct in my guessing or nor, and why? Thanks.


How the English verb conjugation does not have different suffixes?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What happened to the "-est" and "-eth" verb suffixes in English? How were > they once used?   >  How do you conjugate Early Modern English verbs (other than present tense)? In all the languages I know about, including German - the cousin of the English language, all the verbs use different suffixes for conjugation. English uses a far simpler conjugation method (only add s for he/she) and has some irregular verbs. My questions are: Are there other languages with similar grammar for conjugation? How this special feature of the language came to light? Is there info about the time/way/reasons it was formed?


Using "must have" in the past

I know the must have/must had thing has been asked before but I have yet to see it in the context of this question. Does "have" make grammatical sense in the following? It sounds like it conflicts with the "at that point in time." "I remember clearly my seventh birthday (and my subsequent trip to the hospital). At that point in time, I must **have** been told a thousand times not to stick things in the toaster." The main problem I'm having in my head is that if you take out the "must" then it would be grammatically correct to say "At that point in time, I had been told a thousand times..." Yet once you put the "must" in, it seems incorrect to use "had." This is my main question.


Proper term for "ending punctuation"?

Proper English sentences can end with various types of punctuation characters: periods ("."), question-marks ("?"), exclamations ("!"), etc. **Is there a proper terminology for these kinds of sentence-terminating punctuation characters?**   * Ending punctuations?   * Terminating punctuations?   * Finalizers? Thanks in advance!


Adverb of "English"

Dictionary.com defines _Englishly_ as _in the manner or style of the English people_. Is there an adverb for the word _English_ in the sense of English language? Is there one word for saying _in English_?


GRE reading comprehension

The following passage is given: > Recently an unusually high number of dolphins have been found dead of > infectious diseases, and most of these had abnormally high tissue > concentrations of certain compounds that, even in low concentrations, reduce > dolphins’ resistance to infection. The only source of these compounds in the > dolphins’ environment is boat paint. Therefore, since dolphins rid their > bodies of the compounds rapidly once exposure ceases, their mortality rate > should decline rapidly if such boat paints are banned. Then there is the question: > Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? > >> A- The levels of the compounds typically used in boat paints today are lower than they were in boat paints manufactured a decade ago. >> >> B- In high concentrations, the compounds are toxic to many types of marine animals. >> >> C- The compounds break down into harmless substances after a few months of exposure to water or air. >> >> D- High tissue levels of the compounds have recently been found in some marine animals, but there is no record of any of those animals dying in unusually large numbers recently. >> >> E- The compounds do not leach out of the boat paint if the paint is applied exactly in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions. The "answer" is **C** , but I don't understand why that is? Doesn't **C** have the opposite effect? Since boats don't directly come in contact with sea water after being painted, and the fact that they are exposed to the air for some time before use reduces the chances of these compounds to contaminate the sea. The only choice that seems to me to be relatively correct is **B**.


Should I use the past tense for things that are still the same as before?

I am writing a personal statement for applying to a school, and I have a question about past tense. The following paragraph describes things that happened several years ago: > My school is located in a rural area and has an extremely small Asian- > student body. During my first semester, I did not have a car and could not > go anywhere outside of the school. My question is: since I am describing things which happened in the past, should the first sentence be past tense? But I think the first sentence is describing something that has not changed now, so present tense is okay as well?


What’s a word for someone who dislikes language change?

A couple of weeks ago I came across a word meaning someone who dislikes language change. Despite my joy at learning that English has a word for this, I can’t for the life of me remember what the word actually is. I’ve Googled many variants, tried reverse dictionary, and am now crawling through a list of more than 1200 words ending in _‑ist_. Does anyone know a word (ending in _‑ist_ ) that means a person who dislikes changes to language?


Style of this sentence

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a name for inverting word order to accomplish a different meaning? I came across this sentence recently and I was wondering what is this repetitive style called? Also, can anyone provide me with another few interesting examples of sentences like this? > I wish people would say what they mean and mean what they say.


Name of literary device and examples

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a name for inverting word order to accomplish a different meaning?   >  “Some champagne for my real friends, some real pain for my sham friends.”   >  Style of this sentence I recall once knowing a name for a statement like "I love to hate and hate to love." What is the name? I am also interested in other examples of this from popular poetry, music lyrics, etc.


What type of a literary device is this?

> A murdering thief or a thieving murderer. I have looked up all possible literary devices, and can't seem to find one...


Is there a name for this kind of phrase?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is there a name for inverting word order to accomplish a different meaning?   >  "Some champagne for my real friends, some real pain for my sham friends." Is there any one similar kind of phrase here, what are they called? For example : > 1) Why do we park on Driveways and Drive on Parkways ? > > 2) Why are apartments together? What are these phrases called?


What is “Build We Won’t” in complete form?

New York Times (July 3) carries an article written by its Op-Ed columnist, Paul Krugman under the title, “Build We Won’t.” in which the author claims; > “In prosperous times, public spending on roads, bridges and so on competes > with the private sector for resources. Since 2008, however, our economy has > been awash in unemployed workers and capital with no place to go. Putting > those idle resources to work building useful stuff should have been a no- > brainer. --- Everyone from progressive think tanks to the United States > Chamber of Commerce thinks we need good roads. Yet the combination of anti- > tax ideology and deficit hysteria that mostly whipped up in an attempt to > bully President Obama into spending cuts means that we’re letting our > highways, and our future, erode away. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/opinion/paul-krugman-build-we- > wont.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span- > region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region I can understand the point Paul Krugman argues, but I’m not clear with what the caption, “Build we won’t.” means. I thought it can go like “Build what we will not build. But it doesn’t make sense as a sentence. How can I parse “Build we won’t”? Is it common to save the word to such a few words in writing, particularly in journalism English?


Does "living in squalor" necessarily imply poverty?

Some definitions of _squalor_ and its adjectival form _squalid_ : Merriam-Webster > _squalor_ : the quality or state of being squalid   >  _squalid_ : marked by filthiness and degradation from neglect or poverty Collins > _squalor_ : the condition or quality of being squalid; disgusting dirt and > filth   >  _squalid_ : dirty and repulsive, esp as a result of neglect or poverty Wiktionary > _squalor_ : Squalidness; foulness; filthiness; squalidity.   >  _squalid_ : Extremely dirty and unpleasant Compact Oxford Dictionary > _squalor_ : the state of being extremely dirty and unpleasant, especially as > a result of poverty or neglect   >  _squalid_ : (of a place) extremely dirty and unpleasant, especially as a > result of poverty or neglect (Ok, now that y’all are suffering from the same word glare/semantic satiation as I am …) If someone is described as _living in squalor_ , does that automatically imply that they’re doing so because they’re too poor to do otherwise? I know that context can override the usual connotation of words, so for example if I’ve established that someone is a reclusive millionaire, the fact that she’s living in squalor would not necessarily be a contradiction. But if I encounter this phrase on its own, am I wrong to assume poverty?


Preposition: "[In] Which city are you located [in]?"

>   1. In which city are you located? >   2. Which city are you located in? >   3. Which city are you located? > I know the first is grammatically correct, and the second used frequently in conversation, but my question is this: I know you would answer using the preposition such as “I live _in_ Denver”, but is the preposition _in_ necessary when asking the question as stated in the third sentence? Case in point: “What time is the meeting?” This is something I’d say in conversation, but am having doubts as to whether I need to say, “ _At_ what time is the meeting?”


Should computer game screens show "you lose" or "you lost"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Why "I win" instead of "I won"? My friend and I are designing the "game over" screen for a game we are developing, and I'm thinking of putting "you lost" into the screen design but my friend said it should be "you lose" instead. I'm a bit confused because since the screen is shown after the player lost the game, shouldn't it be in past tense? Yet, I found many images on the web showing "you lose" instead. Should it really be "you lose" instead of "you lost", and why? Similarly for victory screen, is it "you win" or "you won"?


Usage of "even when"

In my understanding, a sentence of the following form > A requires B, something that may be difficult even when C means that > A is difficult since a necessary condition B is difficult. While B appears > to be easier (to obtain or achieve) in the case of C, it is indeed not. However, I came across the following sentence in a law paper (Lemley, M. A. (2007). _Ten things to do about patent holdup of standards (and one not to)_. BCL Rev., 48, 149.): > ... proving an antitrust violation requires detailed evidence of both > causation and intent, something that may be difficult even when, as a policy > matter, a patentee should not be permitted to extend its rights. I don't understand the latter part of the sentence. Could you please help me to clarify the meaning of the sentence. Thank you. (a little context: a patentee can violate antitrust laws if it abuses its patent rights)


Why is walri not the correct pluralization of walrus?

Why is _walri_ not the correct pluralization of _walrus?_


Do we capitalize job titles after a person's name?

Should professional, occupational and official titles be capped after a person's name? _Mike McCormack, Human Resources Director for the XYZ corporation, resigned on Friday._ If we use the definite article _the_ , do we go lowercase? _Mike McCormack, the human resources director for the XYZ corporation, resigned on Friday._ _The human resources director, Mike McCormack, resigned on Friday._ But: _Human Resources Director Mike McCormack resigned on Friday._ Are the four variations of the same sentence punctuated correctly?


What is the distinction between "among" and "amongst"?

It seems _amongst_ is quite often used as a synonym for _among_ but it is supposed to sound more _distinguished_. Is there any difference in the meaning?


Why are numbers usually written twice in contracts?

In contracts numbers are usually written twice: in numerical and literal form. I understand the vast majority of text in a typical contract can be safely deleted without impacting the core message due to the typical insane amount of repetition and unnecessary verboseness, but I don't really understand what's the point of writing some (not even all) numbers twice. For example: > You agree to these Terms of Use on behalf of yourself and, at your > discretion, for **one (1)** minor child for whom you are a parent or > guardian and whom you have authorized to use the account you create on the > Service. It's very inconsistent, sometimes they appear in only numerical form: > [...] WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS **1, 2 OR 9**. Sometimes only literal: > [...] includes **two** components [...]


Should Kyle be corrected, and if he doesn't, why?

In a recent blog entry, Jeff Atwood quotes his sysadmin Kyle: > "Should the developers have access to the production environment, and if > they do, to what extent?" My understanding is that this sentence is only perfectly grammatical if it's parsed as: > "Should the developers have access to the production environment, and if > they do [already have access to the production environment], to what extent > [is it okay for them to have it]?" However, that is not what Kyle is actually asking. It's fairly obvious that he expects the question to be parsed as: > "Should the developers have access to the production environment, and if > they ~~do~~ [should], to what extent?" And sure enough, that's exactly how I parsed it when I first read it. As in, I didn't even blink at the "do" kicking out a modal verb. It was only upon reading the sentence for a third or fourth time that it struck me as odd. It should also be noted that Kyle is a native speaker. So the construction can't be _that_ ungrammatical after all, does it? Must we correct Kyle, and if we don't, why? * * * **Edit:** some of the people who have answered/commented say that they do, in fact, read Kyle's question as: >   1. Should the developers have access to the production environment? >   2. If they already have access, to what extent is it OK for them to have > it? > It looks like I have to explain why this reading makes little sense — at which I only hinted above — even when no context whatsoever is provided (and Kyle's post is well over a thousand words long). This interpretation means that if developers already have access, the first question doesn't apply. We will throw it away just for them. But the first question is universal, it must not be thrown away. It is more general, more important. If we come to the conclusion that developers, in general, should not have access to the production environment, it also applies to those developers who already do have access. In fact, it applies to them _more than to anyone else_. So, Kyle cannot possibly be asking: "Should the developers have access to the production environment? Oh, and if your developers already have access, never mind, forget that question, let's just discuss how much access is okay." Much rather, he is asking: "Should the developers have access to the production environment? And if and only if the answer to that question is 'yes', how much access should they have?"


Present tense vs. future tense following a conditional

>   1. If you ask without any background, many people _are_ likely to assume > you are just too lazy to do the work yourself. >   2. If you ask without any background, many people _will_ likely assume you > are just too lazy to do the work yourself. > Shouldn't (2) be better than (1)? I searched for "future tense vs. present tense", but didn't find anything helpful in reference to the posed problem. Furthermore, I found on grammar.ccc that an ' _if_ \+ present tense' clause should be followed by a main clause of the form ' _will_ \+ infinitive/present tense/imperative'; so, at least according to that reliable source, (1) would be wrong.


"I love this version the best" or "I love this version the most"? Are these both normative constructions? I have come to the realization that I am not sure whether "love this the best" is natural-sounding English, at least in the US. Thanks for your help!


Which one is correct, 'I like this more' or 'I like this better'?

I feel that using 'I like this name more' is more correct than 'I like this name better'. Since English is not my mother tongue, I am not sure.


Off center rotation

I want to describe a circle that is rotating, but the center of rotation is off center, thus giving the circle a sort of "wobbling" motion. Is there a word or term to describe this?


"The supervisors can better monitor employees" vs. "supervisors can improve the monitoring of employees"

Can we say "the supervisors can better monitor employees" rather than the mouthful that is "supervisors can improve the monitoring of employees"?


Saxon Genitive vs. Adjective Noun (Model Parameters vs. Model's Parameters)

The suggestions in this same forum say that the use of the phrase "the car's antenna" is correct. Questions:   1. Nobody mentioned the use of "the car antenna" -- which to me would be much more natural, although not perfectly precise. It is clear that the particular "car's antenna" may be borrowed from e.g. a transistor radio, so that in that case "the car's antenna is a transistor-radio antenna". [Please correct all that is wrong here, and comment the use of the hyphen.]   2. I want to write a short and elegant title in a computer program that would describe "the parameters of a model". Is it correct to use: 2.a The Model Parameters, or for short, and because it is in the title: Model Parameters; 2.b The Model's Parameters, or for short, in the title: Model's Parameters. By definition of the Saxon genitive, the more precise would be 2.b, correct? But when you Google "model parameters" and "model's parameters", you get about 3 millions for the (a) choice and 30 times less (a hundred thousand) for the (b). And I bet that most of the people wanted to say the same thing: "the parameters of the model", and were trying to abbreviate it. Was there anybody who wanted to say something like "the model-like parameters", or "modelish parameters" -- I guess no one! The same thing applies to: 3.a The user password; 3.b The user's password. Please comment heavily on the question 2. It would be nothing strange that most of the people just write what is common or simpler, but what woul the experts suggest? In cases like this, where the distinction is almost negligible, is it OK to go for the simpler solution. It also concerns another example from this pages: "The ProductName's Desgin" or "The ProductName Design". Thanks in advance.


Use of the definite article "the" before "church"

I was in a Teacher's selection for a school in my country, and one of the coordinators said that she heard a mistake from another teacher that was unacceptable. I tried to figure out why was that, but I thought it was silly and forgot about it. Then I was asking about the weekend in my classroom and one of my Ss said the same sentence. I corrected him according to the coordinator, as she is way more experienced than me, but I couldn't actually explain why to him. The sentence was: > I went to the church. I can't see the mistake in this sentence if the church had been previously mentioned in the context of the conversation. I understand, as a non-native speaker, that if you are talking to a person that doesn't have any idea of where you were and doesn't have any previous information about the specific place, the article 'the' should not be used. Also, I am assuming church as a count noun. So instead, we would say: > I went to a church. Is it correct to use the indefinite article since I don't have any idea of which church he is talking about? I made a research about it and found that places that people use in common (like school, church, hospital, work) but are not necessarily the same, we would omit the article, so we would use the sentence that the coordinator accept: > I went to church. Like this sounds strange to me, but since I am not a native speaker, I think that it is OK. I really don't think that it was an unacceptable mistake, since the use of the article will depend on the context. So, if I am talking to my student, asking what he did last weekend and we were not talking about anything before, which one should he use?


Onomatopoeia for Physical Objects

Here's something I was thinking about the other day: is there a word like "onomatopoeia" that can be used to describe words that sound like what they describe? This can include, for example, seeing a picture of a bear's head Photoshopped onto an elephant and calling it "belephant", but I am also interested in a word to describe the sound someone makes when naming a new object. Food for thought!


Where did "duck, duck, gray duck" come from?

Duck, Duck, Goose is a common children's game but a typical Minnesotan calls the game a slightly different name: Duck, Duck, _Gray Duck_. I have never talked to anyone outside of Minnesota that knows of this game as Duck, Duck, Gray Duck. Wikipedia merely notes that it is a Minnesotan variant: > "Duck Duck Gray Duck" is a variant played by children in Minnesota. The core > gameplay difference is that the picker taps the heads of the other players > while calling out variant colored ducks and then calls "grey duck" in place > of "goose". There are no notes on why the game is named differently or why Minnesota seems to be the only region that uses Gray Duck. My question is: When did Duck, Duck, Gray Duck diverge from Duck, Duck, Goose and is there a particular reason why it did?


Thanking for scheduling meeting

I am going to send a email to a secretary of a CEO thanking her for scheduling a meeting. What would be a good phrase for the opening of email? Should I write: > Thank you for scheduling the meeting or would it be more appropriate to write: > Thank you for accommodating our request


Responding with a basic fact to imply a point of view is clearly flawed or wrong

What is a word or concept that describes a situation where one person puts forth a point of view, and another person does not directly address the position, but instead responds with an obvious, basic fact whose implications cast doubt on the correctness or strength of the point of view? This is intended to belittle the point of view.


Equivalence of "A except that B." and "Except that B, A."

> 1: _He is nice_ except that _he is a little shy_. > > 2: Except that _he is a little shy_ , _he is nice_. Are these sentences both correct? If so, are these two sentences identical?


How did “pumpkin” come to be a term of endearment?

The logic of some terms of endearment is fairly clear. _Sweetie, honey, cupcake_ all refer to food treats. However, the use of the term **pumpkin** as a tenderness seems somewhat counterintuitive. While reasonably tasty and the basis for making some treats (pumpkin bread, pumpkin pie), on its own it is a rather prosaic vegetable. Its appearance is also not obviously in the category of beautiful flora. Dictionary references are not much help. Only two of the online dictionaries in _onelook.com_ list the affectionate definition. Collins offers, without etymology or example, > _often capital (mainly US)_ a term of endearment Wiktionary gives one definition as > _(US)_ A term of endearment for someone small and cute. It cites only to the lyrics of a song by John Prine from 1991, _Daddy’s Little Pumpkin_. A search on Google for the term _little pumpkin_ (a search for _pumpkin_ is beyond my patience) shows a fair amount of usage in the later 20th century and the 21st century as an affectionate nickname. One of the earliest, in that period, appears in the 1951 novel by Myron Brinig, _The Sadness in Lexington Avenue_ > _Let me hear it. Frieda, my little pumpkin, my little sugarplum_ There are few 19th century references using pumpkin, somewhat sweetly, but not quite as an endearment. In 1867, _The Little Corporal_ , a children’s magazine published a story that included > _for Matie was almost as round as a little pumpkin_ This appears to be a straightforward description, not very complimentary, about shape. In _Forrest’s Illustrated Juvenile Keepsake_ ,1851 there is reference to another apparently roundish child > _If a little pumpkin, like Dumpy Dorcas, had rolled upon the snow, what harm > would have come of it?_ In _The Child’s Friend and Family Magazine_ from 1858, there is a reference to an American Indian character in a story whose English name appears to be _Little Pumpkin_. So, whence the acceptance (by some) of **pumpkin** as an affectionate reference for the apple of your eye?


What article should be used in such sentences?

What article should be used in the following sentence? > He was English by [a/the/] blood. I feel there should be a zero article here, but I was taught that the zero article is impossible in English.


Pinpointing British accents

After having watched British TV and movies for a while, I came across several accents I liked. But I'm not completely sure what they are, so I need your help :)   1. David Tennant as The 10th Doctor (skip to 0:39 if it doesn't for you).   When he speaks more calmly, he sounds almost RP to me, but when he's more agitated, I hear something else.   2. David Tennant in real life — (skip to 1:24) — sounds more Scottish (?) to me.   3. Charlie McDonnell. He sounds fairly "neutral" to me, but I doubt it's RP. * * * **UPDATE:** Dancrumb and ShreevatsaR provided information that apparently The Tenth Doctor speaks Estuary English. But to me it's a very confusing revelation. I can't find similarities between his accent and that of other notable Estuary speakers, such as David Beckham, Nasser Hussain or Jamie Oliver. The Tenth Doctor **doesn't** have:   * glottal stops (he pronounces _daughter_ as door-tsah, not as door.ah — sorry for the lame transcription)    * intrusive R (either that or I just didn't notice)    * L-vocalization (same comment as above)    * A deeper "i" (that sounds almost like "oi" with Estuary speakers) Overall, The Tenth Doctor sounds much more RP than the other Estuary speakers, and they, respectively, sound much more Cockney. I can't find a single Estuary speaker on the web that would sound like The Tenth Doctor.


"as she did X" vs "while she did X"

Another question related to correctly conveying a sense of time: > Who will be held accountable for the costs incurred **as** the managers > dragged their feet? vs > Who will be held accountable for the costs incurred **while** the managers > dragged their feet? Are both of these correct? "As" sounds better to me, but I am not a native speaker.


When is it necessary to use "have had"?

I have read few sentences which has "have had". I would like to know in what kind of situations we will have to use this?


Varieties of racism

What is scientific racism? What is institutional racism? Are there any discernable differences between the two, or can they be used interchangeably?


What is the *best* way to express that an email contains an attachment?

I'm wondering what is the _best_ way to express that an email contains an attachment. I'd like to have a formal example, and an informal example. For example: Is this informal? > Attached you can find the document... Is this too formal? too old school? > Please find enclosed the document...


when can you substitute 's for is

What is the rule that you have to follow to be able to use **'s** instead of **is**? For example, you can say _Jill's very happy_ , but you can't say _However happy Jill's I'd still like to tell her another joke_.


Religious use of "exegete"

I've noticed quite a number of religious professionals of late have used phrases such as "let's exegete this text" or "we need to exegete Paul's meaning here." Of course, an exegete is one skilled in exegesis, but I have never heard of "to exegete" being in accepted usage. Wiktionary included it as a possibility, but I would hardly consider that an authoritative source. Roger Wibberly critiqued a book titled _Medieval Music as Medieval Exegesis_ in _Music and Letters_ 82.2 (2001): 291-293 and argued that "the often-used verb 'to exegete' strikes a note of literary discord within a generally elegant text." Is the verb "to exegete" becoming accepted usage? Obviously, it has been used consistently in at least one published source and is currently being widely used in religious circles.


Verb to describe "to enable or to disable"

I'm looking for a word that describes "to enable or to disable". This related question found the hypernyms _mode_ and _state_ , but I am looking for a verb. I.e. a word for "(potentially) change mode/state". I guess _to switch_ is a good match, but unfortunately in JavaScript (my target language), `switch` is a reserved keyword. What alternatives are there?


"Unsubscribe to" vs. "unsubscribe from"

Marketing emails often come with an unsubscribe link in the footer. This is what Twitter uses: > You can also unsubscribe to these emails or change your notification > settings. "Unsubscribe from these emails" seems far more natural to me because unsubscribing is an act of removal. Add **to** , remove **from**. Is there a consensus on this?


Returning for the nth time

Suppose I went to the supermarket three times. Is my third trip considered my "second time returning there" or my "third time returning there?" Thanks. (I know this question sounds silly, but English is my second language...)


Is it spelt "naïve" or "naive"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Whereas" as an alternative spelling of "whereas" I've always wondered which is the correct spelling: "naïve" or "naive"? Are both correct, and it is just a whichever-you-feel-comfortable-with?


Should you always use the accent in foreign words like "résumé"?

You can see in the aboutCV page of Stackoverflow Careers site that the word _resumes_ is mentioned — not _résumés_ or _résumés_. What should be the common practice here?   What about other words like _café_?


Authoritative source on the diaeresis trema rule

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "Whereas" as an alternative spelling of "whereas" I've got an impression that there is (or was) a rule in English: If you have a rarely used word with two vowel letters in a row, corresponding to two vowel sounds in a row (as opposed to a diphthong or single vowel sound marked by two letters), you have to mark a second vowel with a trema. For example: _coöperation_. As rarely used word gets more popular and recognizable, trema is dropped from the spelling. In contemporary English _cooperation_ is spelled without it. Is there an authoritative source on this rule? I guess, any linguistics work would do, Wikipedia would not. Something that I can cite and not be laughed at.


What is the / is there any meaningful difference between the two spellings 'naive' and 'naïve'?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Should you always use the accent in foreign words like “resume”?   >  “Whereas” as an alternative spelling of “whereas”   >  Is it spelt “naive” or “naive”? Merriam-Webster lists both spellings without any comment on validity / usage. The second variant seems to be the French original, and the other the "anglified" version. Is there even a slight, maybe stylistic, difference?


What is the proper way to spell résumé?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Should you always use the accent in foreign words like "resume"?   >  Diacriticals and non-English letters in anglicized loan words: keep 'em, > dump 'em, italicize the words, or what? This may have already been asked, but I couldn't find it. If so, I'm very willing to close this question. What is the proper way to spell _résumé_? Should it have any accents? Are the accents correct? In English, is it acceptable to omit the accents altogether?


"Whereäs" as an alternative spelling of "whereas"

Wiktionary shows _whereäs_ as a valid alternative spelling of the word _whereas_ (see here). It gives the following quotations to illustrate the usage: > **1** Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses, Report > of Proceedings — Milan (1905) > > _After a dry season, the influence of heavy rains becomes manifest more > quickly and more progressively in the less wooded basin, **whereäs** the > reverse is found in the basin which has a larger forest area._ > > **2** Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift > (1984) > > _Notice that since the range of χ is limited by (5), **whereäs** that of x > is unlimited, the transformation (6) does not cover the whole of the space- > time represented by (1_). > > **3** Hiroyuki Sonoki et alii, Heart and Vessels — Nipradilol, a new > β-adrenergic blocker, reduces left ventricular remodeling following > myocardial infarction in spontaneously hypertensive rats (1997) > > _...after MI, **whereäs** propranolol promotes it._ That was the only dictionary where I found the word (with that spelling) though. And a Google search for **whereäs** returns only 209 pages. Is that really a valid spelling of the word _whereas_? If yes, where did it come from?


Difference between "pajama", "pyjama" and "paijama"

Which is the correct word: _pajama_ , _pyjama_ or _paijama_? Is there a difference between these three?


Roy Hodgson's "Church in the centre of the village" expression

Listening to the current England football manager, Roy Hodgson, speaking on the radio, he used a very curious expression while speaking about his team: > "We have to try to get back to putting the church back into the village" I heard it on the radio, so I can't remember exactly what the context was. I think he was talking about managing disciplinary problems within the team. (But we all know how waffly football managers can be in their interviews.) What does this metaphor mean, and how does it apply in these circumstances?


Looking for a better word in the sentence

"We encourage our employees to keep flexible hours and don't require them to track their time."      I think that the word 'require' is misplaced here. It can probably be replaced by 'ask'. Can I add any better word here?


Omitting the "I" from "I am" the second clause in a sentence?

For example I've written: > "I have an interest in rock climbing and am a member of the mountaineers > Society." My friend thinks it has to be: > "I have an interest in rock climbing and **_I_** am a member of the > mountaineers Society." which I think sounds bad. Which is right?


What does the President being “on the line with China” mean?

In his bus tour kick-off speech in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney said: > Everywhere I go, I meet people who represent the best of America. They are > hopeful, hard-working, determined and proud. But they are also worried and > anxious. They are tired of being tired. > > … > > When Americans rose up and demanded, “Stop borrowing money and sticking our > kids with the bill,” the President wasn’t listening. _He was on the line > with China_ , taking out another loan. I wonder what the President being “on the line with China” means. Was he actually talking with Chinese leadership on other issues which have nothing to do with Americans’ interest? It's unbelievable. I don’t get an idea of the connection among the three copy elements: “Stop borrowing money and sticking our kids with the bill,” “Obama was on the line with China” and “taking out another loan.” Wasn’t there a jump of logic, or word missing from his line?


Difference between "composite" and "compound"

Is there any difference between _composite_ and _compound_? Are these words synonyms?


What is the meaning of "just day hike"?

I can not get meaning of **just day hikes**. Here is a dialog which I have seen: > "I didn't see the whole thing, and I spend three days there walking > different parts every day, so I really don't know the size of it except that > it's massive." > > "So you just went hiking and then you camped overnight, or did you just > hiked for the day?" > > "Just day hikes, the tour I had been organized with had rented us a hotel, > just stayed in the hotel, slept there at night, and walked most of the day." Can anyone explain this?


Difference between "wedding" and "marriage"

What is the correct usage between the following?   * A wedding anniversary    * A marriage anniversary? What differences are there, if any.


Antonym of  "Landed with a thud"?

What would be the antonym of the expression "landed with a thud"? I've seen it in the context of "a new product landed with a thud, attracting very few customers".


Is this correct: "leaning against my back"

I'm writing in present tense, first person. I want to say that someone is sitting back to back with the main character (narrator). I utilized the following phrase: > The voice comes from someone leaning against my back. With that sentence, would you be able to tell that they are sitting back to back? If not, then what would be the best way to say this? Thanks.


Is it an "Ngram" or an "n-gram"?

I made an edit to a question and the portion mentioning the n-gram chart was reverted. I was reading the Wikipedia article about n-grams and added the hyphen based on that usage. This article says _Ngram_ is just Google’s branding for its Ngram Viewer tool. Which spelling is correct? In my mind _n-gram_ should refer to the word phrase, and _Ngram_ should be rephrased to _Ngram comparison_ when referring to a chart showing the comparison of n-grams.


"Yes marry have I" usage

I was looking through the original text of a popular nursery rhyme “Baa, Baa, Black Sheep” in _Tommy Thumb’s Pretty Song Book_ when noticed an expression whose meaning I can’t understand: “Yes, marry, have I”. What does that expression mean? And speaking in general, does this text from the book issued in 1744 look archaic for modern English native speakers? ![Baa, baa, black sheep,
Have you any wool?
Yes, *marry*, have I,
Three bags full;
One for my master,
And one for my dame,
And one for the little boy
Who lives in the lane.](http://i.stack.imgur.com/DquCz.jpg)


Is there a word similar to "condolences" that doesn't involve death?

This is related to the recent entry in the web comic xkcd: http://xkcd.com/945/ I never say, "I'm sorry," because people interpret that as if I feel at fault, when I don't. I've been simply saying, "that sucks," or, "that is very unfortunate". If someone dies you can say, "my condolences," and it's perfect; however, that obviously can't be used in a situation not involving death, like in the comic. Preferably I'd like something like, "I'm [x]," or, "I give you my [x]." I suppose sympathetic/sympathies would work, but is there any other word or phrase, perhaps something less aggressive so as to be unlikely to be considered sarcastic? I personally find myself feeling awkward every time this comes up. EDIT: Keep in mind, I very much dislike adding unnecessary bias to my reply. So saying things like, "that's terrible," is not something I'm a fan of doing. What if it was an icy day and the bus came 20 minutes late? I wouldn't say that's terrible, because I'm implying the bus did a terrible job, when it probably did a great job keeping it's passengers safe.


Is it correct to say "compiled an album"?

Is it correct to say “compiled an album”? I basically want to convey the idea that I originally had a set of photographs out of which I have selected a few of them and made an album. It would also be great if anyone can suggest some other phrase to convey the same idea.


“mark” in generational naming of products

What is the story behind the word _mark_ as a synonym for _version_ in products, such as Canon 5D Mark III or Aston Martin DB Mark III?


Repeating "I" in an enumeration of attributes

Since I like staying up until late at night, waking up late, and generally [I] am more of a nocturnal type of person… Is the I in the square brackets necessary, or can it be omitted? Personally, I feel like it sounds better when left out, but some people told me otherwise. Please clear up the confusion, thanks!


What is the correct word to describe something that is like a frustum?

Does such a word exist? I came across this question while writing some software that used frustums, making certain parts of it... eh... frustumy?


Underlie, Underlay, Underlying and Underlaying

What is the difference between " _underlay_ ", " _underlie_ " and their present continuous forms (and adjectives) " _underlying_ " and " _underlaying_ "? And what is the right word to say something like: > The actual behavior of something depends on the underlying platform.


The interior is in pure white color

> The interior is in pure white color The 'in' is really required in this case? Is there any alternative?


Does a pedestrian walk 'in' the road, or 'on' the road (both are correct, but which is right?)

Having a bit of a debate about this with some foreign colleagues of mine. I've always used the phrase 'I'm walking in the road', they think that you should say 'I'm walking on the road'.. I'm not 100% sure why I use the word 'in', but there must be a reason for it! So... which is right?


What does “(Mitt Romney) wells up” mean?

There was the following sentence in a New York Times (January 18) article titled, “Peeling away the plastic”: > “Those who have seen “Mitt” - which debuts on Netflix on Friday - are agog > that filmmaker Greg Whiteley has accomplished what Romney himself, --- > Willard Mitt Romney seems all too human. > > **He wells up.** He prays with his family, kneeling on the floor of hotel > rooms, and plays with them in the snow. He refers to himself sardonically as > “the flipping Mormon” and frets that he could become a loser like Michael > Dukakis, who “can’t get a job mowing lawns.” Link to the article. I was drawn to the word, “well up.” Although neither of Cambridge or Merriam- Webster English Dictionary carries this word as an idiom, Oxford English Dictionary gives definition of “well up” as “rise,” together with examples, -Tears welled up in his eyes, -He could feel the hatred welling up inside him, -Pity welled up in her heart, Do the OED’s definition – ‘rise’ and examples apply to “He (Mitt Romney) wells up,” in the above quote? What does it mean? Is this sentence self-complete?


When are you 'You', and when 'you'?

When is it in spelling that the personal pronoun 'you' should be written with capital Y?


What is the opposite of "on drugs"?

When someone is _not under the influence of alcohol_ , you call them _sober_. Is there a similar word for _not under the influence of mind-altering drugs_? An example usage would be: > I am one of the few who listens to Radiohead or Dave Matthews while > ________.


Past tense of "mind" in "mind your own business"

With a saying such as _keep it to myself_ you can say the past tense as _kept it to myself_. How about _mind my own business_? Should it be _minded my own business_ , _mound my own business_ or something else?


What is the correct punctuation when quoting a question in the middle of a larger sentence?

There are several questions here on quoting a question within a sentence, but most of them deal with the quote being at the end of the larger sentence. What if it's in the middle? > In many cultures, "How are you?" is often asked at the beginning of a > conversation. I can't really think of any other way to write this, except maybe to add a comma immediately after the quote, but having a question mark in the middle of a sentence just kind of niggles at me a bit. Is this correct?


"With a crack like a whip" — common expression or not?

> With a crack like a whip, Dobby vanished. I'm studying English using the Harry Potter books. I can't seem to find this expression in any dictionary, however. Google returns no results at all (except for Harry Potter itself and one other, unknown, piece of writing). So, is this a commonly used and/or existing and/or correct expression?


What is the meaning of "twists and turns" in this sentence?

The car followed the twists and turns of the mountain road.


"of their being" vs "of there being"

I am reading a BBC article on "Why pressing ‘upload’ means losing your rights". On page 2 of that article there is a paragraph that reads: _Meanwhile, legal thinking on digital rights is slowly catching up with the absurdity **of their being** almost no current recourse for loss, deletion or the whims of a service provider; but its pace is massively exceeded by the rate at which material is flowing online, into the hands of businesses whose profitability rests on owning and exploiting everything you give them._ My question is what is the difference between "of their being" and "of there being", and are both acceptable and when? Both have millions of results on Google. I know **_their_** is used for possession but I don't understand how that fits in here. Thank you


Anyone and everyone - correct usage?

I'm just wondering whether both sentences would be correct: >   * I look into the eyes of anyone who looks at me. > >   * I look into the eyes of everyone who looks at me. > > Would it be correct to assume that when I used _anyone_ in that way it would mean I am questioning whether anyone looks at me. However when using _everyone_ I'm just stating the fact that I look into everyone's eyes. If both are correct I really like the distinction. Not possible in many other languages.


How to create a questions from past modal verb sentences

I have no idea why my question was closed as it was pretty clear (at least for a person of average intelligence) so I am trying again: There is a sentence, e.g: > He could have seen that. Will the question be: > Could he have seen that? And with how, will it be like this? > How could he have seen that?


Verb for being part of a team

One can _lead_ a team. But what verb is best used for not leading but just being part of the team? That is, what verb belongs in the blank in the following sentence: > One can **_** a team. I am considering _support_ or _join_.


A general word that decribes "the residue" left behind when a fluid runs over a surface

I'm looking for a word that describes the film left behind when a fluid touches a surface. For example:   * A blood drop runs down a wall -> it leaves a ...   * A puddle drying-out leaves a ...   * Oil that leaks from a barrel and sinks in the ground leaves a ...  The words I've came up with are: film, layer, residue (describes it best, but sound wrong), smear, trace, ... * * * Constraints:   * The word should be neutral/scientific   * Be applicable for all kinds of fluids and invariant to size   * Ideally, it should be specific to fluids ("layer" is too general - "layer of a cake")


How does the false-conditional work in "I made sandwiches if you want some"?

This use of "if" has a completely different meaning than its normal conditional meaning. Can someone explain to me how this construction works, and provide other examples of this sort of thing?


Is there opposite single word to ‘enunciate’?

Further to my previous question about the meaning of the word, ‘crisis an hour mentality,’ there was the following line in the article of Washington Post under the title, “For Obama, and Democrats, it’s crunch time.” > “His mea culpa was all the more notable because it came only a few days > after he had attempted to put a retrospective asterisk on those original > assurances, **enunciated** as he sought to sell his controversial health- > care plan to a skeptical public. According to Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, the word ‘enunciate’ means ‘to say or pronounce words **clearly**. Is there opposite single word(s) (e.g. mumble) to say ‘to say or pronounce words **unclearly**?


Part of speech for non reflexive "oneself"

The words myself, yourself, himself and the like usually function as reflexive pronouns. However, they are also used in context that do not fulfill the common definitions of reflexive. Neither the "agent = patient" paradigm, nor the "agent = grammatical object" definition. > The author read the book himself. What part of speech are those self referential words and why?


What is the verbatim definition of "stigmergy" from Oxford dictionary or similar?

I'm looking for the verbatim definition of the neologism "stigmergy" from the Oxford or other established dictionary including the phonetic transcription. There is a definition on wiktionary but I'm looking for a more formal source. If anyone has access to an extended dictionary that contains the word it would be appreciated.


Meaning of the saying "Knowing trees, I understand the meaning of patience. Knowing grass, I can appreciate persistence."

Please, I would like the explation of the saying: > Knowing trees, I understand the meaning of patience. Knowing grass, I can > appreciate persistence. I translated it to my native language, but still didn't get it. What I think is that trees are big, but they started out as grass. Is that it?


"To support", "in support of" and "in support for"

> The doctor's association has threatened to go on indefinite strike **to > support/in support of/in support for** their teachers.


My family vs. my family

Is there any lingual way to differentiate between the family that I’m a child of and the family that I am a parent of? (I.e., the first family consists of my parents, my siblings, and me; the second one consists of my spouse, my children and me.)


Different from x Different to x Different than

In the following sentence: > "When I visited my old school after so many years, it looked completely > different in the classrooms and the backyard /from what/to what/than/ it had > been when I was a little boy."> Are the three options acceptable in spoken English ?


Prepositions used with "different"?

I apologize if this question has been asked before; I couldn't find it in a site search. I have this sentence about teaching children safety rules: The rules are different when you are together with your adults or when you are on your own. My question is about the use of _or_. Is the sentence correct as it is, or does a different preposition need to be used? _and_? _from_? _than_? My inclination is to use _than_ because the rules are being compared.


Why is 'the' before winter season?

In my opinion, 'the' is a definite article. It emphasis saying "that one only". Why then 'the' before winter season. There is only one kind of winter season. There cannot be different kind of winter season. For example, the food means that specific food, food - means general. The winter seasons means specific, whereas winter season is not specific, it is general only. I am confused here because someone has corrected me to use the before winter season. Please help.


Origin of the usage of "Man" as a word of exclamation

What is the origin of the usage of the word "Man" as a word of exclamation? > _Man_ this curry is delicious! > > _Man_ my feet hurt!


Does 'for' always comes after search?

Is it a rule that 'for' should follow after word 'search'? Does any form of search should be followed by for? For example, searched for searching for


"I hoped" vs. "I was hoping". What's the difference?

I can't remember to hear "I hoped..." in any movie I've watched. I always hear "I was hoping..." when people talk. Nevertheless I know both forms are correct in terms of grammar. So when "I hoped" is more proper then "I was hoping" and vice versa?


Word meaning A journey of self discovery and introspection

What would be an appropriate word for "A journey of self discovery and introspection" or possibly, "To discover that you are not how you conceptualized yourself"?


«'s» or «of the» which one should I use?

I want to know if «'s» sounds more natural than «of the...». E.g.: 'My computer's keyboard' or 'The keyboard of my computer'. Thanks in advance.


Different forms of the possessive

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Apostrophe "s" vs "Of" I want to know what's the different between the ownership usage: > "He's her mother's son" > > "He is the son of her mother" What's the difference between using "'s " and "of"? Also, because I don't know exactly how this should be called I call it ownership. But what's its proper name? Another example is: > "Dragon's Year" > > "Year of the Dragon" What's the difference?


Uses of saxon genitive with the word Google as the owner

I would like to know which one of these expressions is the most correct and why? > Google´s car > > The car of Google When I refer to the driverless car Google has invented.


Analysis's output vs output of the analysis

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Apostrophe "s" vs "Of"   >  possessive connecting word for inanimate object Once again I'm not sure if I should use possessive or atributive or neither of them. >   1. Please, send me an e-mail with the analysis's output. >   2. Please, send me an e-mail with the analysis output. >   3. Please, send me an e-mail with the output of the analysis. > Which one of them is the most idiomatic?   There is any rule or recommendation about when one must use possessive/attributive or the one mentioned above in example 3.?


When do we use "of" rather than " 's" to show possession?

It is a very simple word but I am quite confused when I write formal documents. I do not know exactly when to use the **of** rather than **'s**. For example: > The value of the mean or The mean's value. > > The domains of statistics or The statistics' domains. > > The example of data or data's example. I have searched on Google. Both cases seem widely used on many websites, so I do not know which one is well received by native speakers. Are there guidelines for choosing one over the other?


Can 'whose' be used for objects?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is the word 'whose' referring to an inanimate object correct in this > sentence? Is there a more appropriate word? Basically I'm wondering if a sentence like this is grammatically correct: "Meaning is thwarted by its delivery, whose poetry is relative to taste." I cannot avoid it with, "Meaning is thwarted by its delivery; its poetry is relative to taste" because 'its' seems to refer to 'meaning.' There needs to be a word like 'whichs' or something. Or is there? Please clarify my question if you know the proper grammatical labels for what I'm talking about; I know them not.


possessive connecting word for inanimate object

> **Duplicate of:**   >  Is the word 'whose' referring to an inanimate object correct in this > sentence?   >  Usage of “whose” not referring to a person.   >  Referring to some attribute of an inanimate object — use “who's”?   >  What is the possessive form of “what”?   >  Other ways of saying “whichs”   >  Possessive “that's”   >  'Which', 'whose' or something else? Today I wanted to say something like > A camera whose wires go through the wall. but it sounded funny. _Whose_ to my ear only applies to people, and perhaps animals. Is there a single word I can use in its place? I can say something like "A camera that has wires..." but I just wondered why another word didn't come readily to mind — or perhaps more accurately, I wondered why I wanted to use _whose_ with the camera! Bonus: what is the grammatical name for the word _whose_ in this sentence? What part of speech is it?


Using "whose" with non-animate nouns

> **Duplicate:**   >  Is the word 'whose' referring to an inanimate object correct in this > sentence?   >  Possessive connecting word for inanimate object   >  Usage of “whose” not referring to a person.   >  Referring to some attribute of an inanimate object — use “who's”?   >  What is the possessive form of “what”?   >  Other ways of saying “whichs”   >  Possessive “that's”   >  'Which', 'whose' or something else? Let us consider the following sentence: > Japanese language uses ideograms _whose_ Chinese origin is not disputed. Is it correct to use _whose_ in relation to ideograms or should I use _which_ better?


Can't figure out how to say this sentence

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  possessive connecting word for inanimate object Can't figure out how to build this sentence. Say I have a form someone needs to fill out and one of the cells that he needs to fill (called TABLE) is the name of a table (in a database). When he gives me the form back I'll give him another form called, say F1, containing information related to all changes made to the table specified in the TABLE cell. If he asks me "what is the TABLE cell for?", is it possible to explain it on one sentence? The closest I've got so far is: > The table to which changes made the returned F1 will refer to. Does it make sense? Should it be: > The table to whose changes made the returned F1 will refer to . OR > The table to which's changes made the returned F1 will refer to. English is not my first language so I'm unsure.


Can “whose” refer to inanimate objects?

I was baffled while using this sentence: > I went into some blog site **whose** sole purpose. . . . My question is about _whose_. Is it correct to use it there?


Can “whose” refer to an inanimate object?

> We lit a fire **whose** fuel was old timber wood. Is the word _whose_ referring to _fire_ , an inanimate object, correct in this sentence? Or is there a more appropriate word?


Can the relative pronoun "whose" be used for animals, things and countries?

When I was a student of English as a foreign language, more years ago than I care to count, I was taught that the relative pronoun “whose” could only be used for human beings, i.e., when someone possesses something. My teachers were native speakers from England, then. Since that time, I’ve seen “whose”, as a relative pronoun, used in several contexts where no human beings are mentioned, e.g. with animals, objects, countries, abstract nouns, etc, in American newspapers and magazines. Unfortunately, I can’t remember any of the sentences and cannot give examples. What is acceptable in written and spoken English, and what isn’t, concerning the use of “whose” ?


"of which" with more nouns

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  possessive connecting word for inanimate object I would like to know whether this could be said by using "of which": > Search for a car whose color of the hood is red.


Whose VS. which

I'm not a native english speaker (so forgive me for my poor language skills in general :) ) and I'm puzzled by this "whose / which / of which" issue. I have a sentence like this: "BLAA is a project _whose_ purpose is to build and...". To me it sounds that it should have which instead of whose. I was always tought that whose refers to a person and which to a matter, and based on that I would use which but all the articles I read about it seem to say that whose is the way to go. What to do? And please keep the explanations in KISS form ;) Thanks! -Heidi


"He loves baseball like his father does" OR "He loves baseball like his father"?

When I was learning English (non-native speaker here), I was taught that there is concept called "parallelism" in English grammar, which in my own understanding means that if I want to combine two or more ideas into a sentence, the ideas need to have similar forms and structures. Therefore, the following sentences conform to the parallelism: > He loves baseball like his father does.   >  He can play baseball like his father can.   >  He plays baseball as good as his father does. However, as I grow up, I keep encountering spoken and written sentences that omit the final verbs: > He loves baseball like his father.   >  He can play baseball like his father.   >  He plays baseball as good as his father. Now, the latter forms sound as naturally fine to me, to the point that the first of the following sentences sounds better to me than the second one: > He is a good baseball player like his father.   >  He is a good baseball player like his father is/was. Is it alright to omit the final verbs from the "X like Y" and "X as [adjective] as Y" sentences?


Hire an employee (a consultant)?

I am trying to fill in this sentence: > “My company is looking to ___ a consultant”. Is the correct term “hire” or is there a different word that is more fitting when talking about a consultant?


Comma — a punctuation error?

Consider: > This book provides a solid psychological understanding of these experiments, > and adds a few expansions and conclusions of its own. It also provides … My question regards the comma. I have been told that having the comma there is an error. According to Wikipedia this seems to be the case according to “some style guides”. The reason is that the stuff after the comma is not independent; it’s dependent on what comes before. What do you think? It would seem to me the comma helps a lot, because those two “and”s without any comma make the sentence rather cluttered. That’s why I put the comma there. So I’m not sure.


Can a negative be used to express a positive, such as "mangoes are sweet and so aren't papayas."

Is it incorrect to use the positive/negative construction when the intent is positive/positive? In other words can these two statements be viewed as equivalent: > Mangoes are sweet and so aren't papayas.   >  Mangoes are sweet and so are papayas. When I mean _so is_ , I say _so isn't_. When I mean _so are_ , I say _so aren't_ , etc. Is this a regional quirk? I regularly speak this way, and I believe my wife is the first to have ever questioned it (I'm 55 years old). I happen to be from Northern NY near the Canadian border.


When do we need to add 's' to a numeric year?

I have found some statements using the format _years_ instead of _year_. When do we use _years_ like _1950s_ and _2010s_ , rather than _year_ like _1950_ and _2010_? > Fish stocks here began to decline in the **1950s** , and within 20 years, > there was no brown trout left.


"Except for" vs "Except In"

What is the difference between the following two? >   * We didn't have a chance to meet, except for the campaign. >   * We didn't have a chance to meet, except in the campaign [or "except for > in the campaign"]. > I would also appreciate if there is a better way of conveying the same message.


Still More Syntactic Confusion

I sometimes encounter sentences like this > Mussolini ordered the Italy invaded Albania. It seems incorrect to me but I want native speakers to prove. **UPDATE.** The sentence above is taken from Wikipedia. That's why it is unmodified. But what about this one: > The manager ordered the subordinate painted fence.


What does 'sphere of [something]' mean?

Reading a journal article, I encountered these terms:   * customer **sphere** of privacy   * customer **sphere** of security   * privacy **sphere** of implementation   * security **sphere** of implementation I know the rough meaning is: privacy connected with the customer, and so on. But what's the exact meaning of **sphere** here? And what's the pattern for the use of this kind of **sphere**?


What does this quotation mean?

> Many an opportunity is lost because a man is out looking for four-leaf > clovers. I have no idea what the quotation means. Is there any special meaning about four-leaf clovers that I may be unaware of?


How do you show possession with the word "year" ("year's" vs."years")?

So, I develop for a company that does workplace-surveys. And one of our report-formats has just been translated into English. And with it a description on how to read the reports. This description contains the following sentence > When historical reporting is included, the column for this year's survey > will be thinner, and the column for last year will appear behind it in grey. Is this the correct spelling of _year's_ in this context? I'm not a native English speaker/writer, but I do consider myself fluent, and this spelling tickled something in the back of my brain. If it matters, the report format only displays a maximum of two years at a time (this year, and last year).


What does "class" mean in this quotation?

> I've learned one very interesting thing about money...it doesn't buy class. I have no idea what the word "class" means in this quotation.


Plural nouns used as adjectives

_The query might return a list of selected items in a shopping cart, or posts in **active forums threads** , or whatever your web application needs to retrieve from your database._ _**active forums_** is functioning as an adjective here. It is obvious, of course. But what I can't get is why does it end in s making it plural? Could it be written like **_active forum threads_**? If so, what would the difference be? And I have certainly many times come across nouns ending in s used as adjectives but never really understood the reasons why there was a particular need to make them plural instead of leaving them in their singular form.


Suitable expression for value in defeat?

When someone loses a match, I want to tell him that this loss can make him strong, that in the end this will help him to be a winner. Is there any expression in English for **defeat is the prerequisite for victory**?


Is there a word for how one feels when thanked?

People say "thank you" because they're _thankful_. One would responed "you're welcome" because they are _what_? Is there a single word to describe a state of happily doing something for someone else for which they've received thanks?


How do I phrase "remote work" better?

I am helping my father write a report. > The report summarizes the work undertaken during the consultant’s technical > assistance missions to Statistical Agency of Kosovo and remote work during > the period SomeTimePeriod. The meaning is that my father went to a mission to Kosovo and then continued work from his home country. How do I say "remote work", "work from a distance"?


What is the exact term for resolving all sub-domains (*.stackexchange.com) to www.stackexchange.com

The related question is asked here, and I cannot figure out it.


Correct? "We make no prescriptions ..."

Can I use `"We make no prescriptions about ..."`? This dictionary doesn't give any definition of the word `"prescription"` apart from Medical or Legal jargon.


"king of" or "the king of"

Which is correct? > I am king of the world. > > I am the king of the world. Additionally, which would be the better choice, if I wanted to use the expression "king" to signify dominance in a metaphorical way or in slang. > I am king of the backstreet. > > I am the king of the backstreet. And is there a difference, if we are not king of a place but of a group of people? > I am king of (the) thieves. > > I am the king of (the) thieves. Is there a general grammatical rule for that?


How old is the phrase "What's your angle?"

I have a character saying this in a novel set in the 1920s. I suspect it was in use at that time, but I've been fooled before by this kind of thing. (I had to delete a sentence in which a 1920s character says, "It's out of left field" because that phrase is traceable only back to 1940 or so.)


How the understand the "too ... to" structure?

It is easy to understand when someone says: > The box is too heavy to carry. But the usage of " _too … to_" structure in "You cannot be too careful to go across the road" is weird for me, though I know what it means. Can anyone explain to me how to understand the real logic behind the usage of " _too … to_" pattern in the latter case?


Meaning of Down to the?

What is the meaning of `down to the`? E.g. in this statement: > In order to use this feature, the statements must be exactly the same \- > down to the number of spaces, tabs, capital/small letters. My understanding of the above statement is that the statement must be exactly the same, including the number of spaces, tabs, capital/small letters. Am I correct? If not please correct me.


What is the name of someone who was something before you?

I've completely forgotten the word you say when someone had your job or something before you, and then you took over. I'm trying to write a History Essay and my sentence is > The legacy of German's defeat in World War One hung in the air for years > after Hitler's **______** 's signed the Treaty Of Versailles I keep thinking its something like _oppressor_ or something but I'm stuck.


"at all time" or "at all times"?

I would like to praise a lady who is always cheerful. Should I use "She's cheerful at all time." or "She's cheerful at all times."?


"The heart can choke the mind when all its blood flows back unto itself."

This quote is Francis Underwood's, from House of Cards, Season 2, Episode 11. Would someone please explain it? Some context can be found here. I'd venture that it refers to love? It induces the blood to flow back onto the heart? Then no blood circulates to the brain and thus chokes it?


Word/phrase to mean something that just happens once

What is the word/phrase to mean something that just happens once? For example, > I have often been told/expected to do this and not to do that. I become > aimless and gradually lose the idea of who I am. I ask myself "What is the > point?" If life is just **once thing** , why can't I live my life in my own > way, the way I think is right and suitable to me? If I cannot, I would > rather live a shorter life.


Corresponding vs. appropriate

Let me give you some context first:   * Germans. We may have similar words with different meanings and use words just because they have a similar spelling.   * software company, writing software for hardware devices which are connected to the PC. Not the usual office equipment, but industrial devices. In our internal but also external documentation I often find sentences like > This feature is part of the corresponding software.   >  To be able to use feature XYZ, you need the corresponding device.   > In almost any case I found so far, _corresponding_ could be replaced _appropriate_ and I wondered why I am struggling with the term. One thing that came into my mind is the meaning of _to correspond_. A corresponding person would be someone who writes letters, right? The only reason that this meaning does not apply here is the fact that neither software nor device write letters. Then I conclude that the meaning has to be something else, e.g. _appropriate_. IMHO, _appropriate_ makes me think less. Is this only my lack of knowing the English language which makes me feel unhappy with that word in that context or would you also recommend replacing the word? Why? What is the slight difference and perhaps advantage of _appropriate_ over _corresponding_ here?


What's the difference between "jelly" and "jam"?

I've seen both words being used (peanut butter and jelly; peanut butter and jam), but I was wondering whether they were both words for the same thing, or if there's actually a distinct difference between the two.


Usage of [to be] + had

While discussing What does "I was had" mean? I've found there are some not so common usages of _had_ in English like: > I have/had been had (meaning "to get fooled") but further Google search exposed even constructions like > I am been had or even > I am had and of course > I was had from the question above. Are all of those grammatically correct? Can you give me some usage examples?


Ask question without using "?" in it

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is it appropriate to end a question without a question mark? I have heard so many times people use two way of asking question? Is there any way to ask question where you will not find the question but a sentence to ask question?


Is there a word for the new date of a postponement?

Is there a word to describe the new date of a postponement? I was in conversation with someone and I said to her: > "The show was postponed, and I'm worried I won't be able to make it to the ? > _reponement_." I looked at her and we both said, "that's not a word".


Conflicting views or emotions in the passage

What does the following passage from this NY Times article mean? > He [Theodore Roosevelt] transformed the 20th century; no, he overextended > the 19th. He was a progressive trust buster; no, an imperialist demagogue. > He was a defender of liberty; no, a power-hungry mountebank — a pioneer > environmentalist, a bloodthirsty hunter; a farseeing visionary, an energetic > clerk. Why is the author using positive words in the first half of the statement and then tries to end the statement using completely opposite or negative words? What does the author want to convey using the following passage? Is the author trying to evoke the conflicting viewpoints among the general population?


Reason for Subject-Verb Inversion: Only in cases where A is B, shall the Company do X

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Sentences using: [something] + have + they   >  subject-auxiliary inversions not associated with questions In the following, why does subject-verb inversion occur? Is it necessary? And what is this type of inversion called? Colleague’s original: > Only in cases where A is B, the Company shall do X. I changed to the following: > Only in cases where A is B shall the Company do X. Searching Google for “shall the Company” gives examples such as: > In no event shall the Company ...   >  Under no circumstances shall the Company ... And these all seem quite natural. “In no event” and “under no circumstances” seem to be prepositional phrases, yet I would say simply, with no inversion: > In the fridge, you will find some beer. Is the S-V inversion maybe some sort of archaic style that remains in legal or maybe religious texts? Perhaps a remaining German-style syntax?


What is the correct "noun-verb" order when preceded by "only when"?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Sentences using: [something] + have + they   >  Inversion in “Only when the virus introduces its nucleic acid into a cell > does disease occur” In a sentence like this: > Only when a gun is reliable, accurate and durable, **do I** trust my life to > it. Why do we swap "I do" into "do I"? Would both options be correct? I can't help myself but start parsing the last sentence as a question when the word order is as is.


Confusion about modal and auxiliary verb sentence structure

"Little did he realize that ..." What is the structure of this sentence with the past tense of the auxiliary verb 'do' in the beginning ? 2) "Otherwise, could we..." or "Otherwise, we could..." ?


"Not only should I" in declarative sentence

There is a phrase "Not only should I succeed but others should fail". And I saw it many times in similar structures that the order of words "should I" are as if they were in a questioning sentence. (In a declarative sentence the order is "I should") Can anyone give me an explanation why that is?


Why does a negative adverbial phrase trigger inversion?

When a negative adverb (or adverbial phrase) is placed at the beginning of a sentence, we exchange the normal placement of subject and verb. Why is that?


Only...did I... / Only...I

1. Only after reading it carefully several times **did I begin to make** sense of the poem.   2. Only after reading it carefully several times **I began making** sense of the poem. I know that the first one is correct but I do not understand why. Other than sounding strange, why is the second one incorrect? Thank you very much!


"only then can you do" vs "only then you can do"

What is correct in a sentence: "Only then can you do" or "only then you can do" ?


Inversion in "only [adverb] have they"

I have seen this construction quite often: > Online ads have been around since the dawn of the Web, **but only in recent > years have they become** the rapturous life dream of Silicon Valley. What is the rule there?. When your sentence doesn't start with pronoun + verb, invert them as verb + pronoun?. I know it sounds awkward but is it possible (grammatically correct) to use something similar to: > Online ads have been around since the dawn of the Web, but only in recent > years they have become... And in any case, does this only work with have (or has)? Maybe it works fine with 'had' but I can't think of an example right now.


Verb to be before pronoun in declarative sentences

I saw this sentence in a newspaper cartoon: > Not only are you dysfunctional -- you appear to be completely spineless as > well. Is the verb _are_ in the right position?


Why must “has” come before the main verb here?

Wrong Sentence: > Never before in the history of the world **such a thing has happened** , I > don't think that will ever happen again. Right sentence: > Never Before in the history of the world **has such a thing happened** , I > don't think that will ever happen again. Why “has such a thing happened” is the right form, and why can't I use such a thing has happened?


Why do we use the word "Do" when connecting a sentence?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Sentences using: [something] + have + they   >  Use of “do” in affirmative statements I was reading a news paper article of Times Of India, and came across a sentence- > To begin with, a woman's right to property has already been established > under law. This means that she has equal rights to her parental property as > her male siblings. In such a scenario, according women an extra legal right > over their husbands' residential property - which too could be inherited - > is unfair. **Neither do men have** the same rights over their wives' > property nor can they claim emotional damages during divorce. Why there is a word **"do"** in between " _Neither_ " and " _men have_ ".? From my pointing of view It might be - " **Neither men have** the same rights over their wives' property nor can they claim emotional dames during divorce". I have also heard people saying that **"I do agree with your statement"**. Why could not it may be **"I agree with your statement"**. Is There any grammatical mistake in these sentences or both I can use interchangeably?


Subject-auxiliary inversions not associated with questions

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Inversion in “only [adverb] have they” Is there some rule governing the following, or similar, subject-auxiliary inversions (*"Rarely they do see the light of day", *"Never I have been so insulted")? > _In fancy sit-down restaurants, you can order a large meal and halfway > through the main course, take a little dead cockroach or a piece of glass > out of your pocket and place it deftly on the plate. Jump up astonished and > summon the headwaiter._ " **Never have I been so insulted**. _I could have > been poisoned" you scream slapping down the napkin. You can refuse to pay > and leave, or let the waiter talk you into having a brand new meal on the > house for this terrible inconvenience._ (link) > > **Rarely do they see the light of day** _; it's generally judged to be in no > one's commercial interest that they should. Just occasionally, however, like > a seemingly dormant volcano, they explode into the open._ (link)


"than do I" vs. "than I do"

I need grammatical explanations for the following two sentence structures: >   1. _The mistakes children make in learning to speak tell linguists more > about how children learn language **than do** the correct forms they use._ >   2. _Freedman's survey showed that people living in small towns and rural > areas consider themselves no happier **than do** people living in big > cities._ > If noticed, would someone explain me why "do" appears after "than" in the both of the sentences above? So, would it be correct if I say, "You explain it more clearly than do I"?


Pronunciation of voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ as ʃ (/sh/) in slang?

Observed some words get pronounced with a /sh/ rather than /s/ in certain situations.   * Stripes as "Shtripes" (from some "The Wire" episode)   * Screw it as "shcrew it" (from a rap song) In both situations, it seems to be a matter of emphasis, but is there some generic etymological root to this, e.g. a yiddish language background?


What's the difference between "hallow", "sacred", "holy" and "saint"?

_Hallow, sacred, holy_ and _saint_ seem to resemble each other but are not identical. So what's the difference between them? I have searched http://dictionary.babylon.com and spotted: > **Hallow** : sanctify, consecrate, bless, exalt, glorify > > **Sanctify** : consecrate, make holy; make free from sin, purify; become > holy > > **Saint** : person canonized by the Christian Church for his holy qualities; > extremely holy person, very righteous person > > **Sacred** : holy, worthy of reverence; sanctified, consecrated; pertaining > to religion > > **Holy** : sacred, consecrated; divine; devoted to the service of God or > religion; saintly, godly So to _hallow_ is to _make holy_ , a _saint_ is a _holy person_ , but _holy_ and _sacred_ are circularly defined...


Adjective pluralization

>   1. A 16-year-old girl. >   2. She is 16 years old. > I've read somewhere that the reason the _year_ in the first example is singular is that it functions as an adjective, and adjectives can't be plural. Looking at the second example, doesn't the _years_ also function as an adjective? If so, why is it in plural form?


Double-edged sword synonym

Can someone give me a few synonyms of "Double-edged sword"? I generally need a phrase that describes a situation that can go good and bad.


A short word for elementary yet interesting

What can be a one word for something which is not very advanced but is still interesting and elegant? I would be using this word in context for some math article I want to write. Shorter and accurate words would be preferred. Thanks :)


[S]he has the ears of a ...?

Often, when overheard from far away, I find myself saying/thinking: > [S]he has the ears of a hawk! Which doesn't really make sense as hawks aren't particularly well known for their sense of hearing. Is there a common saying, equivalent to "eyes of a hawk", relating to someone's sense of hearing?


What does "capacity" mean in this question?

> How long have you known this referee and in what capacity I'm filling my university application I met this question which befuddled me. Does it mean "are you familiar with the referee"?


How multiple quantifiers in a sentence are interpreted

> Someone sleeps everyday. Does this mean that there is someone who sleeps everyday or that everyday someone sleeps?


Is it acceptable to omit the last period of an acronym?

After reading this post, I was struck by the omission of the period (full stop) at the end of the acronym given. > A.V.C I've never seen this before here in the States. Is it permissible here? In England? Elsewhere? Is it common anywhere?


Is it correct to say 'Do one thing' when asking somebody to do something?

In Indian English, sometimes we say things like this: 'Do one thing. Take a left turn there'. Basically, I am asking somebody to do something, which comes in following sentence. What's the better way of saying so?


Difference between "circumvent" and "avoid"

What is the difference between _circumvent_ and _avoid_? Please provide examples.


Past/Present tense in a conditional statement

I'm not an English speaker. Even though I do understand conditional statements that are written by others but when it comes to my turn I still feel confused and don't really know how to organize it. >   1. If you had not been here I would have been here. >   2. If you were here I would be here. >   3. If you are here I will be here. > I understand the 'time line' of verb tenses like this: [past perfect] - [past] - [present perfect] - [present] - [future perfect] - [future] Following this if the conditional statement suggests the sequence of the events they should be : >   1. If you had not been here I would be here. >   2. If you were here I would've been here. >   3. If you are here I will have been here. > May I please have your help on this? I know it's quite basic but I couldn't find any clear explanation on the net.


Question about grammatical name and its function

What is the grammatical name given to, and the function of, the part of the sentence below in bold? > **Maneuvring a tanker** is likewise a daunting challenge.


Interviewer grinding me down

"Interviewer was grinding me down this morning". But if I had to say it in a manner like "I had to go through a lot of grinding in the interview" would it be correct? (without the word 'down' because the phrase is 'grind down'). Or would only ' _grinding_ ' here without ' _down_ ' would imply something DANCE related? (which isn't what I mean here obviously)


Is it true that iambic pentameter is "natural" to English? If so, why?

When I first read Dante's _Divine Comedy_ in high school, I remember once being puzzled at what I thought were strained rhymes in the translation, and mentioned it to my English teacher. In reply, she told me that it had to be so, as Dante wrote in a _terza rima_ rhyme scheme that was much more easily accommodated by Italian, and that writing in the iambic pentameter that English poetry "naturally" favored required breaking some of the very easy internal rhyme presented in the original. I left it at that then, but afterwards she repeatedly invoked the same idea of iambic pentameter's "naturalness" to English when we read Shakespeare and I think William Blake. Is she correct? Is iambic pentameter indeed "natural" to English? What linguistic characteristics of English make it so? I know many of these things boil down to, "that's just the way it is", but I guess in this question I'm just looking for a deeper explanation than just giving the simple fact.


Newest/latest/last version of a product

Are all the sentences below correct? Do they mean exactly the same?   * You can download the **latest version** of X from this link.   * You can download the **last version** of X from this link.   * You can download the **newest version** of X from this link.


"convey" vs. "say"

> It's easier than it seems, but I don't convey it well. My friend says that I should change that to read > It's easier than it seems, but I don't _say_ it well. However, this doesn't seem quite right to me. Is this grammatically correct? What is wrong with this sentence? "Say" and "convey" aren't the same thing, right? Someone can say something, but still fail to convey an idea, correct?


"Not much I can hand to you this very moment"

What's the meaning of this sentence? > Not much I can hand to you this very moment.


What is the meaning of 'is' in this sentence?

I'm reading 'Black as Snow' by Nick Nolan and encountered this sentence. > "It's never easy." _Libby laughed while clinking her cup with is._ "But it > works." What's the meaning of 'is' in this sentence? Plural 'i'? Typo?