Comprehension help required

I was given the following question for comprehension pasted below: > What does John mean when he says that he would only win his own money? And I answered that John meant that Marry won't be betting any money, so he will be winning only his own money. Professor marked it incorrect. Can you please what exactly is the problem? I have marked the relevant information in bold letters in the comprehension passage. > "Hullo," said John, "it's raining again. What a nuisance I Now we shan't be > able to play tennis this afternoon." > > "No," said Mary, "I suppose we shan't. Let's stay at home and stick some > photographs in our book, shall we?" > > "Do you really want to?" said John rather doubt. fully. "I thought you said > you didn't like doing it because it was so messy." > > "Oh,' replied Mary, "I'll just watch you sticking them in." > > "Oh, no, you won't," said John. "You've done that to me before. You'll have > to do your share, my girl I " "All right. Then what about playing cards? > You're keen enough on doing that with your friends at the club." > > "But you don't know how to play," protested John. "That's all right. You can > teach me, can't you? You taught me to drive a car." > > "Well, it's not much fun teaching someone to play cards. The whole point of > playing cards is the chance of winning." > > "You'd be sure to win if you played with me, because I don't know how to > play. Surely that would be better than playing with your friends, because > you sometimes lose there." > > **"But if I did win when I was playing against you, I would only win my own > money."** > > Mary laughed. Then she said. "All right, I think we'll just have to go to > the cinema. There's a good film on at the Grand, isn't there?" > > "Not the Grand," said John. "The Splendid." > > "Oh, yes," said Mary. "I keep on getting them mixed up. The Grand's the one > down by the river, isn't it?" > > "Yes," answered John. "After we've been here a few more weeks we'll know > everything there is to know about this town: it's small enough. Well, we'd > better go, or we'll be too late for the matinee. Have you got your umbrella > back from Jane yet, or will you have to go on sharing mine?" > > "No, I got mine back. I came across Jane in a shop this morning. She was > carrying my umbrella, but she put it down for a moment while she looked in > her handbag for some money. So I picked the umbrella up and started to walk > out. The shopkeeper was horrified. He said, 'Madam, that umbrella belongs to > this lady!' 'No, it doesn't,' I answered, 'it belongs to me.' 'That's > right,' said Jane. 'It does.' You should have seen the shopkeeper's face! He > didn't know whether to believe his eyes or his ears-especially as Jane > pretended never to have seen me before: you know how she loves a joke!"


Is the word legs singular or plural?

Which one of these two sentences is correct ? "Legs is spelled with l" Or "Legs are spelled with l"


Finite verbs / Do vs Be

Which is correct?   1. "You were always looking out for me. You always do." or   1. "You were always looking out for me. You always are."


"Ideal" vs "archetype" vs "role model" vs "prototype"

While learning synonyms, I encountered these words. I'm trying to understand the nuances between them. From my understanding:-   * _Role model_ is someone whom you admire or try to emulate (generally a living being)   * _Prototype_ is an original model from which copies are made. However, I don't fully grasp the difference between _archetype_ and _ideal_. From my understanding, _archetype_ refers to a perfect example of a particular person or thing. So does ideal. For example, to complete the sentence: _"Every classical heroine is always chaste and serves as a(n)_ __ _for women, who are expected to emulate her_ , which of the above-mentioned words fits best? Please point out where I went wrong.


Word order in defining and non-defining relative clauses

With defining relative clauses, there is a different word order according to the status of the relative pronoun in the sentence (that is, it can be either the subject or the object of the relative clause). >   1. The relative pronoun is the subject. The word order is --> subject + > verb + object > >   2. The relative pronoun is the object. The word order is --> object + > subject + verb > > Does this rule apply to the non-defining relative clauses as well? Or is there any other rule to follow?


“It is, a done deed”

![“we love free music / we know you do too / it is, a done deed”](http://i.imgur.com/W9YEJ.jpg) Comment on imgur: > Actually that's an appropriate use, comma used for the purpose of producing > a short pause to add emphasis to what follows. Is the comma in _it is, a done deed_ correctly used?


"Optional but recommended" vs "optional"

I am writing an API with some mandatory parameters and some optional parameters. However, some of the optional parameters are _highly recommended_ to the point of being essentially mandatory for any type of practical interaction with the API unless the user is very skilled with his queries. How would I thus word the three categories of options: >   1. Mandatory >   2. Recommended >   3. Optional > or >   1. Mandatory >   2. Optional But Recommended >   3. Really Optional > or something else? What do you suggest? The first list is a bit unclear in my opinion, but the second list is too wordy. **Is there a word which embodies _Optional but recommended_?** Note that my preference would be two categories ( _Mandatory_ and _Optional_ ), but it seems that users need this distinction to be made.


Discordant vs controversial vs non-concurring

Do these three words mean the same thing? From my understanding, **discordant** means not agreeing or out of tune. This is similar to **non-concurring** (as concurring would mean agreeing on something). Also, **controversial** means something which gives rise to disagreement. How do I understand the subtle difference in meaning when the wors are so similar?


“A new pair of ” or “A pair of new”

1. a **new pair of** shoes / pants / scissors   2. a **pair of new** shoes / pants / scissors I can’t find which one of those two it should be, and I’ve seen some debate about it. “A new pair of shoes”: Could it imply that the shoes previously were part of a different pair? But on the other hand, if it’s a pair of shoes, why would one have to state that both shoes are new when saying _a pair of new shoes_? Which is correct, or doesn’t it matter?


"In the event of rain, the parade is canceled." Is it correct?

I have found a conditional sentence "In the event of rain, the parade is canceled." on page http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+the+event+of I have thought that main clause of such conditional sentence should contain future or imperative mood. For example:   * In case of an emergency, push this button.   * In the event of a fire, alarms will sound. But in this sentence main clause contains present. Is it correct? Is correct similar sentence with future: "In the event of rain, the parade will be canceled."? What the difference between these two sentences if both correct?


Origin of "half a mind" and "a piece of my mind"

Both of these expressions/phrases have similar uses: I have _half a mind_ to confront that person. I'm going to give them _a piece of my mind_. Were these separate but similar expressions translated from non-English phrases and became part of our vernacular or were these sayings "invented" by English speakers?


Part of speech of "that"?

In this sentence: > Its shape resembles that of a kangaroo’s hind foot. What part of speech would _that_ be?


Difference between: "would be", "will be", and "is/are -ing"

Which one is correct?   1. Heard you would be going.    2. Heard you will be going.    3. Heard you are going. What differences are there?


Word for the number being added-to OR subtracted-from another number

In division, we have a dividend and a divisor. According to this page, we also have   * minuend and subtrahend   * augend and addend   * multiplicand and multiplier which are rarely used because order doesn't matter for the latter two. Is there a term for the "second" number in _any_ arithmetic operation? It would be a word that could mean "subtrahend," or "addend," or "multiplier" interchangeably. Something like "mathematicaloperationend."


Is there a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"?

I have always thought the antonym of "guilty" is "innocent", but apparently it's just "not guilty". Even juries seem to agree. But why? Aren't they antonyms? Or is there a subtlety I'm missing here?


Academia -- Correct Interpretation?

When someone says, "It's all academic" or "This one's academic", I believe that, certainly within the realm of sports context, the outcome of a game has finally been decided. The end result is a given; there is no doubt who the victor will be. Example: > With 20 seconds on the clock and having a 12-point lead, the Ravens will > emerge triumphant. This one is academic from this point forward. Sound logical? To have a discussion about something that is a moot point is an academic discussion: > If I had $5 million, I'd buy two mansions and a Lamborghini. But I don't have this kind of money, so it's all academic anyway. Another example: > Despite fervent begging by the shoplifter, I informed him he would be > arrested for petit larceny and the police were on their way. It's now all > academic. > > Correct to all examples given? Thank you.


Infinitive vs. Past Simple for short technical annotations

I use source control management software at work. When I commit some changes, I annotate them with the bare infinitive like this:   * "add new feature", "fix bug #10012" I note that some of my colleagues use past tense instead:   * "new feature added", "bug #10012 fixed" Or sometimes:   * "added new feature", "fixed #10012 bug" Which of these annotations is grammatically correct? Are any of them weird or simply wrong?


Should I use past tense or present tense when writing check-in/commit comment?

This question is quite specific but I am not sure which verb tense I should use when committing/checking in code. If I fix a bug and checking in the code, should I write:   1. Fixes bug on feature A   2. Fixed bug on feature A I always use past tense because the bug was fixed before I check in but it looks a bit strange when I look at file history. Should I use one over the other and why?


Class [has been / was] removed.

If I want to make a very short remark as a comment to a fragment of computer program, what would be the **best style** of the three variants below please?      Class `ProjectControl`...   1. ...removed   2. ...was removed   3. ...has been removed This is meant to be a note about one of many changes made as the last modification. Thanks.


"I can have it mailed to you if you wish."

recently a visitor at work forgot his mobile charger at my desk. He wrote me an email asking if it's still there. For some mysterious reason I answered: "Yes, indeed. I **can have it mailed** to you if you wish." I tried to express that I can ask someone (the receptionist) to do so. Meanwhile I am quite unsure if "I can have it mailed" is any form of understandable English at all :))). Is this a correct, common phrase? Cheers, Alex


"Unbalance" v "imbalance"; "unbalanced" v "imbalanced"

When talking about a body, do you say it is _unbalanced_ or _imbalanced_? Here _unbalanced_ sounds right to me. However, do you say you want to fix the _unbalance_ or _imbalance_ in a body? Here _imbalance_ sounds right to me. I can find the same definition for both but does it sound wrong to switch between the two within the same paragraph? For example: > He ran with an **unbalanced** body.   >  His **imbalance** was caused by a curved spine.   >  The heavy bag he carried **unbalanced** his body too.   >  His **unbalanced** personality didn't help either. This sentence sounds to me to be using the right forms (is it?) but is it wrong to shift from one form to the other within the same paragraph (assuming they are both acceptable)?


Solution of/to/for equation

A recent question to when to use _of_ and when _for/to_ for _solution_ suggested that _of_ appears only in context of chemistry, and the word means something very different then. But I recalled almost universally finding > `-2` and `2` are the solutions of the equation `x^2 = 4` I consulted the dictionary and to my surprise I found: > **2.** _Mathematics_ A value or values which, when substituted for a > variable in an equation, make the equation true. For example, the solutions > **to** the equation `x^2 = 4` are `2` and `-2`. I consulted the ngram and it made me even more confused than before. ![ngram](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Uv0a8.png) It seems like _solution to the equation_ is a relatively new trend, but picking up. So, what's the official stance on correctness of the preposition to go with solution in mathematics?


What part of speech are "plus", "times", and "minus"

In mathematics one will often say "This plus that" or "This times that". This means "This added too that" and "This multiplied by that". Multiply, Add, Subtract, Divide - All are verbs. But what part of speech is "times" or "plus". It's wrong to say "times this by that" or "plus this with that". So they do not seem to be verbs, but they imply an action.


How can I improve this introduction?

_Hi, I'm bernk. I'm here to make interacting with digital products a positive experience for us all. Why are you here?_ More importantly, does it read positive or negative to you?


Is a "perfect participle" right?

Suppose I've received a document from my colleague and then I want to make a report to my chief in which I want to mention it. Would the following construction be correct? > According to the document **_been received_** from John it's... Or should I just put it like this? > According to the document **_received_** from John it's... PS: Excuse me if I've confused _participle_ with _adjective_ , I really don't know the proper name for **_received_** in this case.


Why is there a "mean" in "Greenwich Mean Time" (GMT)?

What's the meaning of the word "mean" in "Greenwich Mean Time"? Shouldn't we simply say something like "Greenwich Time"? I don't understand what the word "mean" is doing there.


Capitalizing quotations with initial omission?

Let's say we wanted to omit the first four words of the following quotation. > "I think that somehow, we learn who we really are and then live with that > decision." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt Generally speaking, it is recommended that one should not include an ellipsis at the beginning of a quotation. > "we learn who we really are and then live with that decision." ~ Eleanor > Roosevelt Should the above be capitalized to follow standard rules of capitalization, or left as is in order to retain its accuracy?


"I won't" vs. "I'll not"

_I won’t_ and _I’ll not_ are both short forms of _I will not_. Both are used in English. Are there any situations where one is preferred over other?


Is this an inversion? If so, why would you use an inversion in this case?

Here's a quote from a CNN transcript, wherein a consumer psychologist says the following: "What is relatively new **are** shoppers turning on other shoppers." If "what is relatively new" were the subject, she would have said "is" as opposed to "are". Hence, it's an inversion having "shoppers" as the subject. Am I right? If I'm right, then the question: why use an inversion in this particular case? Specifically, why use "are" instead of "is"? For the whole transcript, see: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1211/22/cnr.03.html I did some follow-up research on what-cleft construction and would like to update my question by adding the following: Swan says in Practical English Usage at 130, "A what-clause is normally considered to be singular...a plural verb is sometimes possible before a plural noun in an informal style." And Swan shows this example: "What we want **is/are** some of those cakes." (Emphasis in original.) According to Swan, therefore, both "is" and "are" are possible, correct English in his "cakes" example. Also, he states that "are" is an informal style, which means that "is" is more formal. Do you guys agree with this and is this applicable to my CNN example as well?


Does “work for someone” ever carry negative connotations?

Can I say that _I want him to work for me_ in the sense that _I want him to work at my company_? Does it have any negative connotations, like association with slavery or objectifying the person? Is there a better but _short_ way to say the same?


"Account currency" translation

I'm not a native English speaker and I'd like to translate the following sentence: "Here you can see your Account Terms including the freight and payment terms, minimum order value, and account currency." Could you please explain what "account currency" is? I would translate it as a type of an account which accepts payments in different currencies, but I'm not sure if that's true. Is it a type of an account which accepts all kinds of currencies? Is it the currency ($, €) that's used in the account? Is it an expression that describes the account in any way?


English equivalent of the Hindi phrase "छुपा रुस्तम" (chupa rustam)

I'm looking for English word[s] that come close to छुपा रुस्तम (chupa rustam), literally "hidden warrior". It's attributed to a person who is very clever but does not appear so. If I remember correctly, it's not used for deceitful nature.


Is 'worse' the only comparative that has neither -er nor more?

There was a question recently about comparatives and it got me thinking about how comparatives are formed. There are those that take -er and those that use _more_ to indicate comparison, but is _worse_ the only comparative in English that is intrinsically comparative? That is, it is not necessary to modify it by adding a suffix or a helper. Why is this the case? Looking at Etymonline seems to indicate that it came into English as a comparative already, which would I think explain its irregular form, but I don't know enough about etymology to know if that is a good guess. Are there other words like this, or is _worse_ unique?


is the phrase "leave all worries" correct?

Is the phrase "leave all worries" right ? Or should it always be "No worries" when saying to someone who is disappointed with something ?


for + present perfect or past simple

**Have you ever danced?** This is kind of a usual question. What if I wanna ask someone about his experience and find out how long it lasted. Can I say **Have you ever danced for 5 hours?** (and we're just sitting in a cafe and talking about it) Or I have to put it like this **Did you ever dance for 5 hours?**


Feel support - what does it mean

I'm looking for short phrases which include "support" word in such a way that I can prepend a company name before it and it will make sense. But i'm not a native speaker so I would like to check my idea first. So it is about "feel support". Does this phrase make sense at all? Or it is a mess. For example, could these be used as meaningful addresses: Londoncars.feelsupport.com Hostingspot.feelsupport.com ...and so on More ideas to consider (any help appreciates): knowhowsupport.com \-- Thanks, Anton


Is there a concise term for being over-aware of bad news happening?

That was probably a terrible title, but I'm looking for a word or phrase to describe this concept. We all probably have a relative like this, they feel that the world is "going to hell" around them - except that isn't true, we have 24x7 media and the internet, so the bad stuff that already exists is just much more visible and perceptible than it used to be. In the early 90's it was "stranger danger" and daytime talk shows having moms scared out of their wits that there was a child molester hanging around every corner, just waiting to snatch their loved ones away. (Nevermind the fact that the numbers of these crimes have stayed roughly stable, trending down for a long time) Today it's computer hackers and the NSA. How do you describe a person who is over-aware of bad news and has lost perspective, or the mental state of being in this condition?


Not too expensive v.s. affordable

I'm building a website and I need to choose between 'not too expensive' and 'affordable'. The sentence: > Reliable, stable, secure, great support and of course not too expensive! or > Reliable, stable, secure, great support and of course affordable! Which one is the best?


A word that can refer to an address but also for a contact in general

I'm creating a database that includes so-called sites. Those sites have an address and a shipment address; the addresses include phone numbers, but the postal part is the most important. On the other hand there are service people you can call on the cellphone. They don't necessarily have any relation to the site, in particular not with the main address or the shipment address. To keep my database lean, I want to have three fields of the same general type: "Main Address," "Shipment Address," and "Service Guy Address." What would be a better word in this context? I thought about "contact," but "Shipment contact" doesn't make much sense for the delivery people as they have their own database with much more extensive contact information.


What is the base of a subscript called?

In dingdong , "dong" is the subscript but what is the name for "ding"? Base perhaps!


What are synonyms of the word "metadata"?

Metadata is "data about data". Are there other words with similar meaning?


Word or expression for comments that are technically correct but unhelpful

I think all programmers among us will be familiar with this scenario. You spend several days writing some code and submit it to be tested by someone else. The points that they return, though valid, are not really the reason you wanted it tested. For instance, spotting a missing comma in an error message that you wrote. I often find myself searching for an appropriate phrase to describe this kind of comment. Perhaps an idiom exists for this particular occurrence.


Passive to active interrogatives

I am a high school student. While doing my weekly assignment, I came across a question which asks me to write in active voice > Have they been told to be ready? Can anyone help me out with this one?


"Lesson" vs "unit" in books

I am so confused about _unit_ and _lesson_ in books. I looked up Longman Dictionary and it said "a part of book". What's the difference between them in this case?


What's the origin of "off the cuff"?

as in I spoke off the cuff or an off-the-cuff kind of response.


'tonnage of bombs'

> _ton_ , a unit of weight equal to 2,240 lb avoirdupois (1016.05 kg). > > _tonne_ , a metric ton. **'The tonnage of bombs dropped on Vietnam was more than that of WW2 and Korea.'** When 'tonnages' are not specified like this there is doubt about what they amount to, and I'm strenuously engaged with the problem of thinking in terms of 'tons' or 'tonnes'. Can anybody help me in understanding whether is better to think in terms of 'tons' rather than in terms of 'tonnes'?


Use of "it" to refer to virtual things

I work as a software developer. At times I have to talk about virtual, non- tangible things, like images for a website etc. In these cases, the pronoun that I use is _it_. E.g. > _Colleague:_ "Add the image that I mailed."   >  _Me:_ "Didn't get **it** yet!" I feel that using _it_ in this case isn't right as the image is a virtual thing that we cannot touch and hence there should be some other pronoun in this place.


Are certain English words cognates to Old English words?

For example, the English word _spoor_ comes right from the Afrikaans _spoor_ , meaning trail or track. This is from an identical Dutch word which is descended from the Proto-Germanic * _spurą_ , from which came an Old English word- _spor_. (Also _spurn_ ) Another example of this is with _valkyrie_ , the English word for the choosers of the slain in Norse mythology. Etymonline says it entered English in the 1700s, from the Old Norse. (From _valr_ \+ _kjósa_ , the Proto-Germanic roots of which are from where _choose_ and the Middle English _wal_ come from.) However, Old English had a word for the Valkyries too- _wælcyrge_. So my question is, can we call valkyrie and spoor (plus similar borrowings, like falcon when we had the Old English _fealca_ ) cognates of the Old English words, or are they just borrowings?


What’s the word to describe that I ——— your artwork?

When I see a famous writer, I will say, “Hi, I _read_ your book” (or “have read”?).   When I see a movie star, I will say, “Hey, I _watched_ your movie" (or “have watched”?).   So, when I see a artist, what’s the word in: “Hi, I ——— your artwork”?   (Maybe it’s a photo, or a painting or a sculpture.)


What is a "hens party" and where is this phrase commonly used?

Where does the term come from, where in the world is the term used? I came across the usage in this article, with this paragraph as quoted: > Keara O'Neil was on a shopping trip to find bridesmaid dresses for her > wedding and a frock for her hens night at the GASP Chapel St store on > September 24 when she had a dispute with a sales assistant named "Chris". So now that I've been sufficiently reminded to use Wiktionary and the like, I see that the reference is rather old to meaning "a women's party" and pretty much to mean the sort of thing where gossiping is expected to be a large part of the event. What I'm curious about now is: Since I don't hear this a lot in the US in the South, where _is_ this phrase used? How popular is it? Is it considered antiquated? Hyperbole?


Is there a verb that doesn't take the participle form when used in Present Perfect?

I remember about a month ago I was speaking to a friend and I said a Present Perfect sentence like "I have [VERB]". I forget the verb but I remember it was an everyday verb, not something exotic. But to my shock and horror, I have used not the participle form of the verb, but the past one, and it sounded more correct than using the past participle. (This was a verb whose participle form was different than its past form.) Could this be? Can you think of any verb for which this may be true?


How should "please find enclosed" be used?

In business writing and especially email, the phrase is often used as: > Please find enclosed our price list. > > Please find attached the updated contract. > > Please find herewith my expense report for ice cream. While I often use it myself, I find that it sounds a bit off. How did this sentence construction come to be? The grammar doesn't seem to add up: what are the parts of this sentence? The words _enclosed_ , _attached_ , or _herewith_ looks like it should be a separate clause, perhaps: > Please find (enclosed) the photo of my cat. > > Please find, enclosed, the photo of my cat. Is it more correct with the use of a comma? Another variant I've seen is with the reverse word order: > Attached please find your daughter's report card. Does this word order make it any better?


"Forward" as transitive verb

When casually writing email I find myself using _forward_ like this: > I **forwarded him** the email with your info. Is the above version grammatically correct? > I **forwarded** the email with your info **to him** somehow sounds more proper. Given that > I **sent** you a letter is structured exactly the same way, it seems like it should work the same with _forward_. Is this usage accepted? Why might it still sound odd to me, assuming it is in fact correct?


"Number of users are" vs "Numbers of users are"

I am using Word to write an article. It keeps suggesting that _Number of users are_ should be replaced by _Numbers of users are_ or by _Number of users is_. My question is whether either of the following is correct, and why?   * _Number of users are_   * _Numbers of users are_


Is it ever correct to use "relate to with"?

The following is a sentence I used - > Read these stories. See how many you can **relate to with** your own > childhood Somehow this _relate to with_ was there in my subconscious mind, but now I feel it is not correct. Should I use _relate to/with_ instead?


How would you characterize the phrase 'a more perfect union'?

My question pertains to the usage of 'a more perfect union' in its original context-- the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I want to say that this is a metaphor, because the authors are using the word 'union' in a specific figurative sense. However, this seems a bit strong, because it's not a comparison between two distinct objects. Rather, it's an implied comparison between the state of the country, and a specific, figurative meaning of 'union' in this context. As an aside, it's also interesting that the word 'Union' came to literally mean the northern U.S. during the Civil War.


'Went missing' / 'was missing'

In the following two paragraphs the phrase _went missing_ was originally supposed to be _was missing_. Can I still use it as is? * * * > We went to the cinema yesterday. When we were about to leave, I saw this > scarf hanging down from the handrail just at the exit doors. Everyone was > just walking by; no one seemed to notice it. > > For some reason, I couldn't just walk by. It looked like it belonged to me. > Then I realized that my scarf **went missing**. It's strange, because I > couldn't quite remember when I lost it or why.


I was wondering which tense should be used in the following sentences

Suppose it is now 12 o’clock at noon and I want to tell my mother I will have three meetings: one in the afternoon, one three days later, and one in several months. If I spoke at 9 in the morning, which tense should be used in the following sentences, simple past tense or past future tense?   1. > I told my mother I had a meeting in the afternoon.   >  I told my mother I had a meeting three days later.   >  I told my mother I had a meeting several months later.   2. > I told my mother I would have a meeting in the afternoon.   >  I told my mother I would have a meeting three days later.   >  I told my mother I would have a meeting several months later. Which group of sentences is correct, and what are the reasons?


Whether I should use “without” or to use “except” in this sentence?

I have read a sentence in “New Concept English”, that is, _Harrison had thought of everything except the weather_. Here is the context: > Harrison lived in Mediterranean for many years before returning to England. > He had no sooner settled down than he started to complain about the weather > in England because it is always sunny in the place where he lived before. > Harrison had thought of everything except the weather. My question is that if I can use _without_ in the last sentence. In other words, do you think it is acceptable to say _Harrison had thought of everything without the weather?_ I’m looking forward to know the reasons in detail. Thanks very much.


Is there a word for the day before the last day of a period, which is measured by days? When it is the last day of a period, one may state: > This is the last day to pay this bill. I'm looking for a word to use in this sentence: > This is the first day of the last two days to pay this bill. Is there a general word for the second last chance/hour etc.? For example: > You have two trials to win this game... but I would like to say: > This is your XXX chance to win this game. while XXX is the first of two last trials to win a game.


Meaning of "shouldn't see one woman": singular or multiple

In this example (no pun intended, of course): > I shouldn't see one woman on Twitter today being that it's National Sandwich > Day. Does it mean that I'm not likely to see **any** or just **one** woman?


"If" with implicit "then" question: Should a comma be used?

Consider the following phrase: > If the fruit is an apple, it should be given to children. Is the comma after _apple_ necessary? Is it optional? Is it wrong?


what type of word would used to define having achieved a state?

... or more specifically is there a particular name for a verb in the past tense? for example the train has _arrived_ , whereas the process of achieving the state would be to _arrive_


"As [adjective] as a [noun]" vs "as [adjective] a [noun] as there"

How does the meaning differ for the following two sentences? >   1. Even then, the subject seemed as fascinating a problem as there could > be. >   2. Even then, the subject seemed as fascinating as a problem could be. >


Ending summation with "and" right before another "and"?

Let's say I have this sentence: > This process uses _[summation]_ and produces _z_. Should it be written like this: > This process uses _w_ , _x_ and _y_ and produces _z_. Or like this? > This process uses _w_ , _x_ , _y_ and produces _z_.


"Until" and past perfect

Having seen one sentence in "Practical English Usage" by M.Swan (a very popular grammar book), I was really puzzled. > I waited until the rain had stopped. The past perfect is generally used to show that one past action was completed before the other one, but here, trying to analyze the sentence, we can't say that first the rain stopped and then she waited. I can't grasp the use of using the past perfect in this sentence. Why does this sentence use the past perfect?


What does "X is not a four-letter word" mean?

Once in a while I see phrases like _"Think" is not a four-letter word_ and just about any word can be where "think" is. I looked up the Wikipedia and looks like it says that "four-letter word" means slang words with mostly negative meaning. What does "four-letter word" mean here? Does it mean something like "it's not that bad to think once in a while"?


Is "slightly different" a correct way to draw a comparison

Is it a correct, commonly used way to state that something is different, but only marginally? > The night did happen but it unfolded slightly different.


Which preposition follows "persist"?

Which of the following is correct? >   1. The program persists the data **in** the database. >   2. The program persists the data **to** the database. > **In** feels a little more natural to me, but I have no particular basis for that.


"Decagram" or "dekagram"

If one wants to describe 10 grams, would the appropriate wording be _decagram_ or _dekagram_ , assuming US English? Word recognizes both words as valid. Wikipedia lists only _decagram_. Merriam- Webster knows both. Google recognizes both (although it gives a definition for _decagram_ if you enter _dekagram_ ).


"Our name is" or "Our names are"?

Two women, both named Sarah, want to introduce themselves. What do they say? "Our name is Sarah"? This seems to make no sense. "Our names are Sarah"? This also can't be right. What is the correct way? I believe the correct way would be, "Our names are Sarah and Sarah." Any thoughts on this?


Is 'times it by' or 'minus it by' correct?

I'm always hearing math instructors, and students, use ‘times it by’ to describe multiplicative operations: “…To find the ratio, you times it by one hundred…” To hear other students phrasing mathematical operations like this is one thing, but hearing my math instructors using this really bugs me. Could it possibly be correct? It sounds quite off to me.


"I couldn't but laugh" - correct or not?

Is the usage of "I couldn't but laugh" in place of "I couldn't not laugh" correct English? Or should it always be "I couldn't help but laugh"?


Is there an abstract word for the environment in which a vehicle can move?

I am looking for a word (or short construct of words) that could be used to refer to things that a given vehicle could traverse: "sky, land, water. etc." To give an analogue, I can refer to "gasoline, diesel, electricity, rocket, etc." as "fuels" In my specific case, I can't use "environment" because it's being used to describe other things in the same work, and would become ambiguous.


Where does "wicked" get its /ɪd/ from?

There are three ways I know to pronounce the _-ed_ at the end of an adjective:   1. /t/ as in _cracked_.   2. /d/ as in _lined_.   3. /ɪd/ as in _naked_ I realise _naked_ is a special case because, as etymonline states, it comes for Old English _nacod_ , so the suffix isn't added. This answer shows the pattern of pronunciation of _-ed_ in all other cases. However it doesn't explain why _wicked_ ends with /ɪd/ (or /id/ or /əd/ depending on the dialect). Etymonline says that _wicked_ comes from OE _wicca_ , so the _d_ wasn't already there. Why do we pronounce _wicked_ as /ˈwɪkɪd/ and not /ˈwɪkt/?


"which" after a dash

From this New Yorker article: > But Holder’s decision suggests (though it does not guarantee) that marijuana > arrests will be heading downward. To the extent that they do, that will be a > step forward for racial equality. Ending discriminatory enforcement— > **which** is what happened in New York and around the country—is a positive > step for everyone. What does this "which" refer to?


How old is the term "child minder"?

I was interested in finding out when the term _child minder_ was first used.


"Leave for <time>"

What is the meaning of the following? > You have to leave for six thirty. (p.m. implied) Does it mean you have to leave for your destination at 6:30 p.m.? Or does it mean that you have arrive at your destination by 6:30 p.m?


"Serial potential drop" or "series of potential drops"

I would like to use the word _serial_ in the sense that it denotes a sequential arrangement of objects. In that regard, is it better to say "serial potential drop" instead of "a series of potential drops"?


What is the name of the clause stating that the expected result did not follow the cause stated in the main clause?   1. "He did not succeed **although he worked hard**." **concessive clause** (1st clause = absence of expected result; 2nd clause = presence of potential cause)   2. "He worked hard **but he did not succeed**." **What is this clause called?** (1st clause = presence of potential cause; 2nd clause = absence of expected result)


Do I need one or more commas in this sentence?

> May I suggest that you keep on searching Asda or better yet go back to > Primark. It looks as if at least one comma is needed here. I was thinking: > May I suggest that you keep on searching Asda or, better yet, go back to > Primark. Are commas necessary?


Why am I "happy as Larry"?

I was feeling in a good mood the other day, and the expression _happy as Larry_ sprang to mind (the alternative, _like a pig in shit_ , being perhaps a little coarse). I was wondering about the origin of the phrase. Phrases.org here has two suggestions, about a Australian boxer Larry Foley, and it being derived from _larrikins_ (hooliganism), which is presumably amusing to the perpetrator. Are either of these correct? Does anyone have any other suggestions?


"I grip the steering wheel like I grasp TO my memory of that day." Is that "to" wrong? Omit, or change to "at"?

In the sentence above, is "grasp to my memory of..." wrong? It feels wrong, but I can't articulate why. I might say "grasp at my memory of" or perhaps omit the preposition all together. I fear without a preposition though, it implies the memory was actually grasped, instead of implied movement towards/in the direction of. Odd because it's a metaphorical grasping, not that that should matter. So what should it be? At, to, or nothing?


Structure of "the talk was of 'smart' sanctions"

From an article named "Iran’s nuclear programme: A red line and a reeling rial": > SIX YEARS ago, when America and Europe were putting in place the first raft > of measures to press Iran to come clean over its nuclear ambitions, _the > talk was of “smart” sanctions_. Does "The talk was of 'smart' sanctions" mean "It's the talk of the 'smart' sanctions"? It's the first time I have ever seen this turn of phrase. I mean, of course I know "He can be of help" means "He can be helpful", but they are not the same case here, are they? I would like to know more about its structure.


Usage of myself vs me

"Please summit your registration forms to John, Jay, or myself before the end of the day." My homework says "myself" is incorrect and "me" should be used in the context of this sentence. I don't understand why.


What does the phrase, “there is properly no history, only biography” mean?

I found Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous words, “ _there is properly no history, only biography_ ,” in his “Essay I” being quoted in the article titled “Keeping the dream alive: A biography,” appearing in June 21, 2012 Time magazine. The article deals with the collapse of American Dream, and “there is properly no history ...” comes in the following sentence: > > “There is the crisis of our time. The American Dream may be slipping away. > We have overcome such challenges before. To recover the Dream requires > knowing where it came from, how it lasted so long and why it matters so > much. > > Emerson once remarked that _there is properly no history, only biography_. > This is the biography of an idea, one that made America great. Whether that > idea has much of a future is the question facing Americans now.” The author, Jon Meacham seems to relate the word, “the biography of an idea” to American Dream, but I don’t get a clear idea about the phrase, “there is properly no history, only biography” meant by Emerson. What does it mean in specific connection with “American Dream”? By the way, what is the function of “ _properly_ ” used as an adverb here? Does it mean “in proper (exact) sense, there is no (abstract string of) history, but for (individual) biography (of heroes or historic characters)?


What is a one or two word phrase for "Social Media following"?

I am writing an application and need to find a short way to depict shared group of people following certain assets like say hashtags in Twitter or are fans of certain pages in Facebook. Thought about audience but that doesn't really fit. Also advocates.


Origin of "cream" meaning "to defeat decisively"

What is the origin of the verb _cream_ meaning _to defeat someone_ , such as in this example? > We **creamed** them.


What does 'Something has got to give' mean?

I have heard this many times, with variations like "something's gotta give", but what exactly does it mean?


Is "more infrequently" acceptable?

Recently a friend of mine, a native British English speaker, said: > .... more infrequently... I asked him, why not ' _less frequently_ ,' and he said that would sound weird and that his version was perfectly fine. Now, I do know that the grammar is fine in both versions. What I'd like to know is if a teacher would mark that as poor wording or not. To me it just sounds strange but as the English grammar with regard to adjectives calls for this, maybe for a native it is not weird at all.


Is "between A to B" considered good grammar?

I looked at "Between A and B vs from A to B", but it didn't mention a third variation I've been hearing more often, recently. Even on the Australian national broadcaster, the ABC, I've heard statements by reporters like > The cost was estimated to be between A to B dollars. Have the rules of grammar changed, or is this as ungrammatical as I think it is?


phonetics vs. phonology

I'm reading an article about phonetics and phonology, and it clamis that they are different. But I can't locate where the difference is located. Referring to my dictionary, I can see: > **Phonetics** :   >  study of speech sounds: the scientific study of speech sounds and how they > are produced > > **Phonology:**   >  study of speech sounds: the study of the system or pattern of speech sounds > used in a particular language or in language in general See? Both are described as **study of speech sounds**. The only difference I see here is that, phonology is related to patterns, while phonetics is related to how sounds are produced. Is it right? How they are different? PS: I know that this question is related to linguistics. But we don't have linguistics.stackexchange.com. Thus I had no other choice, but to ask it here.


A word similar to lofty

I'm looking for an adjective that means lofty, intangible, hard to incorporate into every day life, not down-to-earth. It would describe an idea or concept. ETA: Example of sentence I would use it in: > It's hard to feel strong emotions about something that is so ___ _


What is not a "coffin" but used to carry the corpse?

_Coffin_ is box in which corpse is _buried_ and is also used to carry the corpse to the grave. But Muslims carry the the corpse in cage sort of a thing, remove the corpse from it and then bury it. So technically the definition of coffin wouldn't apply to it. Is that right? If so, then what term could be used to describe it?


Name for the relationship of wife’s sister’s husband

Is there a name for the relationship of my wife’s sister’s husband in English? Or in case of a lady, what is the relationship of her husband’s brother’s wife called? There are words for these relationships in Indian languages like Tamil. I have heard instances of the words “co-brother” and “co-sister” being used in India. But, I strongly suspect that these usages are Indian.


What are the synonyms for 'face-to-face'?

I found in dictionary - opposite, but that is not the synonym that I am looking for. I am interested for something like 'local'. For example, "We work with customers face-to-face as well as remotely". With what can I replace "face-to- face" in this sentense?


How was "ben't" used, and when did it cease to be used?

In Jane Austen's _The Watsons_ , the maid of the titular family utters the following sentence: > "Please, ma'am, master wants to know why he ben't to have his dinner?" I have never encountered _ben't_ before, and haven't been able to find much information about it through preliminary research. This source, as well as a few others I encountered, states that _ben't_ is among the **first** negative contractions attested in written English, in the 1600s, but gives no clue as to when its usage ended, nor what exactly it was used for. Given that _The Watsons_ was written in 1805 and published in 1871, the form was evidently still recognized in the 19th century. So, my question has several parts:   1. What exactly does _ben't_ mean - how did its usage differ from _isn't, aren't_ , etc? (In the example above, it sounds as though it would be interchangeable with _isn't_.)   2. When did _ben't_ become archaic/obsolete?   3. Were there some dialects of English in which _ben't_ was more commonly used than others? (I ask this because in the Austen example, it's the maid who uses _ben't_ , which leads me to hypothesize that maybe - at least by the 19th century - it was only used in some nonstandard dialect, or a lower speech register, or something of that kind.)


List of expertise levels from beginner to expert

I am looking for a list from beginner to expert in as much as possible steps. I have constructed by myself:   * Newbie   * Novice   * Rookie   * Beginner   * Talented   * Skilled   * Intermediate   * Skillful   * Seasoned   * Proficient   * Experienced   * Advanced   * Senior   * Expert What do you think is the best list? Thanks!


How should a long sentence with multiple "or"s and commas be understood?

I'm trying to get a proper understanding of exactly what a long, run-on sentence really says. The actual text is from Michigan law, but I'm not seeking a legal interpretation rather a full understanding of the grammar. The full text is ADVERTISEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ADVANTAGES, but the part which of interest is > ... an amount to be used for advertising agricultural or industrial > advantages of the state or county or any part of the state, or for > collecting, preparing or maintaining an exhibition of the products and > industries of the county at any domestic or foreign exposition, for the > purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing the trade in the products > of Michigan, or advertising the state and any portion thereof for tourists > and resorters. ... For what specific things may "an amount" be used for? More to the point, is/are "for the purpose of encouraging immigration ..." (an) enumerated activity (activities) of its own? Or, is does it qualify the activity before it? Is the text is any way ambiguous? If this were to be re- written as a bulleted list, how would that look? The detailed technical reasons supporting any particular reading would be quite useful.


name for a group of non profit donors

I need a catchy name for a group of 100 donors who plan to each give $1000 to a non profit whose focus is on children and grief.... any ideas?


Idiom thesaurus?

Can you recommend some searchable resource that maps given expression onto idioms meaning that thing? There are quite a few dictionaries that contain a list of idioms containing a given word which is useful if you encounter the given idiom and want to know its meaning. If I search for "horse", I will get "get on a high horse", "horse sense" or "dark horse" or "a horse of different color". What I need is a writer's resource, a thesaurus, where I know the basic meaning and I can give its straight, direct wording, but the situation really calls upon using some smart idiom in that place. Say, I want to know idioms for "different", and get "a horse of different color", "another cup of tea" and "a whole new ball game".


"The time of/into/in/by your watch"

> What is the time ___ your watch? > >   1. of >   2. into >   3. in >   4. by > Which preposition is correct?


Adjectival form of the word 'aspect'?

What if any is the adjectival form or complement of the word 'aspect'? I was thinking of using "aspectful" but it seems a bit ugly. To provde a bit of context, I am working on a framework and trying to name an interface. All of my other names are adjectives and the convention seems reasonable. Forgive me if this is too contrived, but I am looking for a single word and trying to avoid the use of a compound phrase here ("aspect-oriented") if possible.


Use of "make someone able to XXX"

I have some doubts about the construction of this sentence: > I want to make you able to play. In my language this is a common construction. Is it a valid sentence in English too? This is the form: **subject** \+ **to make** \+ **pronoun** \+ **able to verb**.


What do you call a pair of words which would be meaningless without one of them?

I am referring to a set of words that wouldn't make sense if one word or the other was omitted. Like _barbershop quartet_ , or _Cyber Security_. What do you exactly call this set of words?


Word for a commonly encountered scenario

What word describes an abstract process that is encountered frequently? For example, every time I get into a car, I start it by turning the key. The car and the key might be different in every single scenario, but the process is still 'get into car, turn key'. I was thinking _idiom_ , but that doesn't really seem to fit.


"In work" vs. "at work"

What is the difference between _in work_ and _at work_? Does _in work_ imply that the person is busy and immersed in his work? > I am at work. > > He is in work.


'yet to collect' is this correct or not?

I have to specify not yet collected whether I can specify 'yet to collect' or 'yet to be collected' which one I can use?


Who is “That Guy”?

I found the term “that guy”, used as “He embarked on a career as a 'that guy',” in the following sentence of the article of the New Yorker (Feb. 7, 2011) titled “the Most Interesting Man in the World”: > In a recalls of a contentious exchange with Hoffman: “I jumped up and said, > ‘Dustin, the reason you don’t like me is because I’m gonna make it and > you’re not.’ ” Jonathan Goldsmith eventually made it - out to Los Angeles, > anyway—and embarked on a career as a “ _that guy_ ,” very often the that guy > who gets killed, on television shows such as “Bonanza,” “Mannix,” > “Gunsmoke,” “Hawaii Five-O,” ... to name a few. As I don’t understand what _that guy_ used in quotes means, I checked online dictionaries. Neither Cambridge online, nor Free Merriam-Webster has an entry for “that guy.” Only Onlineslangdictionary.com carries the definition as “any person who does something considered inappropriate,” with an example, “I was going to crack a joke then, but I didn't want to be that guy.” But I don’t think this definition applies to “that guy” appearing in the above sentence. What does “that guy” as a career Goldsmith built up mean? Does it mean a villain (in the film)? Is "that guy" a well-received of its own word?


"String of numbers" vs. "field of numbers"

I'm trying to choose a name for a variable in my program that includes some number tandem. What is the difference between _string_ and _field_ in this case? For example, which one is better: "field of numbers" or "string of numbers"?


Progressive form of "beware"

I am reading a book, called Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. At the beginning of chapter 2, when discussing the inflectional morphology of English verbs, the author says: > The most regular verb suffix in English is _-ing_ , which can be attached to > the base form of almost any verb (though a handful of defective verbs like > _beware_ are exceptions). But a quick search on online language tools, such as Wiktionary, The Free Dictionary and Google NGrams reveals the existence of _bewaring_. Wiktionary even lists some book quotations. So, what is the author trying to say? In what respect _beware_ is defective?


Symposium vs Conference?

I am unable get a clear idea about the difference between a `conference` and a `symposium`. The folllowing are the meanings of symposium and conference from www.dictionary.com. As we can see below there is no significant difference between these two. I am not getting `clarity` in the difference from either the below definitions or Google search. I have attended both `conferences` and `symposiums` in my field, but unable to find any difference. Could someone provide me a clear-cut difference between these two (atleast theoretically)? > **Symposium** : a meeting or conference for the discussion of some subject, > especially a meeting at which several speakers talk on or discuss a topic > before an audience. > > **Conference** : a meeting for consultation or discussion: a conference > between a student and his adviser


What is the best format to use when writing out dates?

What format of date is appropriate for different contexts (business, personal) in written English, nowadays?   * 1st of April, 2010   * April the 1st, 2010   * April 1, 2010   * April 01, 2010   * another one


How should a date be written?

> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Date formatting in written English Which of these is the correct way to write a date? 1- Wednesday 5th of June, 2010   2- Wednesday 5th June, 2010   3- Wednesday the 5th of June, 2010


Date/Time Format in Report

On Thursday, 23 June 2004 at 3:15 pm, Mike Lollis resigned. In British style, 1) Do I need to insert a comma after '2004'? 2) Can I leave 'pm' as is without the full stops in this abbreviation? 3) Do I need a comma after 'Thursday' as shown? Or does this look better (and more polished)? On Thursday, June 23, 2004, at 3:15 p.m., Mike Lollis resigned. Thanks.


Comparative, superlative using "one of"

Which is correct: >   * Today is one of the warmer days this month. >   * Today is one of the warmest days this month. > I hear the first used almost exclusively on television news.


Pronouncing x in the name of a CD product

I would like to know how to pronounce 48x Cd-Rw. The problem is how to pronounce the "x" in the context of computing.


level of detail between

> The same level of detail between the 3D models and the real objects has been > achieved. In formal language, does this sentence make sense? I'm not sure about the use of the preposition "between" in this case. It should mean that level of detail of the 3d models and level of detail of the real objects is the same.


Largest open-source dictionary w/ brief definitions (not wiktionary)

What's the largest open-source dictionary that includes brief definitions of each word? Wiktionary is a great resource but:   * There are over 200K words in the scowl list that aren't in wiktionary. I'd use scowl directly, but it only list words and has no definitions.    * Wiktionary intentionally includes misspellings (sometimes not marked as such, and sometimes as redirection), and I'm looking for only correctly-spelled words.    * Wiktionary's definitions are often lengthy, not brief.    * It's difficult to automatically extract the portion of a wiktionary page that's the definition.  I'm somewhat surprised this question isn't in the FAQ, and that I couldn't find the answer by searching this site.


Pronouns for collective nouns (British and American)

British and American English differ in the way they conjugate verbs for collective nouns: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=877. For example, an American would probably say "China is winning" whereas a Brit would probably say "China are good." Similarly, I think the American would say "The Chinese gymnastics team is good" and the Brit would say "The Chinese gymnastics team are good." My question: what happens when pronouns enter into it? Brits can say "The Chinese gymnastics team know that they are good." I think that's straightforward enough. But what about the American equivalent? My American coworker argues for "The Chinese gymnastics team knows that they are good." To me, this seems to create a clash between the plural "they" and two earlier cues that the subject of the sentence is singular: (1) "team" and (2) "knows." Even if "team" can work as both a plural or a singular, can it really do both in the same sentence? My personal inclination is to write it as "The Chinese gymnastics team knows that it is good." I suggested this one to my coworker, who didn't like it. I agree that it's weird. Having three consecutive singular cue-words gives too strong a sense of the team's collective conscience, which wasn't implied at all in the British version. Maybe this question is particular to the verb "know" and isn't (as I originally thought) generally applicable to sentences with both collective nouns and pronouns. But in any case, I'd love to get some opinions on how an American should fill in "The Chinese gymnastics team knows that [???] good." (I've lived in Britain for 9 years, and America for 12)


How to Cite a Supreme Court Syllabus in Chicago Style?

I'm trying to cite the syllabus of a Supreme Court case in Chicago Style (Notes and Bib). Help?


Who inflects "innit"?

I'm quite surprised there doesn't seem to be a question about this yet. Depending on where you hail from, you've probably heard the word _innit,_ an abbreviation of _isn't it_ or _ain't it_. You may also have heard it used as a placeholder for any negative tag question, such as _isn't he_ or _don't you,_ much like the French _n'est-ce pas_. I get how _innit_ could be understood as something like _isn't that so,_ but I can't quite bring myself to use it that way. So what to do instead? I inflect it:   * Aren't I -> areni ['ar(ɛ)naɪ]   * Aren't you -> arencha* ['ar(ɛ)nʧə]   * Aren't we -> arenwe* ['ar(ɛ)nwɪ]   * Isn't he -> innhe* [ɪni]   * Isn't she -> innshe [ɪnʃi]   * Aren't they -> arenthey* [ar(ɛ)n(ð)ɛɪ]   * Don't I -> dunni ['dʌnaɪ]   * Don't you -> doncha* ['dəʊnʧə]   * Don't we -> donwe ['dəʊ(n)wɪ]   * Doesn't he -> dunnhe* ['dʌni]   * Doesn't she -> dunnshe ['dʌnʃi]   * Don't they -> dunney ['dʌnɛɪ] Those marked with asterisks are those for which I can find references via Google. I found it interesting that third-person female forms ( _-she_ ) haven't shown up at all, though I excluded spellings such as _dontshe_ for obvious reasons. Granted, I don't actually use these all that often, and I'm quite uncertain of how to spell some of them (I keep thinking that the _-i_ ones should end in _-igh_ ), so I don't really have a perfect way to search for usage. I don't really know which modals to exclude, either, as pronunciation changes in running speech are commonplace. So where might I find pronunciation, usage, and spelling information on these words?


What is the adjectival form of "primate"?

To say a man is close to a primate, what should I use, "primatic" or "primative"?


"Injured" vs. "wounded"

I just saw a news report in which the reporter said: "They used the term _injured_ and not _wounded_ ". I am wondering what the difference between the two is. Is _wounded_ used only when there is an open wound?


The etymology of the phrase "I'm afraid not"

When confirming bad news, or replying to a request in the negative it is common to hear one of these two phrases: > I'm afraid so. or > I'm afraid not. The general meaning inferred by "I'm afraid" seems to be apologetic, as in: "I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news". Is someone able to explain why we use this terminology and whether _afraid_ in this sense is the same _afraid_ we use to mean "to be fearful of something"? And if it is, what exactly is it that one is afraid _of_?


Skyping or Skypeing

How do you say phoning by Skype? I would like to use the word in a semi formal way, in a work related email conversation, where I start emails with "Hi". **Skyping** or **Skypeing**


Why "just another bit of intrigue"?

The following is an excerpt from the transcript of a podcast:Tut Shares Tomb with Former Fungi. > Mitchell thinks this evidence indicates that King Tut was buried in a hurry. > Because the paint on the walls was probably still wet. And that moisture, > along with the body and the food buried there, would have fed the wall > fungus, until the tomb ultimately dried out. But why the hasty funeral? Just > **another bit of intrigue** surrounding the boy king. I am totally confused with the word "intrigue" here. When it is a noun, it means "a secret scheme". But what's the "scheme" supposed to be here? It seems that it's better to understand it as a verb--"If something, especially something strange, intrigues you, it interests you and you want to know more about it." But it is a noun here. So here is my question: > How to understand " _another bit of intrigue_ " here?


What is a word that describes the class that "background" and "foreground" are members of?

If I say "It was happening in the foreground." or "It was happening in the background." "Foreground" and "background" are examples of locations in some kind of metaphorical space, regardless of what they are foreground or background of. Is there a good word for these sort of "locations" in the abstract, without regard to the medium (visual arts, music, theater, etc) that the foreground and background exist in?


Is there a difference between "political science" and "political sciences"?

I am doing a research about research disciplines. I found it confusing and surprising that there are two ways to refer to "political science(s)" Google:   1. "political science" returns 26 million results.   2. "political sciences" returns 4 million results. It seems like a considerable amount of texts refers to what I understand as "sciences". Does it mean that there are many sciences?


What is the proper way to mention "current" for future events?

I am writing a software user manual so the topic is about possible situations which its users may come across. Here is an example sentence: > The button saves the **current** URL in the browser. Usage of **current** above does not mention the present time actually, so what is the proper way to mention "current" for future events?


What is the spell-out form of ‘FUPA’ as an acronym for ‘a protruding lower belly’?

Tina Fey lists up 26 ‘deficiencies’ that women are buying a product to correct them, which starts with the first seven: -big pores -oily T-zone -cankles -lunchlady arms -fivehead,  -nipples too big,  and then, - **FUPA** (an acronym for a protruding lower belly) in her latest million-seller book, “Tina Fey: Bossypants.” I have no idea about what words FUPA do account for as an acronym. What are they?


"The reason is that" vs. "the reason is because"

> The reason we cannot go is [because/that] our car needs new tires. Which word to choose?


Interjection for the sound of a bell

I saw this other question, but it's not quite what I'm asking. A bell makes a sound. How would you write that sound in English? As an interjection, e.g. "boom!" I'm sure it varies with the type and size of bell. I'd be happy to hear any and all variations.


Origin of the idiom "falling off the wagon"

I often hear the idiom "falling off the wagon", as in "Has Robert Downey Jr. fallen off the wagon?" (i.e. Is he drinking alcohol again?). Where did the phrase originate? What wagon? And why is being "on the wagon" synonymous with being sober?


Does this act have a name?

I sometimes act silly like this that I pick up anything comprised of many smaller parts then leave my conclusion on how it is numbered or labeled.   Piece1: Mark knows my language   Piece2: Mark knows not   Piece3: Mark knows   Piece4: Mark knows not   Piece5: Mark knows   Piece6: Mark knows not   ...   PieceN: Mark knows not :-(


How to express that you can understand the English that someone spoke?

"I can read English", "I can speak English", or "I can write English" are all correct uses of the word "English". But is "I can listen to English" correct English?   Or should I say "I can hear English"?   Are there better ways to say that? I want to know how to express that you can understand the English that someone has spoken.


Meaning of passage

What is the meaning of the following passage? > I don’t know what your odds are in the world as a whole, but as far as the > population of this car goes? You’re a veritable Mack Daddy.


What are some words for something that is not organised?

What are some words that describe precisely, something that is is not structured, ordered and not a system. However the word I'm looking for is not something like anarchy, I want a more neutral sounding word with no real negative slant/connotations to it. There is a certain word that I've seen before that I'm looking for, however I can't find it, even after trying numerous thesauruses, which is weird because it's not a very complex word, it's just a bit uncommon. An example of usage would be: > Rules do not work in a world that is **___ __**. Nature is not an organised > system it is **___ __**.


The use of "have": "have a map on it" and "have a colony in the country"

I would like to know about the use of "have" combined with prepositional phrases. > **(ex.1)** The table has a map on it. Example 1 can be paraphrased as "there is a map on the table". In this case, "it" in "on it" refers to "the table". Is the relationship necessary? How about the following? >   * **(ex.2)** The Empire had a colony in the country. >   * **(ex.3)** A colony in the Empire was in the country. > Are both the sentences correct?


Is there a difference between "each of which/some of which" and "each of them/some of them"?

Is there a difference between the expressions "each of which" and "each of them", and also for "some of which" and "some of them"? For example: >   1. The paragraph is composed of sentences, for each of them (or for each > of which) the style is analysed. > >   2. The paragraph is composed of sentences, some of them (or some of which) > are nominal sentences, the others are verbal sentences. > >


The solution to the problem is more complicated than the problem

I thought there was a word for this. Where you take a basic problem that exists and the best solution already exists and any effort we put into solving the problem would actually cause more work for us thus becoming a bigger problem.


When did beast become a verb?

In recent times, people have started using the word _beast_ as a verb (i.e., _beast it_ , _you've got to beast harder_ ). Is there any information about when this trend started and how it came about?


Interrupted dialogue and capitalisation

When a speaker resumes speaking mid-sentence after an interruption, what case would be correct or better practice to use at the start of the sentence? As the resumed dialogue would not be a complete sentence, would this require lower case? "When I was in the military, we had to watch out for scorpions—" "Oh no, not more boring army stories." "especially, the small brown ones, that could kill you!" Here, I believe that the lower case _e_ at the start of the sentence is correct.


"Apply" and the passive voice

I have a sentence like this. > I applied this method to the problem. I want "the problem" to be the subject of the sentence. If "this method" were the subject, this might be very easy. > This method was applied to the problem. However, > The problem was applied this method to. this sentence looks a bit awkward. Is the last sentence OK?


"Our editors compete to get your job"

I run a web service where customers submit an image with a description what needs to be edited, and editors compete with prices to get that editing job. I want to put the following sentence in an web ad: > Our editors compete to get your job. Just wondering whether it sounds like they want to take over the customer's proper job.


Why does "not least" mean "notably"?

What's an intuitive derivation behind ODO's definition that helps to internalise its meaning: > **not least** = In particular; notably I couldn't find the etymology for this adverbial phrase? Is that the correct term? I also checked on ELL. The example is taken from page 1 of this PDF ; The _National Admissions Test for Law_ (LNAT): > You may find, however, that answering one question helps you answer the > next, **not least** for the purposes of elimination as well as general > understanding of the subject matter and the structure of the main and > subsidiary arguments.


How does “to consist in” develop to mean “to have as an essential feature”?

What's the logical derivation behind this definition of **consist in** [Definition 1.1]: > have as an essential feature: How does the etymology (listed in that link and here) lead to the foregoing meaning? > **Etymonline:** 1520s, from Middle French consister (14c.) or directly from > Latin consistere "to stand firm, take a standing position, stop, halt," from > com- "together" (see com-) + sistere "to place," causative of stare "to > stand, be standing" (see stay (v.)). Related: Consisted; consisting. Example from p 136, How the Law Works, Gary Slapper: > For example, in one edition of the leading theoretical text Criminal Law, > the writers Smith and Hogan acknowledge the view of Sir Carleton Allen, who > wrote: > >> Crime is crime because it **consists in** wrongdoing which directly and in serious degree threatens the security or well-being of society, and because it is not safe to leave it redressable only by compensation of the party injured.


Synonym to "very convenient"

Can you list me candidates that can replace "quite convenient","very convenient", and sort according to the degree? I don't want to use the word "very" in my text. For example, "using this editing technique instead of the technique in regular software is very convenient since it greatly saves you time" Thanks.


What's the difference between -"I'll come to Germany not at a weekend, but on a weekday" and "I won't come to Germany at a weekend, but on a weekday";   * "He is good not only at math, but also at history" and "He isn't good only at math, but also at history"? Thanks in advance.


Where can I find words that have "literary meaning" like "ardent", "antic"

Is there a place on the Interent where we can find words with meaning that marked as _literary_ in the OED like these: > _literary_    > for > > _literary_ : because; since: he felt guilty, for he knew that he bore a > share of responsibility for Fanny's death.    > antic > > _literary_ : grotesque or bizarre.    > pinion > > _literary_ : a bird's wing as used in flight.    > ardent > > _archaic_ or _literary_ : burning; glowing I tried googling it but only found list of terms like "oxymoron" that describe different figure of speech..


What is the difference between "chasing" or "catching"?

What is the difference between "The police are catching the thief" and "The police are chasing the thief"?


"I see it moving/move"

Basically what't the difference between these two forms in all regards? What do I use? From my native language I've got this habit to always go gerund.


What does "For the record" mean?

Can anybody help me with that? I've had a look at dictionary and yahoo search before but I can't find out what does exactly "for the record mean" Foe example: > And for the record he wasn't agreed with that


Usage of "what"

We recently did a test and we stumbled upon the following sentence:   * This film is better than ... we saw yesterday. With the answers:               a, which     b, -        c, what     d, that      I choose "what" and the book also confirmed it as the correct one, but my teacher insisted it is wrong and it should be "which". Could someone settle this argument for us? Preferably with some reasoning. Thank you in advance!


What Part of speech is "back" in my sentences

Back in time. Back in those days What part of speech is "Back" in those sentences


"After reviewing ..., it ...": is it grammatical?

I was interested in the sentence “ _After reviewing the special commissioner's report, it is obvious to me that Mr. Namnum abused his responsibility and privileges to secure a job for his wife, who was clearly unqualified_ ,” which appeared in news article, titled “ _School Administrator Resigns After Inquiry Into Wife's Job_ ,” on The New York Times (March 28, 2012). > The schools chancellor, Dennis M. Walcott, issued a statement saying: " > **After reviewing the special commissioner's report, it is obvious to me > that Mr. Namnum abused his responsibility and privileges to secure a job for > his wife, who was clearly unqualified**. No one at any level of government > should be allowed to put his own self-interest ahead of his obligation to > the city." For a non-native English speaker, it seems more natural rewording the mentioned sentence in this way: "A review of the special commissioner's report provides evidence that Mr. Namnum abused ...". Are there rules governing this strange grammatical structure ( _After reviewing ..., it ..._ )?


Is the [partial] statement "Essentially in theory" grammatically correct?

Ok so my full statement was > Essentially in theory, the answer would be yes. Is it grammatically correct, or should I use one or the other: **essentially** or **theory**?


"pre-" and "post-", but what about "suf-"?

Is there a prefix related to “suf-” the way “pre-” is related to “post-”? In my opinion, “pre-” seems to mean leading, “post-” means bringing up the rear (like a post script). “suf-” would seem to have more of the idea of a caboose (the end of something), and as such, maybe there isn't something related that has the idea of beginning.


How to unambiguously refer to someone from India

One can refer to an _American Indian_ as a _Native American_ , but I cannot come up with an unambiguous term for an Indian from the Indian subcontinent. How can I refer to someone who is from the country of India, preferably without having to say "from the country of India"? Ambiguous example: > My roommate is Indian.


Usage of "East Indian" to distinguish from "Native American"

I know someone who uses the term "East Indian" to refer to people from India, or whose ancestors are from India, lest they be misunderstood to mean Native American. This struck me as unusual and confusing, and I am curious if others use the term this way. If I referred to someone as "East Indian," would you assume that the person was from India, from the eastern part of India, from somewhere like Indonesia -- or would you just be confused (like me) and ask for clarification? Is there another, better way of saying "Indian from India"?


"Kafkaesque" vs. "Kafkan"

Is there any difference in meaning between the adjectives _Kafkaesque_ and _Kafkan_ , or are they synonyms?


Origin of once again

I'm sure that most of you will be familiar with the phrase "once again." > Once again, I take that back. However, I don't get the words. _Once_ means "one time." However, _again_ means that you did it again. Isn't this phrase an oxymoron?


Can I change how to accomplish something once someone says "or something to that effect"?

I periodically get a broad description of how to perhaps solve a problem at work but then at the end of the email the phrase "or something to that effect" is included. Does that mean - 'just get me the outcome' and forget how I told you to get there?


Can “in its own right” be used to mean “in itself”?

I’d like to use the phrase “in its own right” to mean “in itself” as in: > This subject has no practical application, but is interesting in its own > right. Is this a correct usage of the phrase? How is this understood by native speakers? Also, do you know of good alternatives?


Precise meaning of "fourfold"

I got into a disagreement with someone about the meaning of the word "fourfold." His contention is that it means up to four times as many whereas my contention is that it means four times as many, no less and no more. I then provided these references to the definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com...               1 : being four times as great or as many      2 : having four units or members      http://www.oxforddictionaries....               1: Four times as great or as numerous:      To which, he responded that the very first definition, "Being four times as great or as many" means, "Being four times as great or as many as four times." I'm virtually certain it means, "Being four times as great or being four times as many." Who's right and how do you explain the grammatical differences of the definition?


Usage of "booked on" "booked in" and "booked for"?

Which usage is correct in terms of booking a room/course/session? > "booked on a room/course/session" > > "booked in a room/course/session" > > "booked for a room/course/session" Googling it, I usually see all three versions for crime-related headlines: > Booked On Assault Charge > > Man booked in car crash that killed wife, son > > Booked For Alleged Drag Racing I am wondering if this is a regional choice, like "standing in line" vs. "standing on line."


Name for a special type of abbreviation, such as "mart" for "market"

Is there a name for when an abbreviation deviates greatly from the main word, as "mart" does for "market"?


Is the "wit" in "to wit" the root of any other English words?

...and if not, where'd it go? One obvious venture is that the noun "wit", in the sense of cleverness and general know-how, has an etymological affinity with the Old English _witen_ , "to know", and which Merriam-Webster informs me the "wit" in _to wit_ is a conjugation of. I can kinda-sorta see it, but the connection isn't very transparent to me. However, I can certainly appeal to the learnèd scholars here! Are there any other surviving words _witen_ bears etymological affinities to?


Why is "that would be me" more certain than "that is me"?

I have been reading these two posts on **would** : Why "that would be me"? (part 1) & Why "that would be me"? (part 2) > If you want a domestic SUV, then the best choice **would** be the Ford > Escape Hybrid. > > If you want functional air filters, the best choice **would** have to be K&N > Air Filter. > > If you really want to use WMA, the best choice **would** be 2-pass encoding. > > If you really need a fighter bay, the best choice by far **would** be a > manta bay. Very similar examples exist with present-tense forms of to be: > If you want real wood, the best choice is engineered flooring. > > If you want to stay in colonial Quito, the best choice is the Hotel Real > Audiencia. > > If you want HD programming, Dish Network is the best choice. The post and its comments say that with respect to perceived speaker (un)certainty, perhaps the preterite makes the speaker seem **more** _rather than_ **less** certain, by emphasizing that the logic of the hypothetical situation is being carefully evaluated. But I don't fully understand what on earth the logic here is. The auther mentioned this usage of **would** is quite fashionable. If so, it will account for the majority of **would** usages. Is it true?


A few contexts with the Present Simple which make me puzzled

These extracts are taken from an old English text book written by A.S. Hornby. 1) **A: You were out very late last night. I know!** **B: Quite right! I was out until three o'clock. And I had too many drinks. That's why my hand shakes** I wonder why he says "That's why my hand shakes" and not "That's why my hand is shaking." I understand that that shaking is a temporal phenomenon and it's going to stop relatively soon. So, why the Present Simple? 2) **A: ..... you mean Coventry? How far away is Coventry?** **B: Not far. About fifteen miles. My four sons are working in the big motor works there. My two girls are married to men who work there.** Why does she use the Present Continuous for her sons and the Present Simple for her sons-in-law?


'use A as B' equals 'use as B A' ?

I am reading "The Elements of Style"; the sentence below confuse me much: > A common fault is to use as the subject of a passive construction a noun > which expresses the entire action, leaving to the verb no function beyond > that of completing the sentence. If I wrote this sentence, I would compose it as: > A common fault is to use a noun which expresses the entire action as the > subject of a passive construction, leaving ... I don't know what is the most common rule to compose such sentence; the original one confuses me much that I have to read it several times to understand the meaning. I think the rule the original sentence uses is pretty valid in English as it comes from a book talking about writing. Can someone help to explain the rule? And where can I find details/examples for that rule?. Thank you.


What is the make or break difference between "version" and "variant?"

Consider a car. I was thinking that we say "this car is variant of model-x" at times. Then we also say "this car is a different version of model-x." How do I tell why "version" or "variant" were used where they were? Instinctively, I think "variant" at most should mean a color change, different leather or added alloys whereas "version" should mean like a higher capacity engine, carbon fibre roof or facelift. So too much variation may be called a different version. Help me out.


What is more natural: 'people like you' or 'person as you'?

> It's nice to have people **like** you here. > > It's nice to have people **as** you here. > > It's nice to have persons **like** you here. > > It's nice to have persons **as** you here. I always say there is nobody like me except me. Which says it better, or is there better wording than these options?


'from' vs. 'by'

Reading a science article on HuffPost, titled ' _Dinosaur Farts, Prehistoric Climate Change Linked In New Methane Gas Study_ ', I came across the following sentence: > The gassy emissions _from_ these giant dinosaurs may have been enough to > warm the Earth, the researchers say. I'm wondering, if the farts are produced and emitted by dinosaurs, is it proper English using 'from' instead of 'by' in that sentence?


In a software meant to be used internationally, should I use "post code", "postal code" or "zip code"? As most of countries have some sort of implementation of this code, I'm after the term that would be best suited for international usage.


Punctuation within quotes

When I was at school I was told that a quote should end with a comma. For example: > "The car is on the road," said Tom.   >  "No it isn't," replied Dick.   >  "He's right — it's over there!" said Harry. However, I've recently been advised that this is not correct, and that the preceding text should read: > "The car is on the road." said Tom.   >  "No it isn't." replied Dick.   >  "He's right — it's over there!" said Harry. I'm specifically interested in British English — can anyone tell me if either/both of these are correct? EDIT From the answers below, it seems like this depends on what follows. For example: > "The car is on the road," said Tom   > But > Tom said, "The car is on the road."   > Is this correct?


Why is a cup of coffee referred to as a cup of "Joe"?

Just interested in learning the context behind a cup of "Joe". It seems weird that we'd use a proper noun to name a cup of coffee, rather than anything else.


BBC: "Man convicted of murdering his girlfriend and their 10-month-old daughter at Winchester Crown Court"

What do you make of the following BBC News headline: > Man convicted of murdering his girlfriend and their 10-month-old daughter at > Winchester Crown Court Is it just me, or does this read as if the murders were committed at the court?


When using online dictionaries to verify word meanings, do different geographical regions turn to different dictionaries?

Does anyone have a good map of which online dictionary will most likely apply to a given English speaking community?


"The efforts involved" vs. "the effort involved"

> …this we are doing proactively in order to have a better understanding at > coming up with an estimate in case you want to know the effort involved. Should I go with "efforts" or "effort" in the statement above? I cannot make up my mind; both options look okay to me. Any ideas?


You are standing into danger

On lists of nautical flag meanings (one and another), the letter U means _you are standing into danger_. I am familiar with the phrase from a sailing point of view - it means something like "if you keep doing what you're doing, something bad will happen." Like if you're headed for a reef or something. Today I used it (in a gentle, teasing tone) to a family member who was annoying me. And they asked "why _standing_ and not _heading into danger_?" I think it's because it also applies if you stay still; it just means whatever you are about to encounter will not be good. But I'd appreciate a little background on the history and etymology of the phrase, and whether it applies only if you're moving, or not moving, or whatever.


Thanks or no thanks

I'm currently translating an article of Joel Spolsky's which is called Thanks or No thanks and I'm a bit confused about the meaning of the title.   The only two possible meanings that I could guess are the following:   * "Thanks!" or "No, thanks", referring to whether the character of the article will accept the offer, or he will reject it.    * Deciding whether or not we should thank the character     Which one is correct?


What is the origin or earliest known use of the phrase "everything but the kitchen sink"?

What is the origin or earliest known use of the idiomatic phrase "everything but the kitchen sink"? I have searched the internet, but I cannot find an origin or etymology. The earliest known use I found is 1918 according to knowyourphrase.com. http://www.knowyourphrase.com/phrase-meanings/Everything-But-The-Kitchen- Sink.html Is there a known origin or known use earlier than 1918?


Usage of `é` (e-acute)

As a French person, I am always amused by the usage of the letter `é` in English. For instance:   * fiancé   * café   * résumé   * touché (coulé)   * Pokémon (yup, that's a good one) This letter, though very common in French, as it is the 15th most used letter [fr], is not the only diacritic used in French: `à`, `è`, `ê`, `ù` or even the more rare `ï` and `ë` (among others) also exist. Another very interesting thing is that in Greek, where I believe the acute accent commonly known today originated from, the grave accent has actually disappeared and the monotonic accent, often written as an acute one — although it should logically be more vertical (see picture), is the only one left. * * * So my question is: (Optional question: Are there any uses of other diacritics in common English — I think not?) As native English speakers are not used to such symbols in their language, what difference does it make to them whether you spell it `é`, `ē`, `ė`, `è` or with a straight vertical line as in the previously shown picture (can't find the unicode for it)? Does it seem _wrong_ when written otherwise? Also consider than `é` and `è` are equally difficult to type on Qwerty keyboard.


Difference between "Better than" and "More than"

Is it always possible to use "better than" and "more than" interchangeably? > Many users prefer the look and feel of A **better than** B.   >  Many users prefer the look and feel of A **more than** B. Edit: The above examples are quoted from here: > Many users prefer the look and feel of GNOME 2 better than GNOME 3. > Thankfully, a fellow by the name of Ron Yorston already created an extension > pack that essentially transforms GNOME 3 into a logical upgrade of GNOME 2, > instead of the complete departure that GNOME Shell is by default.


usage of "yet to be"

Can I say > He is yet to be a murderer. to mean the he is not a murderer, but very soon he will be one?


Terms to describe age groups

I have three age groups that I want to distinguish in my research project. They are as follows:   * 18-45 years - I have called this group _young adults_   * 46-65 years - I have called this group _adults_   * 66 years and over - I have called this group _seniors_ Is there a better way (one word) to describe the 18-45 age group? I don't like the term _young adults_. ( _Adults_ and _seniors_ work fine for me!)


Meaning of "over in"

I read this sentence in a book: > I just took part in a study over in the Psychology Department. Why do we add _over_ in front of _in the_ here?


Expressions borrowed from horse racing

It seems to me that there are many election-related expressions borrowed from the realm of horse racing in English. I'm looking for an expression meaning > a race or competition where it is difficult to predict who the winner will > be. What would be such an expression?


Expression to use when you are not dressed or otherwise ready to meet someone

What is the English expression to ask someone if he/she is dressed and "presentable", in the sense that he/she is tidy enough to meet someone else? The word "dressed" does not convince me, because its meaning covers only clothes, and one might think of being not "presentable", for example, if hair are not combed. Example: imagine someone knocking at the door of your bedroom and asking "X is here to meet you, are you [dressed]?". Example, from the opposite side: someone knocks at the door of your bedroom and asks "May I come in?", and you answer "No, I'm not [dressed]".


"Idiom" and "idiot"

The words _idiom_ and _idiot_ differ only in the final letters: _t_ and _m_. So I was wondering - do these words have a common root? If so, how have the _t_ and _m_ changed this root?


Word for abbreviations that have become standard words

I was wondering if there was a word to describe acronyms or abbreviations that have been used so often that they become words themselves, or at least that the vast majority of people do not realize that the words are in fact abbreviations. Examples would be things like:   * LASER: "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation"   * RADAR: "RAdio Detection And Ranging"   * MODEM: "MOdulator-DEModulator"   * SCUBA: "Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus"   * CARE (Package): "Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe"   * TASER: "Thomas A Swift's Electronic Rifle" The question came up when reading this other question regarding the use of 'app' to describe a mobile application. 'App' is becoming another example of such an abbreviation which has been used very widely to mean a specific type of application (one for mobile devices) and many people likely do not immediately see the connection anymore.


Is there any difference between "endure + gerund" and "endure + infinitive"?

Many if not all sources state that _to endure_ is followed by a gerund. In OALD, however, there's an example for both: > **endure doing something** He can't endure being defeated.   >  **endure to do something** He can't endure to be defeated. I search the Internet but didn't find any other reliable sources that second this. I checked COCA and found out the use of infinitive has indeed less frequency, but actually the results for both are so little (47:25) that I wouldn't say that this gives any conclusion. Anyhow, my question is if there's a subtle difference between using gerund or infinitive?   And can anyone explain why all sources (that discuss gerund vs infinitive) state that _endure_ is followed by a gerund, although infinitive is possible as well?


Does "This blows!" (it's bad) derive from "This sucks!"?

The origin of **blow** = suck, be bad/unpleasant recently came up in comments to this ELL question. I'd always assumed it was a standard slang "meaning reversal" from _suck_. But a few minutes on Google failed to confirm this for me, and in that ELL link, Feral Oink credibly suggests it's from blow chunks _\- to be very bad, inadequate, unpleasant, or miserable; to thoroughly suck_. Does anyone know when and why the usage arose?


King James Bible archaic style

I am currently reading the King James Version of the Bible and I have noticed some features that I would like to know more about.   1. Almost every verse of the First Book of Moses starts with “and”. Does this style have a specific name? What was the reason that led to its usage? Is it acceptable to use it nowadays when trying to achieve an archaic impression or is this exclusive to the Bible? > 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.   2. Beginning with 2:4, instead of using simply the word “God”, “LORD God” is used. What is the reason for capitalisation of every letter in the word “LORD”? Why is the latter form used rather that the previous? > 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into > his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


"What to do when you live in a shoe"

Where does the phrase "what to do when you live in a shoe" come from? I was asked today why I _use_ slow internet and responded, "What to do when you live in a shoe" as though my internet limitation(s) is not a choice but just the _way it is_ because of my rural location. I don't know why this is such a popular saying and I find having a history lesson on this figure of speech will help me use it better or more _appropriately_. Search engines haven't told me much about it's origins; only where it is being used. _I say appropriately because the person was taken aback and felt a little offended like I was giving a half-truth or trying to avoid conversation all- together. I still think it was funny because it rhymes._


What's the difference between "made from" and "made of"? Could anyone give me some examples?


"Die from cancer" vs "Die of cancer"

Is there a difference between those expressions: "Die from cancer" or "Die of cancer"? Are they both correct?


What is the correct way to say Women's Wear?

In UK English what is the correct term for 'Women's Wear'? For example, what should the department where all the women's clothes are be called? Earlier I was 100% sure it would be "Women's Wear" but now after reading around a little I have seen numerous iterations. Would a skirt be described as **woman's wear** and a department be termed **Women's Wear** as a skirt is singular belonging to a woman whereas the department contains numerous items intended for women? Or, has the usage of 'womenswear' grown to the extent that it is now okay to use without people pointing out the error? Also, I originally wrote this question with 'ware' not 'wear' but as it was suggested this was incorrect I edited it. I had previously checked that 'ware' was correct and was under the impression that 'ware' was a manufactured item (which would make sense to use) so please suggest if I should be using 'ware' rather than 'wear'.


Can one prefer 'either' or 'neither'?

I just had the following exchange with a co-worker: > Me: Do you prefer a rubber band or do you prefer a clippy thing?   >  Her: I would prefer neither.   >  Me: You would prefer either.   >  Her: Well I can't prefer either because...   >  _discussion ensues_   >  Me: So you have no preference.   >  Her: I have no preference. I gave her a rubber band, but I still wonder: **Can one _prefer neither_ if none of the presented options meet one's preference, which nonetheless exists?** My feeling is that **_I prefer either_** , while likely incorrect, is an acceptable usage in the course of banter to play off the repetition of the word _prefer_ and to mirror the question's construction. My primitive Google searches return nothing helpful. The best search result in the archives is not really relevant: Which is correct: "prefer X to Y" or "prefer X over Y"?


What does the phrase “flip flop” bring to mind?

I need help with the connotation of the phrase _flip flop_. Let me explain – I am working on a small project that is meant to promote travelling and education through travelling and getting to know other cultures. I have to come up with a catchy name for it. “Flip-flop nation” came to mind but I was wondering if used in this way the phrase carries the right emotional association. I know that _flip flop_ also has several negative meanings. I would appreciate any insight on this subject.


What is the difference between ‘I got to thinking about something” and ‘I got to think about something’?

I was amused by the line “I got to thinking about something” in the following answer to the question, “You don't want to answer this word-placement question, now do you?” which I saw this morning in my inbox from Stack Exchange: > “Prompted by this question I **got to thinking about** the placement of the > word _now_. If it's placed before the comma, it refers to an immediate > condition: _You don't want to answer this word-placement..._ ” Does “get to doing [something]” mean “come to doing [something]” or “begin to do [something]”? Though I think it’s a too naive question for native English speakers, how different is _“I got to thinking about something”_ from _“I got to think about something”_? Does it become totally different with and without the _‘ing’_?


what is the word that describes someone who keeps their real personality secret?

I knew a word for this a while ago. It sounded French or Italian and may have begun with im or em or something. It basically describes somebody who gives off one type of personality and keeps their own secret or I guess just someone who keeps their own personality secret. Anyone know what I'm talking about?