source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
What is the proper usage of "not only... but also"? I'm trying to figure out how to use "not only... but also" properly . Basically, my goal is to combine two clauses by using "not only". For negations, I've figured out two styles that both sound correct: He knew that if he fractures his finger, not only would he not be able to compete in the water polo tournament, he would not be able to take the SAT on Monday, either. He knew that if he fractures his finger, neither would he be able to compete in the water polo tournament, nor would he be able to take the SAT on Monday. However, I don't know how to form a sentence that does not include a negation while using "not only". Here are a few possibilities that I've considered: Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, not only was he accepted into Harvard, but he was also given a full scholarship. Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, not only was he accepted into Harvard, but he was given a full scholarship. Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, not only was he accepted into Harvard, he was given a full scholarship. Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, not only was he accepted into Harvard, he was also given a full scholarship. In those four possibilities, I'm varying the usage of "but" and "also" in the last clause . What is the proper usage of "not only"? <Q> I'd use the one with the "not only/but/also" construct: Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, <S> not only was he accepted into Harvard, but <S> he was also given a full scholarship. <S> "not only [fact A] but [fact B]". <S> When you start with "not only" you're indicating that two facts A and B will be presented. <S> Fact A is something that is already good enough (or bad enough) by itself and fact B makes it even better (or even worse). <S> In general, this construct expresses that expectations have been exceeded positively (or negatively). <A> In the bottom one, this is how I would form it: <S> Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, he was not only accepted into Harvard, but also given a full scholarship. <A> I'm not sure of the official usage but as a writer, I find that "not only...but also" usually sounds ugly. <S> There's better ways to structure a sentence. <S> The version I much prefer is the last: Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, not only was he accepted into Harvard, he was also given a full scholarship. <A> I agree with Bruno regarding the initial question. <S> I do notice a bit of a problem with the first negations the post offers as understood. <S> He knew that if he fractures his finger, not only will he not be able to compete in the water polo tournament, he will not be able to take the SAT on Monday, either. <S> He knew that if he fractures his finger, neither will he be able to compete in the water polo tournament, nor will he be able to take the SAT on Monday. <S> Both sentences have issues in terms of coordination of the tenses. <S> He knew that if he fractured his finger... he WOULD not be able to... he WOULD not be able to take the SAT on Monday. <S> Since the independent clause is coded as past tense... the future tense (will) is not a viable option grammatically. <A> Good question. <S> There are two variants for not only but also. <S> First, we use it straight as such, as in this sentence: <S> I have not only a pet mouse but also a pet dog. <S> My friend Joe has not only helped me but also given me a lift. <S> A pet dog does not only bark but also bite. <S> In these above sentences, the subject was before not only and hence those sentences all have a parallel construction in which either the action or an object are set off with not only-but also construction. <S> Also notice there is no comma separating but also. <S> This is important. <S> In the second type of construction, the subject of the sentence may come after not only. <S> In such cases, we do not use but also as such. <S> Instead, we slightly change it so that the second part also contains a subject that is relevant. <S> As in these examples: Not only did my friend Joe help me out, but he also drove me to the university. <S> Not only does my pet dog bite me, but he also barks at me. <S> ;-) <S> Not only are there students in the room, but also parents. <S> (here, the parents are there part is not quite required, so you don't have to say <S> but parents are also there because it's implied.) <S> Why is the second type of usage relevant? <S> Look at those sentences. <S> You see the first part is a dependent clause and the main sentence comes after the comma. <S> Hence, a comma is not only important but also necessary. <S> Because we always set off the dependent clause with a comma, remember! <S> Hope this helps. <S> I haven't edited my own writing here.. <A> I think the confusion here stems from the desire to put "not only" before the subject. <S> In the set phrase "not only... but also," what follows each must be grammatically parallel. <S> It's far easier to do that with "he was not only": <S> He knew that if he fractured his finger, he would be not only unable to compete in the water polo tournament but also unable to take the SAT on Monday. <S> or He knew that if he fractured his finger, he would be unable not only to compete in the water polo tournament but also to take the SAT on Monday. <S> The first example is a little clearer, perhaps. <S> Regarding the other example: Thanks to his remarkable performance on the SAT, he was not only accepted into Harvard but also given a full scholarship. <S> A separate issue is the comma before "but also. <S> " Commas are generally incorrect in compound predicates. <S> More information on both these issues can be found here: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/parallelism-with-not-only-but-also/
| Including "also" as part of fact B is how we emphasize that fact B occurred in addition to fact A.
|
Response to "God Bless" when parting company What should the correct response be (from someone not overtly religious) if someone says "God bless" when parting company? "Bye now" or "Bye" doesn't seem an adequate response. <Q> I think it comes down to A) how religious the other person is, B) how religious you are, and C) how much you want to avoid potentially insulting the person. <S> "Thanks, same to you". <S> If you can't stand to say something that even acknowledges their beliefs, I think it at least doesn't hurt to acknowledge their sentiment, so you could just say "Thanks, bye. <S> " That's probably what I'd do. <A> I had a friend in college who liked to respond to "God bless" with "Goddess protect". <S> As I recall he did so just to be different from us other geeks who would sometimes respond with "Live long and prosper". <A> I'll often reply, "Take care." <S> Sounds a little warmer than "bye," and not particularly religious. <A> You could respond with a Jewish farewell, illustrating that not everyone sees the world the same way, but also probably alienating your friend Shalom! <S> Or you could be polite and simply say you too! <A> "Be well," said with a smile. <A> The origin of "goodbye" (hence "bye") is "God be with you", so it is about on the same level. <S> I think "goodbye" (or perhaps "goodbye to you, too") could be appropriate, <S> just "bye" perhaps not so much.
| Seriously, though, I think that a polite "Thank you" should be sufficient. If they are very religious and you are not, and you want to avoid any hint of insult to their religion or any potential conflict, better just say something religious or at least agreeing back:
|
How can I structure this sentence correctly? A friend of mine announced her pregnancy via email. I wanted to tell her how pleased I was to hear she was going to have a baby, as this was something she'd wanted for a long time. I was about to say "I've never been happier to hear someone's pregnant", but then realised that of course I had been even happier when my own wife found she was pregnant. I wanted to imply that that was the only time I had been happier to hear such an announcement. I wrestled with putting it succinctly for a few moments before writing " you're the person I've been second happiest to hear is pregnant ever ". I shuddered as I sent it, as I could see it was poor English. However, I was in a rush and knew she would understand what I meant. I hope you can see what I was aiming for: I didn't want to mention my wife explicitly, and I wanted to use "second-most" in some way. Even with hindsight, I struggle to put this into a single brief sentence. What should I have written? <Q> Some people refer to the couple as being pregnant and not just the woman. <S> If you find that usage acceptable, you could have said "I've never been happier to hear that another couple is pregnant". <S> I think if you try to say "second-most" or not mention your wife you are always going to have a sentence that sounds too stilted or make the compliment sound back-handed. <A> Of course you were happier at the birth of your own child, but that goes without saying. <S> In other words almost everyone prefers an inaccurate pleasantry to something accurate but less effusive. <S> It would be lovely to hear "I've never been happier..." from a friend, accurate or not. <S> Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" -- <S> she always called me Elwood -- <S> "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh <S> so pleasant." <S> Well, for years I was smart. <S> I recommend pleasant. <S> You may quote me. <S> James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd, <S> Elwood P. Dowd's 'Philosophy' of Life <A> You could've said: <S> This is the happiest news I heard for a long time! <S> This way you implicitly mean that you've had happier news <S> but that was a long time ago. <A> To rephrase without losing any of the meaning and disregarding the pragmatics of the questioner’s sentiment, I might say: Of all the times that hearing news of a pregnancy has made me happy, yours ranks second. <S> But I think this formulation casts more light on the awkwardness of the sentiment than the questioner would have wanted. <S> I agree with the other answerers that although your intentions are kind, this is going to be an uncomfortable thing to hear, no matter how unawkwardly you phrase it. <A> You could leave off the comparisons and just say, "I couldn't be happier for you." <A> I couldn't be happier to hear you're pregnant! <S> In this tense, you're talking about the here and now as well as future, instead of from going back into the past. <S> Of course, one day you "COULD" end up being happier... <S> but you can deal with that later. :-) <S> "Why say today what you could say tomorrow?"
| Or you could have said "Except for my wife's pregnancy, I've never been happier to hear that someone is pregnant!"
|
What are some good sites for researching etymology? I'm wondering about the origins of a particular word and, while my first thought was to ask the ELU community, I decided I should do the work myself. Where should I start looking? I'd love to see some suggestions. <Q> etymonline is a great resource for looking up specific words. <S> Take Our Word <S> For It is a fun website for browsing through and learning about etymologies in a more entertaining, less structured way. <A> General purpose: <S> Online Etymology Dictionary Google Books , set date range and sort by date <S> * <S> Google Ngram Viewer <S> Bill Mullins has a giant list of Full Text Databases <S> Internet Archive <S> Project Gutenberg HathiTrust Digital Library <S> Topsy for Tweets <S> The Right Rhymes : hop-hop slang defined Rap Stats by Rap Genius <S> gives an idea of earliest use, but cannot be searched by time <S> Newspapers: <S> USA: <S> Chronicling America (1836-1922) by the Library of Congress <S> Australia: <S> Trove <S> (-1954) <S> by the National Library of Australia New Zealand: <S> Papers <S> Past (1839-1945) by the Nation Library of New Zealand <S> Particularly for computing terms <S> : Google Groups for Usenet archives (also good for slang) (1981 - present) <S> DSpace@MIT for the CSAIL archives (1959 - present) <S> IETF's RFC archive (1969 - present) PDP-10 software archive (~1967 - ~1990), for old source code Tech Model Railroad Club dictionary , <S> TMRC 1st & 2nd editions (1959, 1960) <S> The Jargon File and its archives ( also here ) (1981 - 2003) MIT's The Tech newspaper archives (1881 - present) Bitsavers ' Software and PDF Document Archive (misc. dates) <S> * Care must be taken with Google Books' metadata, especially when only a snippet is shown: occasionally the book was published later than the the year Google claims it was, and sometimes they accidentally include multiple books for each record. <S> Therefore it's important to double check the date: scroll up to confirm the real date for "full view" books, and for preview/"snippet view" verify with another source (such as the Internet Archive , Project Gutenberg or the HathiTrust Digital Library ). <A> I would also like to add our etymology dictionary that draws directed etymology graphs called Etymologeek.com . <S> Here is an example of a directed graph: <S> It works in multiple languages, providing etymology data, descendants, related words and more. <S> It also has a pretty quick search, and the index is constantly growing in the number of words and slowly growing in accuracy too.
| If you are at a university, you might have OED access, which is the most in-depth and hardcore etymology resource (if you can get to it).
|
Which is correct: "what if there was" or "what if there were"? Possible Duplicate: “If I was” or “If I were”. Which is more common, and which is correct? Is this correct grammar? What if there was a Stack Overflow on… Shouldn't it be "what if there were a Stack Overflow on…"? <Q> Prescriptively, you're correct, this should be <S> were since this is being expressed with the subjunctive mood. <S> Descriptively, I think you'll find both in the wild. <S> In informal speech, most people I know would prefer was in this case (and those that don't are sticklers for the subjunctive). <S> I do think that you are much more likely to see <S> were written though, especially in formal writing. <S> Either form is correct, and the subjunctive forms are far from dead. <S> A more interesting question, I think, is whether or not the subjunctive mood is still being used and if the two forms have simply collapsed together. <S> Is this a meaningful distinction? <S> How could this be tested? <A> "WERE" because it is the past subjunctive of "to be". <S> It's an oversight by the copy-editor. <S> It's not the biggest deal in the world since the verb "to be" is the only verb in Modern English wherein the difference is obvious, although, if one WANT to speak very formal, correct English, stick with the subjunctive. <A> Not a native speaker, but indeed it is a conditional and therefore "were" should be used. <S> However, I hear the incorrect form more often than the correct one, so I guess that "was" is a colloquial, albeit grammatically incorrect form. <A> I think we need only look at the copy-editor of this book's. <S> Who the hell allowed "was" to be put there instead of "were"? <S> I noticed it right away. <S> "What if there were a stack overflow on..." because it is not true. <S> It's a condition that is contrary-to-fact. <S> If it were talking about something true that had occurred in the past, then "was" would be appropriate, but the "what if" automatically triggers a condition so it's in definite need of the subjunctive. <S> Probably the biggest problem with the "were" past subjunctive form is the fact that its present form is "be", but most people don't say it that way. <S> "What if there be a stack overflow on..." is the stiffly formal way of stating something that is possible but unknown. <S> Most people in modern English would replace it with "is" nowadays, but we still say "if truth be told", "whether it be", "if need be" and so on. <A> <A> "Was" is the indicative, "were" is a subjunctive. <S> Since it's a hypothetical, it should properly be "were". <S> But the subjunctive is effectively deprecated in English, so I expect that "was" is perfectly acceptable.
| Since that's proposing a hypothetical situation, yes it should be were .
|
What's the difference between "adviser" and "advisor" -- are both interchangeable? I work for a financial services provider and we deal with "Financial Advisors" all the time. Increasingly, I'm seeing people send emails and so forth with the term "Financial Adviser" and the terms adivsor and adviser seem to be increasingly interchangeable. Which then raises the question: what is the difference between adviser and advisor ? <Q> Both are right. <S> This is how the Oxford dictionary entry explains the usage: <S> The spellings adviser and advisor are both correct. <S> Adviser may be seen as less formal, while advisor often suggests an official position <A> I just happened to come across this issue writing a final exam for a course in international financial derivatives regulation. <S> (For those of you who don't know what that is, it's what you do in purgatory.) <S> Both spellings are correct. <S> In general,"adviser" is the preferred spelling, especially in the UK. <S> "Advisor" carries a connotation of someone whose professional capacity is to give advice. <S> On that basis, and since my course had a strong focus on American regulation, I changed "adviser" to "advisor" regarding "very-high-net-worth individuals ... who tend to employ the service of sophisticated advisors to assess and manage their risk. <S> " If you want to know my sources, just google "adviser or advisor" <S> like I did <S> and you'll get them all. <S> Can't resist taking a swipe at the obiter on "amount" vs. "number" in the media. <S> My two fields are English Literature and Law. <S> Like Law, English grammar is based on rules which must be faithfully applied in order to preserve a unified fabric, but like Law, English is (forsooth) a living language. <S> It lives and is preserved our media of communication. <S> When the editors of the OED want to know what the "correct" usage of a certain term was in the 19th century, they turn to ... the media! <S> I'm the first to be a stickler for good usage, but don't overdo it. <A> Advisor should be the preferred spelling, consistent with other official titles: actorconvenorcoordinatoreditorregulator <S> I am a professional general and scientific editor with over 40-years experience. <S> The tragedy is that the media often perpetuates mis-spellings and mis-use, witness the current use of 'amount' for every quantitative description, e.g. amount [sic] of people, rather than number of people. <A> The nearest reference book to my computer, the "Oxford Writers' Dictionary" , says advis/ <S> er not -or; ory <A> I am an academic advisor. <S> I have seen the term used both way, and after thinking about it, I think that the distinction between one who is a professional advisor and once who gives advice on an informal basis should be maintained. <S> I had previously called myself an "adviser. <S> " Now I am an "advisor." <S> I should point out, however, that there is no difference in pronunciation. <S> I would not want to assert some distinction that does not exist, as in those ridiculous advertisements that over-articulate the last syllable in "realtor." <S> Regardless of spelling, the ultimate vowel is still a schwa. <A> In Australian Financial Services, the legislation uses the spelling Advis e r <S> so that is the source of truth in Industry. <A> While in general adviser and advisor mean the same thing, it appears in at least one context that is not true. <S> In Canadian banks financial advisers are subject to regulation, but financial advisors are not .
| Adviser is more common, but advisor is also widely used, especially in North America. In regular Australian vernacular both spellings are used.
|
How to pronounce New Orleans I presume this must be an exception to "pronounce it like the locals", since what I hear is something like 'Norlin'. Or is this just the movies? Is it a mistake to attempt to pronounce it like a local? <Q> The “local” pronunciation does indeed often have some sounds which are elided, but you don’t have to imitate that part of the local way of saying it. <S> The key is to stress <S> the Or in Orleans and not the leans . <S> All the dictionaries I looked in, though, list all the pronunciations I have given here without any usage notes. <A> I would prefer to listen http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new%20orleans . <S> IMHO <S> you shouldn't pronounce it like 'norlin' just because you heard that in a movie. <A> What about the lovely French pronunciation? <S> It's definitely not how the locals pronounce it, but it does seem a lot more beautiful. :P
| The preferred local pronunciation is something like “new OR-linz” or “new OR-lee-uhnz” and the dispreferred pronunciation is something like “new or-LEENZ”.
|
When is it appropriate to use the title "Miss" as opposed to "Ms."? There has been some disagreement in my other online searches, and in my own education. Assuming that I do not know if the individual addressed is married, when should I use Miss Brown , and when should I use Ms. Brown ? <Q> According to The American Heritage Book of English Usage , Using Ms. obviates the need for the guesswork involved in figuring out whether to address someone as Mrs. or Miss: you can’t go wrong with Ms. <S> Whether the woman you are addressing is married or unmarried, has changed her name or not, Ms. is always correct. <S> And the beauty of Ms. is that this information becomes irrelevant, as it should be — and as it has always been for men. <A> RegDwight has given a correct modern answer. <S> The traditional approach would be different. <S> Adopting this approach will sound like you're living in the 1950s or earlier, so you shouldn't actually do this, but I thought it would be useful to document what the modern system is reacting against. <S> You should always know whether a woman is married or unmarried; a woman will sign a letter as either Rachel Jones [unmarried] or Rachel Smith (Mrs.) [married]. <S> Other than in correspondence <S> , you would have been introduced, or there would be a calling card. <S> If you write to a married or widowed women ( divorced women are excluded from polite company) <S> then you address her in writing as Mrs. Stephen Smith, using her husband's first name, not her own. <S> For this reason you can write to "Mr. and Mrs. S. Smith". <S> This was the usual approach before 1960 or so (after the separation of Mrs. and Miss from the original Mistress in the seventeenth century). <S> The use of Ms. (at all) was controversial from its proposal by Sheila Michaels in 1961 until some point in the 1980s - William Safire's use of it for Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 is often seen as the pivotal moment for acceptance by its former opponents, in that someone as traditionalist as Safire realised that he couldn't use anything else. <S> I believe that the announcement of the engagement of "Prince Henry of Wales and Ms. Meghan Markle" on 27 November 2017 is the definitive proof that the title is appropriate in the highest of society. <S> If you're writing historical fiction, or you want a character to sound very old-fashioned, then using the traditional forms would be appropriate; even if not, it's useful to know what they were. <A> (This question has been referenced from another marked as a duplicate, so I'm adding an answer here even though this question is old.) <S> The catch is that this is all politically/socially charged. <S> The title "Ms" was invented in the 70s (or at least that's when it became widely known) by feminists who objected to being "identified based purely on their relationship with men", to use a phrase that was commonly repeated at the time. <S> Their intent was that Miss and Mrs should be abolished and replaced with this new "non-sexist" term. <S> But because the term was advanced as part of a specific philosophy or social agenda, women who did not support that agenda objected to having the term applied to them. <S> So what we really ended up with was that feminist women identified themselves as "Ms", unmarried non-feminist women identified themselves as "Miss", and married non-feminist women identified themselves as "Mrs". <S> What could under other circumstances have simplified titles, reducing 2 to 1, resulted instead in complicating them, increasing 2 to 3. <S> I don't think there's as much heat attached to it today as there was back then. <S> But you can't just say, "Oh, it's easier to use Ms for all women because then I don't have to know whether or not they're married." <S> Many non-feminist women don't like the title and object to having it applied to them, just as many feminist women object to the titles Miss and Mrs. <S> The only "easy answer" is to call a woman by the title she prefers. <S> If she refers to herself as "Mrs Mary Smith", then that's what you should call her. <S> If you don't have anything from her giving a title, ask her. <S> Well, I suppose if you want to make a social point, for or against feminism, you could use the title you prefer whether she likes it or not. <S> Personally, I just avoid using any title at all when I can. <S> I just refer to her as "Mary Smith" without any Miss, Mrs, or Ms. <A> Assuming that I do not know if the individual addressed is married, when should I use Miss Brown, and when should I use Ms. Brown? <S> You might use "Miss" to address a female child under the age of thirteen. <S> Otherwise, if you don't know if they are married, then Ms. is a convenient get-out. <A> A rather strange point was raised in the accepted answer to this question. <S> Personally, I wish this information were relevant for both men and women, but the fact is, it is a feature of our language that men are always styled 'Mr' unless they have some other title or style, and women have the privilege of being styled 'Miss' or 'Mrs'. <S> Some women will be seriously offended if you don't address them by their preferred title. <S> In business correspondence, 'Ms' is almost always appropriate, but in social correspondence, one would do well to try to find out what the lady in question prefers.
| Mrs. and Miss are titles of respect; you only use them in relation to ladies; the lower classes are addressed by their first names, or by a bare surname.
|
Starting sentence with "indeed" to complete previous statement Is it correct to add a sentence that starts with indeed in order to complete a previous statement? For example, The political crisis has a negative influence on the economy. Indeed , foreign investments have never been as low. Is it recommended to start a sentence with indeed in a research paper? <Q> Indeed you can. :-) <A> Is this sentence grammatically correct? <S> Yes, the sentence is OK. <S> The meaning is something like this: <S> The political crisis has a negative influence on the economy. <S> You can see that this is true, because, for example , foreign investments have never been as low. <S> Is it recommended to start a sentence with "indeed" in a research paper? <S> I don't think "recommended" is the right choice of words— <S> that makes it sound like you should use it whether or not it is called for—but it should be acceptable. <A> "Indeed" can start a sentence as either a conjunction or an interjection. <S> As an interjection, indeed indicates surprise or sarcastic doubt. <S> In this use, indeed is often the only word in the sentence. <S> He thinks she'll marry him? <S> Indeed! <S> In formal writing, the use as a conjunction, to mean the same thing as "for example" is perfectly acceptable. <S> That was precisely the way you used it. <S> Just don't use it too often or it gets tedious. <S> If "for example" is starting to get tedious, switch it up with an "indeed".
| As a conjunction, indeed provides emphasis or indicates that the sentence is an example of, or evidence for, a claim made in the previous sentence.
|
Pronunciation of "Sarah", "Sara" and other names with the letter "a" before "r" In Britain (or perhaps just Scotland) the names "Sara" and "Sarah" are pronounced different. Sara: Sah-rah ("a" as in "bat") Sarah: Se-rah ("a" as in "air") In the US and Canada, Sarah and Sara are both pronounced like "Sarah". In addition, there are other examples which are pronounced the same in North America (NA). Marry is pronounced like Mary and Merry ("a" as in "air") Harry like Hairy Barry like Berry Carry like Jim Carrey Question: Is there truly no distinction between the two pronunciations of Sarah/Sara in NA? How did English lose its open "a" sound when tied with an "r"? <Q> I think this question is a little bit confused. <S> First of all, there is a phenomenon in some varieties of American English called the Mary-marry–merry merger , where all or some of the words Mary , marry , and merry are pronounced the same; that is, the vowels /e/, <S> /æ/ <S> , and /ɛ/ are all merged before the sound /r/. <S> In some varieties of American English, there is no merger, and all of the words merry , marry , and Mary are pronounced differently. <S> In other varieties, all three are merged and pronounced the same. <S> There is a discussion of the merger and an associated map in The atlas of North American English , page 56 . <S> For reference, in my own speech, I pronounce them all the same (in the way that those who pronounce them differently say Mary ), but I can produce the three-way distinction if necessary—usually only to demonstrate this phenomenon. <A> My two cents: As an Australian English speaker, I pronounce 'Sara' as I pronounce 'Tara' -- 'S-ah-ra'/'T-ah-ra' and 'Sarah' as 'S-air-a'. <A> As a native speaker of American English, I have no distinction between the pronunciations of Sara/Sarah (unless a particular Sara/Sarah requests a different pronunciation for her own name, of course). <S> The open "a" as in "bat" would be signaled by two "r"s—Sarra or Sarrah I would assume to be pronounced Sah-rah. <S> I've never seen that, though. <A> Vowels in English are very blurred - particularly between different accents. <S> To me <S> (Scottish) <S> Mary, marry and merry are three totally different vowels whereas I keep coming across things about how to pronounce things that make distinction between vowels I consider identical. <S> Most of English would be totally comprehensible if all vowels were replaced with a generic vowel sound. <S> I spent a while in Guernsey where most vowels became "awe".
| As for the names spelled Sarah and Sara , as far as I know, in all dialects of American English, they are pronounced the same, regardless of whether Mary , marry , and merry are pronounced differently. In some other varieties, two of them are pronounced the same (which two depends on which variety).
|
Does “gay” still include the meaning “merry”? Dictionary.com lists eight meaningsof gay , with “merry, lively” asthe first entry. Microsoft banned anXbox user for listing FortGay (a real place) as hishometown: Xbox Live considered the term gay absolutely inappropriate in any context. As a non-native English speaker, my question is whether in contemporary English, does gay always mean homosexual ? Are British and American English the same in this respect? <Q> I would say that the word gay means ‘homosexual’ only, with two caveats: A lot of people, especially young people, use gay as a generic adjective meaning ‘bad’ or ‘lame’. <S> This is, of course, considered inappropriate and rude by polite society, but use of <S> gay in this way is pervasive in situations where there are a lot of young people, such as video gaming communities (like XBox Live). <S> People are definitely aware that gay used to mean ‘happy’, ‘merry’, or ‘lively’. <S> The theme song to The Flintstones talks about a gay old time , and many people know that this usage at one time was predominant. <S> There is a similar situation with the word queer . <S> Some people might use gay to mean ‘merry’, but only in a tongue-in-cheek or double-entendre kind of way. <S> The Corpus of Contemporary American English , for example, has two examples of “gay old time”, one from 1993, and one from 1994. <S> There is one more example that is from the big screen adaptation of The Flintstones , also released in 1994. <A> In contemporary English, I would say that yes, gay means homosexual only. <S> Its original meaning was, as you mention, merry or lively , and you will certainly see it used this way if you look at written English from a few decades ago. <S> However, it's very unlikely <S> you'd see it used that way today. <A> Though I'm not a fan of the plural form "gays". <S> As always, though, context is the most important thing because the English language is fabulously ambiguous towards the meaning of gay. <S> There are certain phrases, which admittedly are not in common usage, but where the reader would understand that the word gay would not mean "homosexual" unless there was a clear double meaning, e.g. "gay hue" or "gay abandon". <S> Also, applying gay to transient things, such as a mood, would probably alert the reader to the fact you did indeed mean "happy". <S> In addition, "gaily" and "gaiety" would not be generally understood as pertaining to homosexuality though they are usually only used in archaic contexts. <S> Unless perhaps the writer meant "gaiety" in terms of stereotypical homosexual behaviour, e.g. "there was much gaiety" could mean "everyone was acting in a very camp manner", or perhaps something like <S> "there were many men who were proud to be gay". <S> Personally, because I am caught between favouring clear and concise language and loving the use of flowery, overblown and overwrought, archaic language, I try to reserve the word <S> gay <S> for when I mean "merry". <S> I also enjoy the possibilities of secondary meanings. <A> Gay is also a last name. <S> My high school music teacher was Mrs. Gay. <S> I disagree with every answer that says Gay only means homosexual, especially when the question already points out that there is a place named Fort Gay. <S> That's the kind of thinking that got Microsoft in hot water in the first place. <A> Maybe we should reclaim the word "gay" to mean "merry" and "care free", by using it in this sense all the time. <S> This would make the word less effective as a derogatory word. <S> The word were originally used by the gay (in this case homosexual) community because it were a positive term. <S> I feel quite gay right now. <S> ;) <A> A number of words kept their old meanings (in America) through the 1960s, but changed their meanings decisively as a result of the "sexual revolution" that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s. <S> "Gay" and "queer" are two words that have predominantly one connotation after 1970. <S> The (original) Flintstones came out before this time. <A> In UK English, the word gay has changed its meaning more than any other any word in recent times IMO. <S> In late 19th century English, a “gay girl” was a prostitute. <S> The word also meant lively and happy; hence the daft old dance the Gay Gordons, which involved everyone jumping around and shouting “Hoots Mon”. <S> Gay was also quite a common girls’ name. <S> In the 1970s there was something called “The Gay Liberation Front”, the first well known and well publicized organization fighting for the rights of homosexual males. <S> This is where the meaning of <S> gay for homosexual comes from. <S> I would guess that before then, this meaning of gay was only used in “homosexual slang” — that is, between themselves. <S> More recently gay as an adjective meaning a lame person or thing, has come into use among very young people, mostly of school age. <S> This usage has been frowned upon by many older people. <S> In the 1970s there was a very popular gay and very camp comedian who would play on the ambiguities of meaning, and say things like “I’m feeling very gay today.”
| In commonly used English today, "gay" has become interchangeable with "homosexual" and most readers will understand it in that way, either as an adjective or as a noun.
|
Why is it "your Majesty", but "my Lord"? Why is it "your Majesty", but "my Lord"? <Q> <A> First, some etymology. <S> I'll try to keep it short. <S> Lord has deep Germanic roots. <S> Etymonline says : lord M.E. laverd , loverd (13c.), from O.E. hlaford "master of a household, ruler, superior," also "God" (translating L. Dominus , though O.E. drihten was used more often), earlier hlafweard , lit. <S> "one who guards the loaves," from hlaf "bread, loaf" + weard "keeper, guardian, ward." <S> Majesty was borrowed, ultimately from Latin and together with its meaning. <S> Etymonline says : <S> majesty c.1300, "greatness, glory," from O.Fr. <S> majeste <S> "grandeur, nobility," from L. majestatem (nom. <S> majestas ) "greatness, dignity, honor, excellence," from stem of major (neut. <S> majus ), comp. <S> of magnus <S> "great." <S> Earliest Eng. <S> sense is of God, reference to kings and queens (late 14c.) is from Romance languages and descends from the Roman Empire. <S> Wikipedia adds : Originally, during the Roman republic, the word maiestas was the legal term for the supreme status and dignity of the state, to be respected above everything else. <S> [...] It was first assumed by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who believed that, as an emperor, he deserved a style greater than Highness, which had been used by preceding emperors and kings. <S> Soon, King Francis I of France and King Henry VIII of England followed his example. <S> What I take from all this is: <S> The word lord , originally and all throughout its history, referred to some one , a person (or a personification of God, as opposed to God as an abstract concept). <S> It's only natural to refer to my guardian, my ruler and my master as, well, my guardian, ruler and master rather than your , his or her guardian, ruler and master. <S> The word majesty , on the other hand, always referred to some thing , a concept, a trait that was attributed to someone — much like highness , honor , and excellence . <S> When I am talking about a king (or a judge), I attribute majesty (or honor) to him rather than to myself. <A> I would venture that lord is a title while Majesty comes from the adjective majestic. <S> So "your majesty" means "you who are majestic", while "my lord" means "the lord of me". <A> Explaining "my lord" is easy, "my lord" is the person who is the lord of me. <S> "Your lord" would be the person who is the lord of you rather than me. <S> The function of the possessive (your, her, his) in "your majesty" or "her majesty" or "his royal highness" seems to be to indicate that the noun indicates a person, but this is some kind of archaic or rare usage. <A> A little late to this party, but it seems to me that no-one has made the most important point: namely that it's "my Lord", but "your Lordship" -- the point being that one refers to the individual directly ("my Lord"), and the other refers to the same individual obliquely ("your Lordship"), and is a kind of metonymy.
| Very succinctly, majesty, grace, honor, and royal highness are qualities of the exalted person being addressed, while lord, liege, and king are titles describing the superior relationship of the one addressed (superior to me, that is).
|
Open for "anyone"? Or open for "everyone"? Is the tournament open for "anyone" or "everyone"? <Q> The distinction is not important in this case. <S> Everyone means every person, without exception and anyone means any person, without discrimination. <A> There's a subtle distinction, as noted that's likely unimportant -- unless you're at all concerned about subconscious reactions from speakers of American English. <S> "Anyone" does have some negative connotations and usages attached to it that people don't necessarily think about: <S> " Anyone can do that." <S> "They'll take anyone ." <A> Usually a tournament would be "open to everyone" or "open to anyone". <S> To me there is a marginal difference that "open to everyone" sounds slightly more friendly or more welcoming than "open to anyone". <A> If you are suggesting you would be happy with one (any one) response, which could hypothetically be the case if the condition is that 'there are no restrictions: <S> anyone can participate', then you can use anyone . <S> You don't care who comes. <S> On the other hand, as may be more likely, if you would like as many as possibly can to participate, you'd be saying everyone . <S> You do want everyone to come. <S> This is based on how the reader would more generally perceive. <A> "every" as in "each and every" is a reference to elements in a set and can be taken as the intention to include all elements in the set; "any" is more a universal concept and implies no distinction at all.
| For your purposes either would probably be fine, but "everyone" will be perceived as more inclusive.
|
How to pronounce "beach" and "bitch"? What's the difference? I often talk with friends using the phone and I'm not sure how to correctly pronounce the word "beach". Some people hear it as a "bitch". It really makes me upset! How do I pronounce these words correctly? What is the difference in pronunciation? <Q> My slavic language speaking colleagues all have this problem, because these languages do not make a distinction between tense vowels and lax vowels. <S> These sounds differ in two major ways. <S> First, the sounds are made in slightly different places in the mouth. <S> The sound in [ɪ] is very close to [i], but is a little bit towards [e] (like the sound in "day"). <S> So if you say [i] and hold it and then move your mouth to make [e], then somewhere along that path is something close to the sound [ɪ]. <S> Second, the sounds differ in length. <S> All tense vowels are slightly longer, and lax vowels are slightly shorter. <S> If you have trouble figuring out the right way to articulate the sound, then the vowel length can be very helpful to at least help distinguish these sounds — even if it is not perfectly native sounding. <A> If you are like me, you need to listen to the two words to understand the difference. <S> This video explains how to pronounce "beach" and "bitch": Real ESL Video #22 - Bitch or Beach? <S> Pronouncing i and e! <S> Do you know how to pronounce "reach" and "rich"? <S> It's the same thing. <A> Beach contains a long i vowel and bitch contains a short i vowel. <S> These two are an example of a minimal pair, a pair of words which is almost the same except for one sound (in this case the long/short i sound). <S> There is a huge list of computer-generated minimal pairs at John Higgins's website .
| The sound in beach is a tense [i], and the sound in bitch is a lax [ɪ].
|
Is "such a cooler" proper English? I'm trying to say something like "that's such a cooler design". Is there more valid expression that expresses the same thing? Or is this okay English? I guess "that design is so much cooler" would work, but it's not as succinct. I'm trying to say that something is cooler than something else, but without explicitly mentioning that other thing, since it is common knowledge between me and the person I am saying it to. So I don't want to use "that design is cooler than X". <Q> A "cooler" is a styrofoam case for keeping drinks cold on picnics, at the beach, etc. <S> "Such a cooler" means "A cooler just like that" Example: <S> The beer would stay a lot colder if you bought such a cooler. <S> Saying "That's such a cooler design" does not sound like something a native speaker would say although colloquially you might get away with it if you don't mind sounding like you're a teenager: Pretending to be gay <S> is, like, * <S> so* five-minutes-ago <S> It's, like, um, *such* a cooler design, ya know? <S> The problem is that "such" modifies "cool" in the same way that "-er" does, and they clash a little bit. <A> "That's such a cooler design" sounds odd, even in the context you provide. <S> I would go with "that design is so much cooler". <A> I have never heard that sort of sentence construction; it sounds very odd to me. <S> You could certainly say, "that is such a cool design." <S> If you use "cooler" then you are comparing it to something. <S> You don't necessarily have to say what you are comparing it to in the same sentence, but it should be given in the context. <S> " <S> I am curious where this sentence is common. <S> As I said, I have never heard it, and I have lived in the North East US and Northern California. <A> I hear that phrase all of the time and have used it as well. <S> Whether or not it is "proper" depends on your audience. <S> It isn't proper English to use in an interview with a company with collared-shirt employees. <A> I don't want to sound pedantic, but "Ooh! <S> You have such nicer designs than me!" <S> certainly grates. <S> I'd much rather hear " much nicer ", as apparently would most folk in this Wikipedia discussion . <S> Taking what seems to me to be the same construction pared down, I doubt many people would be happy with <S> "You're such nicer than him!" . <S> I think people accept OP's version because it sounds pretty close to the fully acceptable alternatives <S> much nicer and so much nicer , <S> but it's still "wrong" to my ear. <S> I don't know of any grammatical rule explicitly saying "such" can't be followed by a comparative, <S> and I'm not big on prescriptive grammar anyway. <S> So if you like it, say it - just not to me, please!
| You could also say, "that is a much cooler design. It is proper English to use with my coworkers.
|
How do I pluralize "horsepower?" Should I say that an engine can output 552 horsepower or 552 horsepowers? I've heard people use both. If it is just "horsepower", what is the justification for the nonstandard pluralization? <Q> I've always understood it to be <S> 552 (units of) horsepower , where units of is understood and rarely spoken. <S> But Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary both list horsepower as the actual plural form. <A> Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear sometimes says horsepowers when feigning technical ignorance. <S> If you've heard it from him, he's just trying to be funny. <S> He also uses carbon dioxides which is equally meaningless. <S> Horsepower is always correct. <A> Horsepowers is possible in some very limited contexts, but otherwise horsepower is standard. <S> Here are two examples of horsepowers in the Corpus of Contemporary American English : <S> In general, Yamaha’s direct-injection motors have been considerably quieter and smoother-running than their competition’s, though Evinrude’s new E-TEC might challenge that. <S> The motor lists for $12,750. <S> Though the variety of horsepowers and induction systems makes an apples-to-apples comparison of new 2004 motors impossible, this one would probably qualify as “Editor’s Choice,” a motor likely to make a lot of folks with bass and walleye rigs in the popular 17- to 19-foot range very happy. <S> — Outdoor Life , 2003 <S> As of the model year 1994, all of the so-called “saltwater series” engines are limited to the 150-to 250-horsepower range, but in fact many (if not most) of the same materials and finish processes are also used in the lower horsepowers , too. <S> — Field and Stream , 1994 <S> In both these examples, horsepowers refers to the horsepower ratings of different models of motor. <S> In the second example, the horsepower ratings of engines is used as a metonym for the engines themselves.
| Either way, horsepowers is definitely not standard.
|
Short alternatives of the word Authentication and the word Authorisation As a programmer I use the word Authentication and the word Authorisation in my code. I'd like to find nice abbreviations or alternative words for each of them that are not ambiguous and has reasonably large 'psychological distance' between. i.e. they don't look too similar i.e 'Auth' is not OK because it is ambiguous. At the moment I have just removed some letters Authtictn Authristn Any suggestions? Update: Since this question is now under threat I have moved it's gist to: http://www.eatmybusiness.com/food/2014/02/08/short-alternatives-of-the-word-authentication-and-the-word-authorisation/272/ <Q> I've worked with IETF people and developers who spend a lot of time on Apache, who tend to use: AuthN <S> - Authentication <S> AuthZ - Authorization <S> You'll find these abbreviations in a lot of IETF technical documents. <S> Yes, I know British spelling prefers <S> s over z (authorisation). <A> You could think of replacing the word 'authentication' with 'identification', since in this context, I think they are probably equivalent. <S> You could then substitute 'authorization' with 'permission'. <S> Then, abbreviate as 'ident' and 'perm'. <A> I suppose you could take the approach taken when abbreviating 'internationalization' as 'i18n' (and 'localization' as 'l10n': 'authentication' = <S> > ' <S> a12n' 'authorization' = <S> > 'a11n' <S> The idea is to keep the first and last letters of the word, and replace all of the interior letters with a number representing the count of the letters removed. <S> Of course, looking at 'a12n' and 'a11n', you may not know the meaning right away, so this is probably not the best solution. <A> authent. <S> and authoris. ? <S> I would say that your current versions are fairly difficult to read, and also not particularly easy to tell apart from one another at a glance. <A> (As a non-native speaker) I would chose attest and grant . . <A> Why not just: - Autho - Authe
| I would chose a synonym authenticate synonyms: attest, authenticate, avouch, testify (to), vouch (for), witness authorization synonyms: allowance, authorization, clearance, concurrence, consent, granting, green light, leave, license (or licence), sanction, sufferance, warrant
|
"Get out of your own head" Get out of your own head How do I get out of my own head. Kindly explain this idiom! <Q> More context would help. <S> I interpret it to mean <S> , Stop looking at things from such a self-centered point of view. <S> Look at the whole picture. <S> It's not all about you. <S> For instance, if one were continually upset by minor rudeness from others, a way to get out of your own head <S> is to stop focusing on your own hurt feelings but instead to consider what difficulties the other person struggles with, which will help you to overlook the petty rudeness and instead have compassion for the other person, even thinking of ways to encourage them and/or lessen their burdens. <A> The way I have heard this phrase being used, it was meant to say "stop thinking/worrying too much about a particular thing, or about things in general", "get over (thinking about) something", or "enough introspection already, now go out and play". <A> When someone thinks too much 'in their own head' about an issue/problem/injustice/etc. <S> they can work up a completely fantastical argument about how everyone is 'wrong' and they are 'right'. <S> And all of the distortion is 'in their head', it's not real life. <A> I am not familiar with the "self-centered" meaning in the other answers. <S> After some google searching and reading to find more usage context "in the wild" (eg this forbes article ). <S> I feel confident the most common usage of "in your own head" is effectively an antonym of mindfulness . <S> To be mindful is to be "in the moment" - focused on sensory perception and momentary feeling. <S> In contrast: to be "in your head" is to be focused on inner thoughts, sometimes to the point of neglecting your momentary senses and feelings. <S> Someone "in their own head" too much is walking around in a daze thinking about things far away in time, space, or reality. <S> My understanding is that the content of those thoughts is irrelevant. <S> One can be equally "in their own head" thinking about worries, fantasies, fickle injustices, the future, or the past.
| A person being told to 'get out of their own head' is being told to talk with other people to get other perspectives on an issue.
|
What does this quote/excerpt mean? I read the following lines somewhere on the Web: If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will suffer defeat. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. After reading those lines five times, I still don't understand what the writer is exactly trying to say here. Could someone please explain the meaning of these lines in simple words? <Q> If you know yourself, but do not know the enemy, you will lose (at least) as often as you will win. <S> You will win (at most) <S> 50 battles out of 100. <S> However, if you know both yourself and the enemy, you will win many more battles, perhaps all 100 out of 100, so you shouldn't be afraid to fight them. <S> Even shorter: know your enemy. <A> From WikiQuote , here are some alternative translations: <S> If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. <S> Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. <S> Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. <S> Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time. <S> Literal translation: <S> Know [the] other, know <S> [the] self, hundred battles without danger; not knowing [the] other but know <S> [the] self, one win one loss; not knowing [the] other, not knowing [the] self, every battle must [be] <S> lost <S> The author is making three points: <S> If you understand yourself and your enemy, you will be far more likely to win any battle. <S> If you understand yourself, but not your enemy, you have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning. <S> If you understand neither yourself nor your enemy, you will probably lose every battle. <S> "Understand" in this case probably means being aware of a person's strengths, weaknesses and motivations. <A> I would subtly change the emphasis here by saying that for me, this means that it is just as important to know your opponent's strengths and weaknesses as it is your own. <A> Another meaning behind this quote aside from probabilities of winning a theoretical battle is the importance of knowing/understanding others. <S> In this sense, battle is taken to mean any type of personal conflict. <S> If you've fought and won a battle with someone without coming to a greater understanding of that person, you've gained nothing, even if you win the argument. <S> If you've fought a battle where you gained a greater understanding of yourself and the other person, you've gained something greater than a mere win, and the outcome of the battle itself is irrelevant. <A> I would suggest another meaning. <S> Know thine enemy is about knowing who your real enemy is. <S> Who is behind the conflict and really pulling the strings. <S> Once you know who the real enemy is you can look to yourself for the answer.
| In short: if you know your enemy, don't be afraid to fight; if you don't know your enemy, be warned that you might lose.
|
Where can I find a list of English paronyms? Can anyone point me to a (more or less) complete list of English paronyms (affect/effect, farther/further, alternately/alternatively, interested/interesting, corrupted/corrupt, adopt/adapt, continuous/contiguous...)? Wikipedia has a list for everything, but not for paronyms . Google is not exceptionally helpful, either. After trying out half a dozen different search strings, I have learned quite a lot about French, German, and even Russian paronyms, but close to nothing about English ones. Any pointers? <Q> After some more searching, I found this Index of Commonly Confused Words over at About.com. <S> It's not perfect, but it's a good start. <S> Also, as has been mentioned on meta, there are at least two books on the subject: " <S> Who's Whose: A No-Nonsense Guide to Easily Confused Words" by Philip Gooden and "NTC's Super-Mini Dictionary of Easily Confused Words" by Deborah K. Williams. <S> I am not in a position to recommend or dismiss either, but I am listing them for the sake of completeness. <S> Lastly, as has been pointed out in the other answer, one day we will probably have our very own comprehensive list of questions tagged "look-alikes" or "paronyms" . <A> You can find a partial list by looking under the "look-alike" tag on this site: <S> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/look-alikes <S> As the site grows, the list may become more complete. <A> If you google for "similar words in English" you get a lot of websites. <S> alphadictionary has a list of 250 similar words. <S> http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/confused_words_english.html <A> From the Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary: paronym n. <S> A word having the same root as another; a cognate word. <S> [< Gk. <S> paronymon , orig. <S> neut. <S> of <S> paronymous derivative < para - beside + onoma name] — paronymic , paronymous adj. <S> paronomasia n. <S> 1. <S> Play on words; punning. <S> 2. <S> A pun. <S> [< L < Gk. <S> < <S> para - beside + onomasia <S> naming < paronomazein to alter slightly in naming] paronomasial, paronomastic or tical adj. <S> paronomastically adv. <S> pun n. <S> The humorous use of two words having the same or similar sounds but different meanings, or of two different, more or less incongruous meanings of the same word: also called paronomasia .
| Edit: yet another great resource ( courtesy of VonC ) is the online book "Common Errors in English Usage" .
|
Why do we use 'up' as adverbs for verbs? Why do we use up as adverbs for verbs? For example, 'wake up ', 'throw up ', etc. <Q> "wake up" and "throw up" are phrasal verbs . <S> A phrasal verb is a combination of a verb and a preposition, a verb and an adverb , or a verb with both an adverb and a preposition, any of which are part of the syntax of the sentence, and so are a complete semantic unit. <S> Sentences may contain direct and indirect objects in addition to the phrasal verb. <S> Phrasal verbs are particularly frequent in the English language. <S> A phrasal verb often has a meaning which is different from the original verb. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrasal_verbs <S> Notice that "throw up" and "throw" have different meanings. <S> And "wake" means " to be or remain awake ", while "wake up" means to " stop sleeping ". <A> Bruno's right, they're phrasal verbs. <S> Just think of how many phrasal verbs you can construct from "to get": get up, get down, get on, get off, get over, get under, get by, get through ...etc. <S> I imagine it must be tough for non-native speakers of English to learn these. <S> I suppose you just have get down to work and put up with it. <A> I think these two have the images of moving our body up, rising the upper body from the bed. <S> Throw up has an image of having the food going from the stomach up to the throat and give it out.
| "Throw up" means to " vomit ", while "throw" means " to propel through the air by a forward motion of the hand and arm ".
|
Contraction for 'are' with nouns Is this correct? the candys 're in the box, the womens're at the car I know ' you're ', ' we're ', ' they're ' are valid usages, but can it be used for nouns? <Q> Here are the top 21 <S> ’re forms in the Corpus of Contemporary American English : <S> TOT <S> SPOKEN <S> FICTION <S> MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER <S> ACADEMIC1 <S> YOU'RE <S> 244694 <S> 108878 <S> 65509 <S> 44733 <S> 22486 <S> 30882 <S> WE'RE 195472 117655 26890 19939 28368 26203 <S> THEY'RE 169989 94821 22991 23922 25776 <S> 24794 <S> WHAT'RE <S> 777 <S> 12 721 24 <S> 17 <S> 35 <S> THERE'RE <S> 442 <S> 169 211 23 <S> 33 <S> 66 <S> HOW'RE <S> 393 <S> 135 234 13 9 <S> 27 <S> WHO'RE <S> 189 18 130 29 11 18 <S> WHERE'RE <S> 142 <S> 2 129 5 4 <S> 29 <S> WHY'RE <S> 66 4 <S> 60 <S> 2 <S> 10 <S> YE'RE <S> 56 <S> 51 4 <S> 111 <S> THAT'RE <S> 33 <S> 7 <S> 20 <S> 3 3 <S> 12 ' <S> RE 24 <S> 22 <S> 2 <S> 13 <S> YOUR'RE <S> 19 <S> 3 <S> 7 <S> 6 <S> 1 <S> 214 <S> HERE'RE <S> 18 <S> 3 <S> 9 <S> 4 <S> 1 <S> 115 <S> IFYOU'RE <S> 15 <S> 14 <S> 116 <S> PEOPLE'RE <S> 15 <S> 14 <S> 1 17 <S> HELL'RE <S> 14 <S> 14 <S> 18 <S> GUYS'RE <S> 11 <S> 10 <S> 1 19 <S> OWE'RE <S> 10 <S> 1 <S> 9 <S> 20 <S> THINGS'RE <S> 10 <S> 10 <S> 21 <S> THOSE'RE <S> 10 <S> 10 As you can see, forms other than <S> you’re , <S> we’re , and <S> they’re <S> are quite rare in comparison. <S> For the most part, they occur primarily in fiction, although there’re and how’re occur with some frequency in spoken English. <S> Of course, the two examples given in the original question are not correct because the plural of candy is candies <S> not candys and the plural of woman <S> is women <S> not womens . <S> There were no examples of candies’re in COCA, but there was one example of women’re . <A> No, it's not correct. <S> You'd have to say: the candies are in the box, the women are at the car <A> Is this correct? <S> the candys 're in the box <S> but it is sometimes encountered. <S> the womens're at the car <S> That's wrong for other reasons. <S> I know 'you're', 'we're', ' <S> they're' are valid usages, but can it be used for nouns? <S> No, not usually. <A> We would write The candies are in the box . <S> If a native English speaker says that sentence out loud, they may pronounce it <S> so it sounds more like The candies're in the box . <S> (But we would never write it that way.) <S> Another example: <S> We would write <S> The cars are in the parking lot . <S> If a native English speaker says it out loud, it might end up sounding like The cars're in the box <S> (but we would never write it that way).
| It's not usually considered correct
|
"Fixing to" at the beginning of a sentence Use of fixing to at the beginning of a sentence is prevalent in the southern states of Amerca. Is this the right usage? And is this only a southern US thing? Examples: Fixing to call her. Fixing dinner. Fixing to leave the house. <Q> Is this the right usage? <S> For "fixing to (do something)", that depends. <S> If I am writing an academic paper or a business-related email, then no. <S> If I am in Boston, or Chicago, or San Francisco <S> and I don't want to sound out of place <S> , then no. <S> But if I am living in the South of the US and I am having casual conversation, then "fixing to" might often be just the right word to use. <S> "Fixing dinner" is much more prevalent than "fixing to (do something)". <S> I say this because I don't think it would feel out of place in any of the (northern and eastern US) <S> places I have lived (though I would imagine it would get the heaviest use in the South). <S> Still, I probably wouldn't personally use that phrase in formal, written English. <A> "Fixing to ..." is common usage in the southern US, meaning "about to" or "preparing to" do something, but rarely if ever at the beginning of a sentence. <S> Perhaps in answer to a question: "Whatcha doin', Pa?" <S> "Fixin' to hunt me some possum." <A> Even though I can be offended by incorrect grammar to the point where it might be obnoxious at times, I still embrace local colloquialisms. <S> Having been born and bred in the Deep South (US), I use "fixing to" regularly. <S> Yes, it means "about to". <S> However, since we don't pronounce hard g's at the end of these expressions, it would be pronounced "fixin’ to". <A> It's also appeared in song titles, most notably <S> I-Feel-Like-I'm <S> -Fixin'-To-Die <S> I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die is the second album by the influential San Francisco psychedelic rock group Country Joe and the Fish, released in 1967. <S> The title track remains one of the most popular Vietnam protest songs from the 1960s and originally appeared in a 1965 7" EP titled Rag Baby: <S> Songs of Opposition. <A> If I'm fixing (or fixin') to do something, fixing is an adverb, answering the question of "when" you're going to start doing something. <S> I'm from the South (Savannah, Georgia) and this is common usage in those parts. <S> This "fixing" is completely different from the verb "fixing" in this sentence: "I'm fixing the broken gate" - How about this one? <S> "I'm fixing to start fixing the broken gate". <S> The first fixing is an adverb, the second one a verb. <S> Miriam Oglesbee Ellison <A> Um.... <S> That's colloquialism. <S> Southern people say "fixin to" while African American people tend to change the expression to "fittin to." <S> It essentially means to prepare to do something. <S> "We were fittin to go to the park, when, suddenly the weather changed, as did our plans."
| They mean the same thing.
|
Inverse of "being a fan of"? "Y has 1250 fans" means there are 1250 X for which X is fan of Y . If there are 12 Y for which the "X is a fan of Y" relationship holds for a given X , what's a word or phrase to say "X has 12 _ _" ? Similarly, if "X is a fan of Y", then what's the equivalent way of saying this with Y as the subject and X as the object ("Y _ _ X") ? <Q> If there are 12 Y for which the "X is a fan of Y" relationship holds for a given X, <S> what's a word or phrase to say "X has 12 __" ? <S> As Jeffrey Kemp and ShreevatsaR pointed out in an answer and a comment, there is not really one distinct answer to this question. <S> But there are lots of possible words you could use depending on the context. <S> For example X has twelve idols or <S> X has twelve heroes or <S> X has twelve favourite stars <A> I don't think English has any word which is the inverse of "fan" - apart from the phrase "is a fan of". <S> "X is a fan of 12 people <S> " "Y has a fan in X" <A> Remember that fan derives from "fanatic," which usually implies exclusivity, so it's hard to truly be a "fan" of 12 unrelated people or things.
| "Y has 1250 fans" means there are 1250 X for which X is fan of Y.
|
Do "normal people" know the terms URL and GUI? Would an English-speaking but non-technical audience be familiar with the terms URL (in the sense of link , web address ) and GUI (Graphical User Interface), for example in a manual aimed at end users? If not, are there alternatives to GUI for referring to "the part of the program you can see and interact with, including content, menus, buttons etc."? Or is it perhaps better to just refer to a GUI as "the program", since there is no visible distinction between the program and the GUI for the person using it? <Q> No. <S> Thats my experience from user training. <S> Some alternatives could be : Graphical User Interface, User Interface , Program Interface, Program Screen, Program Window. <S> Also you can replace program with application if you think that would sound better for your audience. <S> URL could be link, web link, web address, internet address, network address <S> Also as you are writing a manual, you might as well use these terms and include a glossary <A> Normal people might now know these words. <S> In the case of GUI I have to wonder why you would use the word at all; is there any other UI the user might also be using, that is non-graphical? <S> It's probably best to refer to "the program" or specific items in the GUI such as particular menus or dialogs. <S> For URL a lot of people probably know it <S> but you could say "link" or "address". <S> Or define the URL in the introduction to the sections that use it. <S> First, copy the website's address (the URL) to your clipboard by pressing CTRL-C... <S> Then you can use the word URL later on (include it in a glossary, maybe?) <S> Snarky side-note: will "normal people" even read this help text or manual? :) <A> URL is significantly more commonly recognized than GUI, but there are many "normal people" who are fairly clueless as to both of them. <A> Only confirming what others (and yourself) have said. <S> Far more people will understand web address than URL. <S> Or is it perhaps better to just refer to a GUI as "the program", since there is no visible distinction between the program and the GUI for the person using it? <S> Yes, yes, yes. <S> For the vast majority of non-technical users, this is very obviously the case. <S> the GUI is the program. <A> The company I work work publish a web site used by the building trade. <S> Think submitting quotes for jobs with 7 or more zeros at the end. <S> Our trainers are constantly surprised that some of our users never use a computer. <S> They have zero knowledge about things like logging into a web site or even the basics of navigation. <S> In short, The technical knowledge of 'normal people' can range from absolute zero or reasonably proficient. <A> A lot of technical or so called technical do not know meanings of these words. <S> Samples for word like SQL or CSS if you write out full word there is a huge chance to be misunderstanding.
| "Normal people" won't understand these terms.
|
Is "errored" correct usage? If "errored" is not a valid word, then how should I say: The program errored at line 44 I guess I could say: The program threw an error at line 44 But why is "errored" wrong? Is there a better alternative? <Q> You can actually say "The program erred at line 44", but it's not very idiomatic. " <S> Err" also occurs in the saying "To err is human, to forgive is divine". <S> If you're looking for the correct idiom, you could say "the program encountered an error at line 44" or "the program hit an error at line 44", etc. <A> I'd say errored IS a valid word. <S> It's the past tense of the verb "to error". <S> I've seen (well, mostly heard) <S> this word used to mean to operate incorrectly, to display an error message, to encounter an unexpected error, to halt unexpectedly <S> This is a relatively recent usage of the word (I can't find any authoritative samples of it) <S> it might be considered too informal or slangy. <S> Also, some people might not be sure what precisely you are trying to say. <S> Thus, you should describe more fully what the program is doing. <S> The program encountered an error at line 44. <S> Wiktionary Merriam-Webster (new words, slang) <S> The verb 'to error' has a different meaning than 'to err'. <S> An "error" in a computer program isn't necessarily a mistake, but can be an exceptional circumstance. <S> For example, if a program tried to open its configuration file, but you deleted it, the program might fail by displaying an error for this unexpected circumstance. <S> You could say "the program errored. <S> " You can't say "the program erred" because the program isn't making a mistake here. <A> I've seen it enough in computing contexts that I consider it acceptable there. <S> I wouldn't use it in other domains myself, though, except possibly in a geeky tongue-in-cheek way (e.g., "my DVD player errored out on that scratched disk.") <A> To use "errored" you would have to consider error a verb, but the dictionary doesn't. <S> "Error" is a noun, used to mean mistake. <S> You wouldn't say "The program mistaked at line 44." <S> Your usage "threw an error" is correct, because it uses error as a noun. <A> You may choose one of the following options: <S> The program returned an error at line 44 <S> The program generated an error at line 44 <S> The program reached an error at line 44 <S> The program gave an error at line 44 <A> It seems to be fairly widely understood as a verb form for "error". <S> Outside of computing, I'd probably avoid it. <S> You generally won't hear someone say "Todd errored on his test". <S> It's a field-specific bit of terminology. <S> That being said, while discussing things within the field of computing, I'd prefer "the program errored/failed/crashed" over "erred", as some others have suggested. <S> Any of those would be concise and make sense. <S> I would also prefer the options above over "The program threw an error" in informal settings, simply for the fact that it's less wordy, unless the focus of the statement was how exactly the program did the throwing. <S> In technical documents, "threw an error" might be preferable to "errored". <A> You can say the program threw an error though I'd be more inclined to use "caused", as "threw" sounds a little odd (though it is used in the context of exceptions in C++). <S> (You might also want to provide a more information than merely saying that an error has occurred!)
| The program encountered an error at line 44 Within programming circles, I'd say that "errored" is a perfectly fine term to use.
|
Why is "to get" sometimes used where "to be" could be used? Why is "to get" sometimes used where "to be" could be used? Examples: "The video got uploaded to the web site." vs. "The video was uploaded to the web site." "He got thrown in the pool." vs. "He was thrown in the pool." "We got caught!" vs. "We were caught!" Is that usage correct? <Q> You can use forms of get instead of forms of <S> be as an alternative way to formulate the passive voice. <S> Passive voice clauses constructed with get are less formal than those formed with be , but otherwise have the same meaning. <S> However, you can’t use get for stative uses of the passive voice, where the passive indicates the result of an action. <S> You can only use it for eventive passives, where the passive indicates an action. <S> Here are examples of the stative passives where get is not grammatical: <S> 100 votes are required to pass the bill <S> * 100 votes <S> get required to pass the bill <S> He was rumored to be a war veteran. <S> * <S> He got rumored to be a war veteran <S> The plums were intended for breakfast. <S> * <S> The plums got intended for breakfast. <S> A vacuum is abhorred by nature. <S> * <S> A vacuum gets abhorred by nature. <A> Using "to get" puts a more active spin on the result. <A> This usage is correct , but informal . <S> It is freely used (and extremely common) in less formal kinds of writing and speaking, but is avoided in the most formal forms of writing. <S> As for "why", I don't think there is any explanation other than the fact that get + <past participle> is slowly displacing be + <past participle> for the passive construction. <A> Both forms (i.e. be and get forms followed by past participle) are grammatically correct. <S> The video got uploaded to the website [by a user]. <S> is passive voice. <S> In a sentence using active voice, the subject of the sentence performs the action expressed in the verb. <S> (source) <S> So, in this case, the subject of the sentence, "the video", wasn't the thing performing the action. <S> The unnamed user (or whomever performed the action) did.
| The usage is correct, if not always formal. While the use of "to be" creates a passive-voice construction, the use of "to get" creates an active-voice construction with an implied subject -- that is, it emphasizes that someone specifically caused the action, rather than that it just happened on its own somehow.
|
Expressing an opinion: to me or for me? Which one should be used? To me, it makes no difference, but I'm not really sure why. vs For me, it makes no difference, but I'm not really sure why. <Q> "To me" is more to express opinion. <S> Ex: That's difficult for me. <S> That sounds difficult to me. <A> I think the general (most widely-applicable) <S> one would be "to me". <S> To my knowledge, it can be used in any of these cases where "for me" is used, and in some where "for me" can't be used. <S> For example: For me, this is not a difficult problem. <S> To me, this is not a difficult problem. <S> Both of the above are fine. <S> But look at the following pair (the "*" sentence is ungrammatical in this context): <S> *For me, he is an idiot. <S> To me, he is an idiot. <S> The first example doesn't work as a way to express opinion, but "to me" still works fine. <A> Hmm, tough one. <S> Rearranging the sentences helped me see this a little more clearly: <S> It makes no difference to me <S> This suggests there is no effect on me materially, emotionally, financially ...etc. <S> That is, nothing will happen to me . <S> It makes no difference for me <S> This suggests that I have no strong opinion on this . <S> I can't explain this in terms of grammar or style, it's just a feeling that the sentences provoked when I said them to myself. <A> I basically agree with Antony Quinn's answer, with one slight difference. <S> for me implies that your decision will not affect me. <S> to me means I don't much care what you decide, even if it does affect me. <S> Illustration <S> : My employer considers switching from issuing pay checks every week to issuing them once a quarter. <S> This affects me, and I don't want it to happen, so I might say, It makes a difference for me (because my cash flow cannot handle this). <S> (Sorry that I couldn't think of an example that kept the "no difference" idea.) <S> However, if my employer considers switching from weekly to biweekly pay checks, it still affects me, but not in any way that matters to me (because my cash flow can handle this), so I might say, It makes no difference to me.
| "For me" is to express its effect on you or it's benefit for you, whether it's good or bad.
|
"In order to...", "To..." or "For..." What preposition should we use to start a sentence where we first explain a purpose and then a method to achieve it? Example 1 Purpose = pass the exams Method = study a lot In order to pass the exams, you have to study a lot. To pass the exams, you have to study a lot. *For passing the exams, you have to study a lot. (incorrect - see accepted answer) Example 2 Purpose = find an object in the database Method = run a SQL query In order to find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. To find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. *For finding the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. (incorrect - see accepted answer) <Q> "For passing" and "for finding" are not correct. " <S> In order to" and "To" are correct, but I favour "To" because it is more concise: <S> To pass the exams, you have to study a lot. <S> To find the object in the database, users have to run a SQL query. <S> A more natural way of saying this is: <S> You have to study a lot to pass the exams. <S> Users have to run a SQL query to find the object in the database. <A> According to BBC World Service , in order to "sounds a bit more formal and explicit" than to . <A> "In order to" specifies that the phrase which follows it is not the subject of the sentence, prompting the reader to be on the lookout for the subject which occurs later in the sentence. <S> For example take the sentence "To err is human, to forgive, divine." <S> In this sentence "To err" is the subject of the sentence, and cannot be replaced by " <S> In order to err". <S> Now consider the sentence " <S> In order to communicate the utility and safety of the product the most effective phraseology varies wildly depending on the target audience". <S> This could be replaced with "To communicate the utility and safety..." and remain grammatically correct, but the reader will initially assume that "To communicate" is the subject of the sentence since it is at the beginning. <S> After reaching the phrase "the most effective phraseology" the reader will realize that this phrase was the subject of the sentence, and will need to go back and re-read the sentence with this new information. <S> Adding "in order to" makes the sentence feel more natural and easier to read. <A> Using your example: 'I studied, for to pass the exam'. <S> Instead of: 'I studied in order to pass the exam'. <S> I have never heard anyone begin a sentence with 'for to' in this way though, it is usually used as a joining phrase to explicitly explain why something was necessary. <S> I would actually also say that that is the purpose of saying 'in order to' rather than just 'to'. <S> Someone above has said 'in order to' serves no function as 'to' serves just as well. <S> I disagree. <S> In some contexts it underlines the fact a certain action was necessary for the desired outcome. <S> I.e. 'I studied to pass the exam' vs. ' <S> I studied in order to pass the exam'. <S> In the second example the onus is on the fact that studying was not just something you did because you wanted to pass an exam, it was something you did because it was essential to you achieving your goal of passing the exam. <S> Language is subtle. <A> "For to" is a construction right out of nursery rhymes and old songs!I'm going to Louisiana, For to see my Sal (Polly Wolly Doodle) <S> Simple Simon went a-fishing, for to catch a whale <S> It's old-fashioned, but it has a flavor of other languages (para, from Spanish, for example) and views on how one approaches doing something. <S> Not a must do, or a to do, but a for doing.
| 'For to' is used by Irish (and some Scottish people) in place of 'for the purpose of' or 'in order to'.
|
Which is right, "bananas and apples" or "apples and bananas" or both? My English teacher just asked us to write a random sentence in English. Off the top of my head I wrote "I like to eat apples and bananas". She highlighted "apples" and said: "man, this is blatantly wrong". "Uh, what's wrong, M'am?" "It should be bananas and apples . English people always enumerate things in reverse alphabetical order. Always. Just like when they enumerate parts of the body, they always converge to the heart. Always. We do that automatically, without even thinking about it. Not doing it is wrong". Granted, I'm not a native speaker, but I've never heard anything like this before. Bullshit or what? <Q> I think your teacher is either "full of it" or "misinformed" While it may be true that in English we usually enumerate parts of the body from the outside in <S> , I'd suspect it has more to do with creating a physical starting point that is furthest from our eyes and looking for a way to create a list without forgetting something. <S> I doubt this is limited to English, but is more of a "human" thing. <S> For random objects, I'd suspect people probably sort from easiest to recall to most difficult, or from most to least favorite, from biggest to smallest, by what sounds right or just randomly... or according to a set phrase, rhyme or song that's established culturally. <S> Lions and tigers and bears, <S> oh my! <S> It's raining cats and dogs strawberry rhubarb pie <S> They fight like cats and dogs <S> They're playing a game of cat and mouse <S> I'll have a ham and cheese sandwich <S> Would you like some cheese and crackers? <S> I'm having a wine and cheese party <S> I feel like a rum and coke <S> I'll take a Coke and Lime <S> In some of those examples, the more important element is stated first, but in many, the order has been established naturally, with less importance to order. <S> Saying that, I'm sure there are certain patterns you could find based on how things sound together, or how many syllables there are... <S> but the opposite is not wrong. <A> There are many word pairs that are usually stated in certain orders. <S> Using them in the uncommon order is not necessarily wrong but it sounds odd. <S> Good and Evil Apples and Oranges <S> Men and Women Ladies and Gentlemen <S> I think you just have to memorize the order for each possible pair. <S> As for organizing the body parts by direction, I don't think people follow specific rules. <S> I would probably start at the top and work my way down. <S> I can't see how converging in the middle would help unless you also have to go clockwise or counter-clockwise. <A> Your teacher is wrong. <S> Print out a copy of http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1998 and lend it to her. <S> It mentions various factors - word length, consonant sounds, gender bias - which do appear, from scientific study, to be genuinely relevant. <A> English people always enumerate things in reverse alphabetical order. <S> On the scale of language evolution, it hasn't been long since a significant part of the population became literate. <S> Therefore this rule doesn't make any sense. <S> This isn't to say that “apple and bananas” and “bananas and apples” are strictly equivalent. <S> For example, “apples and oranges” is an established idiom, and “apples and bananas” might be favored for the similarity. <S> But it has nothing to do with the spelling. <A> I've never heard that rule, and I've never heard anyone follow it. <S> There are even plenty of phrases in English that don't follow it that are part of the culture. <S> It happens that "apples and bananas" is one of them. <S> You ask "bullshit or what. <S> " I can unequivocally say that it definitely isn't "what."
| Your teacher's assertion that the pairs have to be in reverse alphabetical order is simply false.
|
When to use & instead of "and" Are there rules of usage when using the ampersand "&" instead of "and"? Are they completely interchangeable? The ampersand seems more casual, but I'm not sure. <Q> There are very, very few acceptable uses of & in proper written English. <S> Here are some of them: & is especially common when joining names to indicate a firm or a partnership, for example, a law firm: <S> Baker & McKenzie Abercrombie & Fitch Crosby Stills Nash & Young <S> In abbreviations, when abbreviating "and", & is often used: AT&T (American Telephone and Telegraph) P&L (profit and loss) R&D (research and development) <S> One rare usage is on envelopes addressed to a couple: Mr. & Mrs. Jackson &c. is a rare and somewhat archaic looking abbreviation for etc. <S> Other than that it is vanishingly rare to see & in formal written English, although of course in informal email, text messages, notes, and handwriting, anything goes. <A> Are there rules of usage when using the ampersand "&" instead of "and"? <S> Are they completely interchangeable? <S> Meaning-wise <S> I think they are. <S> The ampersand seems more casual, but I'm not sure. <S> It's an abbreviation so one might use it more in less formal writing. <A> I cannot say this is correct but in use I find it very useful. <S> Example: "Michel has experience in Marketing, Research & Design, and Business Management." <S> Like I said, this most likely isn't correct but it makes sense, seems useful, and if enough people agree then we can change the rules & regulations. <A> The ampersand is used inside brackets whem regerencing (Smith & Jones, 2008:36). <S> But in a sentence and will be used, e.g. Smith and Jones (2008:36) hold that....... also & is used in the refetence list of an academic paper when more than one author is cited. <S> But not in the title - then you use and. <S> Hope it helps. <S> Jo.
| I often use "&" when two things are related directly but only in a series. I looked through a couple of reference books and both of them said that the ampersand should only be used in company names.
|
When should the word "God" be capitalized? Aside from proper noun usage, like "We're on a mission from God", when should "God" be capitalized? A few examples: That's a god awful question. Oh my god! No god-damn way. He played the part of the cannibal god It occurs to me that whenever used for decisive emphasis, by referencing deity, it is effectively functioning as a proper noun as well? For comparison: That's a really awful question. Oh my stars ! (no viable equivalent) He played the part of the cannibal chief PLEASE, no rants or tangents. This is a grammar question. <Q> To summarize the proper noun/common noun usage, I think the easiest way to handle the situation is to capitalize the word god when it is used as a proper name as the name of the god of a monotheistic religion, such as the god of Christianity or Judaism, and not capitalize it when it is used as a common noun: <S> Christians are supposed to follow what God wants them to do. <S> Christians are supposed to follow what their god wants them to do. <S> I think this article from the About.com site about agnosticism and atheism discusses the issue of when to capitalize god quite cogently. <S> As for usage of the examples in the question, I looked in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and here’s what I found. <S> God-awful <S> 72 god-awful <S> 71 godawful 28 God-awful <S> 10 Godawful <S> 7 <S> god awful <S> 7 <S> God awful <S> Overall, the hyphenated uncapitalized and unspaced uncapitalized forms are about equally common. <S> The hyphenated capitalized form was the next most common, but significantly less common, followed by other rare variants. <S> Oh my God <S> For the first 1000 results for <S> oh my god , they were divided like this: <S> 710 <S> Oh my God <S> 139 <S> Oh my god 95 <S> oh my God <S> 38 <S> oh my god <S> 10 <S> OH <S> MY GOD <S> 7 <S> Oh My God 1 <S> Oh my GOD <S> All variations of capitalization are used, but “Oh my God” is the most common by quite a large margin. <S> Goddamn <S> For the first 1000 incidences of goddamn , they were divided like this: 770 goddamn 218 Goddamn <S> 38 God damn <S> 27 god damn 18 <S> god-damn <S> 17 God-damn 12 GODDAMN <S> 3 <S> God-Damn 2 <S> God <S> Damn 1 <S> GOD DAMN <S> 183 examples of Goddamn occurred after punctuation—only 35 occurred after a word. <S> Lowercase goddamn is dramatically more common. <S> For the spaced variation, capitalization was more common than not, but for the hyphenated variation, they were equally divided between capitalizing and not. <S> For goddamn , the unspaced variation is much more common than the variants with space and hyphen. <S> Cannibal god <S> For the final example, there were, of course, no incidences of cannibal god in the COCA, but I think this works best the same way as Roman, Greek, Norse, and Hindu gods—as a common noun, lowercased. <A> Two elements are at play here. <S> The first is the grammatic issue of proper noun versus regular noun. <S> In general, "God" with a capital G is a proper noun, whereas "god" is not. <S> This is very similar to "mom" or "dad". <S> ("Did Mom say not to eat any cookies?" <S> vs. <S> "Your mom said not to eat the cookies.") <S> The second influence comes from a Christian tradition of capitalizing the "G" any time the god in question is the God of the Bible, even when "god" is a regular noun in the sentence. <S> This same practice is often used with personal pronouns referencing God as well ("You", "He"). <S> This practice is not a hard and fast rule of grammar <S> orthography, though it is a common practice, particularly among Christians. <A> From a biblical point of view, the distinction is simple (in English). <S> God (in English) came to be written to represent the Monotheistic God of the bible, whereas "god" represented the polytheistic gods of the surrounding nations. <S> Pharaoah is called a "god". <S> Ba'al was called a "god". <S> Silver idols are called "gods", money is called a "god", Satan is called a "god". <S> It is of note, however, that in the original Hebrew, there is no capitalization present. <S> Rather, they referred to "God" as el-o-him (God), or by his personal name YHWH (Commonly known as Jehovah in English, likely pronounced Yah-weh in Hebrew). <S> This name distinguished him from the gods of the surrounding nations. <S> In THAT context, you COULD make an argument that depending on what "god" you mean, it could be capitalized. <S> However, given that the bible's capitalization in English was added later (perhaps for clarity when reading) I would think lowercase is perfectly acceptable. <S> (How's that for a long-winded rant that ends where it began?) <A> I opened my "Oxford Writers' Dictionary" yet again and found God-awful , so they think that it should be capitalized and hyphenated. <S> However they also use godlike and godless . <S> There are several other examples in the dictionary, so it seems to be case-by-case. <S> I don't think anyone would suggest capitalizing "god" in <S> He played the part of the cannibal god <A> if it's somebody else's god.
| As a generalization, you spell God with an uppercase G if it's your God, and with a lowercase g
|
What's the difference between a fable and a parable? Does either imply a lesson, or a fantastical setting? <Q> My understanding is that a fable involves (speaking) animals or other mythical creatures, while a parable does not. <S> A moral is typical for both genres. <S> Wikipedia is more accurate in its wording: A <S> fable is a succinct story, in prose or verse, that features animals, mythical creatures, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral lesson (a "moral"), which may at the end be expressed explicitly in a pithy maxim. <S> A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. <S> It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. <S> It is a type of analogy. <S> Merriam-Webster basically agrees, but has a few points to add: <S> parable : <S> example; specifically: a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle fable : a fictitious narrative or statement: as a : a legendary story of supernatural happenings b : a narration intended to enforce a useful truth; especially: one in which animals speak and act like human beings <S> c : falsehood, lie <A> My observations - not an authority's formal definitions: The most famous fables (Aesop's) all feature animal protagonists, but I don't believe that has ever been a requirement, Wikipedia notwithstanding. <S> Any fictitious story with an implied or explicit moral, or lesson, and which is obviously contrived for the purpose of communicating that moral or lesson can be referred to as a fable. <S> Example: http://www.userfocus.co.uk/fable/index.html <S> A parable is not necessarily contrived, but usually contains a relatively specific analogy. <S> A fable is more vague and illustrates a more general principle or concept. <S> The parables in the New Testament (per my poor memory) are all things that "could have actually happened like that". <S> Edit: Apparently the root of "parable" is from the Greek "to compare", so a specific analogy is definitely implied. <A> Fables are stories that feature animals, plants, or forces of nature that have been given human qualities. <S> They teach moral and ethical lessons, like how to behave or how to treat people. <S> Since the main characters are animals, they are a good way to introduce serious topics to children. <S> Each animal represents a particular human fault or virtue, and what happens in the story is directly related to the animal’s personality. <S> Parables also teach moral and ethical lessons, but they only have human characters. <S> They are set in the real world, with realistic problems and results. <S> They often have spiritual aspects. <S> So what would a story be that features a human interacting with a talking animal? <S> A fable, since parables exclude unrealistic things like chatty foxes. <A> Both teach moral lessons, however fables usually have animals and plants behaving like humans. <S> Parable are more like giant metaphors were each aspect of the story represents something in real life <A> but it is to note that fables are mostly read by children and the animal characters could live in them so that the message is easily grasped.
| both the fable and parable has equal elements such as the setting, symbolism and gives a moral message but the only thing is that a fable uses animals and the parables include humans.
|
Is there a real difference between "null" and "zero"? Are zero and null perfect synonyms? <Q> 'null' is qualitative, representing the absence of quantity. <S> Closer to the word 'void' than the number 'zero'. <S> Example: he reduced it to nil. <S> 'zero' is quantitative. <S> Example: he got zero on his exam. <A> No, they are not the same. <S> In an everyday language context, 'null' can mean that something is meaningless, as in: The agreement became null when Sam failed to fulfill his side. <S> In a programming/data context (though I still think this is a language question, rather than a programming question), 'null' can mean the absence of information. <S> If you are wondering how many apples there are, 'null' means 'I don't know'. <S> 'Zero' means that you know that there aren't any apples. <S> Zero always refers to a quantity. <A> Is there a difference between a cheque(check) with $0.00 and a NULL(VOID) check? <S> Yes. <S> A $0.00 cheque will put exactly $0.00 into your bank account. <S> A check with VOID written on it will not be processed. <S> The difference may be subtle, but there is a difference. <S> 0 represents an integer in the set of all integers (called the set Z in mathematics)NULL is not an integer, and it could represent the absence of things that aren't even numbers. <S> A NULL and VOID Check for example. <S> A NULL Marriage. <S> A NULL Agreement <A> In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same. <S> In programming some languages make null the same as zero (C++) but some don't (Java). <S> In databases a record might have a null value in one field or it might have a zero <S> and these are not the same. <S> Zero is can be used to indicate a counted quantity whereas null cannot. <A> It's not just null and zero too. <S> What about "nothing","naugt","none <S> " etc. <S> Zero is usually a noun. <S> Zero is a number. <S> Zero can refer to the symbol "0". <S> Null is usually an adjective (Null set, Null argument, Null pointer, *a nullity). <S> Null is a not a number, usually has a different symbol each time. <S> Programmers are forced to make these distinctions all the time (although, 'null' is often modelled as the number 0). <S> Although it is important in programming, the distinction is more to do with logic and mathematics. <S> They do have quite different roles in language although I guess in a few cases they are the same. <S> History of Zero <A> The words have very different meanings. <S> In math, I can do an equation, such as subtract two numbers, and get zero. <S> If I don't answer the question, it could be considered null. <S> If the question were an elementary test, zero could be the correct answer, worth points, whereas not answering the question does not result in a correct answer. <S> So, one can indicate that a computation has been done, the other that it has not been done. <A> "Zero" is a number, an integer between -1 and 1. <S> It is a physical quantity representing no countable number of an object. <S> "Null" is a concept of irrelevance or undefined state. <S> For example, an agreement might become "null and void" when it is no longer applicable or enforceable, or <S> a computer data structure pointer with no instantiation associated with it might be considered "null". <S> The confusion comes in the representation of a computer NULL in execution. <S> Typically, the NULL is represented as a 0 in the memory or code. <S> But that is just a convention. <S> It's like saying "I am Spoxjox". <S> Well, no, <S> I am not Spoxjox. <S> I am represented by the "name" or "tag" or "handle" of "Spoxjox", but I am a human being, not a sequence of letters on a discussion board. <S> Similarly, the concept of NULL might be represented by a zero (0), but it is not the same as the number zero. <A> No. <S> Zero is also a place where a mathematical function achieves an output value of zero. <S> Null has a wide variety of uses. <S> Here are a few: null set - a set devoid of elements null contract - unenforceable contract <S> The Java computer language uses null as a "graveyard" object that holds no value <A> "Nula" is the word for "0" in Hungarian and other European languages. <S> "Null" means "void of legal force" ... <S> that's essentially "invalid". <S> It's an adjective, as has been mentioned. <S> I'm not a programmer, so <S> maybe that's why I don't equate the two at all. <S> Compare "Are you Rachel?" <S> with "Are you tired?"
| Zero is a number. null and zero are used in many contexts where they have different meanings.
|
Word for when people store scarce resources to increase demand and sell at higher price Like storing gasoline to create an artificial demand and sell it a higher price later. <Q> Profiteering can be used here. <S> From Cambridge Dictionary : <S> profiteer <S> (noun): a person who takes advantage of a situation in which other people are suffering to make a profit, often by selling at a high price goods which are difficult to get. <S> profiteering (noun): <S> The pharmaceutical company has been charged with profiteering from the AIDS crisis. <S> From Oxford Dictionaries : <S> profiteer (verb) <S> : make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally: seven food merchants were charged with profiteering. <A> 'Hoarding' is the word that comes to my mind. <S> That at least covers the storage of scarce resources, but I'm not sure if it is really the right word to include selling it at a higher price. <S> How about 'Price-fixing'? <S> That would be a collection of 'competitors', artificailly increasing the price by some means (possibly by limiting supply). <A> This is the very definition of " cornering the market ." <A> There is a general phrase that has made itself into a legal one: <S> Price Gouging <S> In New York it reads as follows: <S> New York State’s <S> Price Gouging Law (General Business Law § 396-r) prohibits merchants from taking unfair advantage of consumers by selling goods or services that are “vital to the health, safety or welfare of consumers” for an "unconscionably excessive price" during an abnormal disruption of the market place or state of emergency. <S> An abnormal disruption in the market place may be triggered by "weather events, power failures, strikes, civil disorder, war, military action, national or local emergency, or other causes.” <S> https://ag.ny.gov/price-gouging <A> Cornering the Market is the best term if you're actually buying so much of the item that prices go up. <S> It rarely happens. <S> Profiteering is simply a value-laden term for increasing prices when demand goes up. <S> Hoarding implies keeping a disproportionate share of something for oneselve, not necessarily for profit. <A> As I stated in a comment earlier to moioci, "cornering the market" merely means having complete control of it, not necessarily by hoarding a commodity. <S> A few examples, quickly found: <S> Dell set to corner the market for desktop virtualization hardware <S> Apple trying to corner market on location-based advertising? <S> Is a Silver Market Corner Underway? <S> Romero's Undead Island Trying To Corner <S> The Market <S> On Water Zombies <S> Will Microsoft Corner <S> the Desktop Security Market? <S> And even: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24 My "source" is obvious: widespread, common usage. <S> The definition given in Wikipedia is a narrow one applying to a specific domain. <S> The term has much much broader use. <S> Please, people! <S> Wikipedia is not the holy scriptures! <S> At least look a little bit further! <S> The proper answer would be a combination of all the terms Joel mentioned: "Hoarding and Stockpiling with an intention to Profiteer and Corner the Market". <S> I know of no single word in English for this, but "Cornering the market" is not it. <S> Perhaps you could assemble one in German? <A> Arbitrage is a related term for taking advantage of difference in prices, and may include storing something for later sale. <S> For instance, if the arbitrageur can secure storage for less than the difference in price between buying today and a contract for sale in the future. <S> This might occur when the market is expecting the price of the commodity to increase dramatically, and therefore prices for future contracts are still high. <S> However, it does not relate to trying to increase demand by lowering supply. <A> I believe the word you're looking for is "forestall". <S> According to Webster's dictionary : 1: to prevent the normal trading in by buying or diverting goods or by persuading persons to raise prices forestalling the wheat harvest and selling it at three times its cost — G. B. Shaw
| Stockpiling implies that you're stocking up on something, without necessarily implying that you plan to profit from that.
|
How can I practice pronouncing "Coke" so it is not mistaken for another word? I always fear my conversation sounds like this: — What would you like to drink, sir? — I will take some cock, thanks. — ROFL . Any tips on how to pronounce Coke so it is not mistaken for anything? :) <Q> Cock is pronounced /kɒk/ in British English and /kɑk/ in American English. <S> As you can see, it is the vowel sounds that are different. <S> The two sounds are distinguished in two ways: (1) by one being a diphthong and the other being a monophthong, (the vowel sound changes quality in a diphthong and remains stable in a monophthong), and (2) the position of the tongue is different. <S> The “long O” sound of Coke is a diphthong, whereas the “short O” sound of cock is a monophthong, and it is pronounced with the tongue in a lower position. <S> Here is a vowel diagram for British English: As you can see the vowel sound of Coke starts with the tongue in the position for /ə/, which is in a middle neutral position, and it moves up and slightly back to the position for /ʊ/. <S> The vowel sound of cock , on the other hand, is pronounced with the tongue very low and very far back in the mouth, and it doesn’t move during the production of the sound. <S> The differences in American English are similar. <S> Here is a page discussing all the pairs of words in English that differ only by these sounds, which suggests that this sound pair is a frequent difficulty for non-native speakers of English. <S> I would suggest looking up those word pairs in an online dictionary, like Merriam-Webster and listening carefully to the recordings for each pair of words to hear the differences between them. <A> It rhymes with "poke" and "joke", not "pock" and "jock". <S> It's a long o sound. <S> Or you could just switch to Pepsi. <A> What would you like to drink, sir? <S> — I will take some cock, thanks. <S> Maybe it's the "take" as well. <S> "I'd like a coke" or something. <S> Sorry <S> but it's very difficult to teach pronunciation via typing words into a computer <S> so it's hard to make a suggestion, except if you exaggerate the vowel enough "coke" will not sound anything like "cock" to a native speaker. <S> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wordscape/wordlist/socksoak.html is a list of minimal pairs for this vowel pair. <A> I can see how this can be a problem... <S> The difference between cock and coke is this (at least the best I can do in writing): the "o" in c <S> * o <S> *ck is an "open" O. (your lips are pretty opened when you pronounce it : "r* o <S> *ck" <S> , "s* <S> o <S> *ccer", "c* o *ffee"...) <S> the "o" in c <S> * o <S> *ke is more complicated. <S> It's the combination of two sounds : a "closed" o (lips almost closed, not used a lot by itself in the english language) immediately followed by a "u" sound ("t <S> * o * d <S> * o <S> *", "p <S> * ooh *", "L* ou *isiana"...) <S> For future reference, the sound of the "o" in "c* o <S> *ke" is the same as these : "r* o *se", c* o <S> *de, cr <S> * o <S> *w, <S> gr* o <S> *w, <S> rainb* o <S> *w, cl <S> * o <S> *se, wind <S> * o <S> *w... <S> EDIT <S> : You shouldn't say "I'll take a coke", you should say "I'll have a coke". <S> Take isn't used properly and it adds misunderstanding to the mispronunciation. <A> Everyone is giving detailed, technical answers. <S> How about I give you a mental substitution for the word instead?Think of the spelling as Coak or Coh-k instead. <S> Make sure it's a long "o" pronounced like "oh". <S> That should fix the issue once you practice using it. <S> It took me a long time to stop pronouncing Aqua (ah-coo-wah) <S> as Akwa (ak-wah), so I sort of understand your issue.
| Coke is pronounced /kəʊk/ in British English and /koʊk/ in American English.
|
Why "present simple" and not "simple present"? When reading grammar, I find the names of the tenses kind of weird to me; Present simple and not simple present past simple and not simple past present continuous and not continuous present etc Does this contradict with the " adjective noun " ordering rule or is it an exception (or something else)? <Q> My guess as to why there is variation is because Latin was the original language of education (among European languages). <S> In Latin, it would be natural to use the order "present simple". <S> With formal descriptions of English grammar that came later, some people translated these terms literally into English, retaining Latin word order, while others preferred to translate in a way that follows standard English order (as VonC said, both orders are used in English). <S> People use the "present simple" order because it is (one version of) the name of this term. <S> I don't have a source on the history of Latin grammarians and their influence on English grammarians, so that is why I say it is a "guess", but if anyone does have a source, do let me know! <A> I don't think "present simple" or "past simple" contradict the "adjective noun" ordering rule; You can consider " present " and " past " (the two morphologically distinct tense forms of the English tense system) as qualifying <S> grammatical aspects (progressive or perfect). <S> Hence " past simple" or " present continuous". <S> But it is more a usage than a strict grammatical rule here: <S> Present simple can also be referred as " Simple Present ". <S> To rephrase the first part (about adjectives) a bit more clearly: <S> My point is that the tenses act as qualifier (like adjectives do) for the grammatical aspects (same wikipedia entry: <S> aspects beings "simple", "progressive", "perfect", ...). <S> So if the tenses are considered as adjectives, they are rightly placed in front of the aspects they qualify. <A> My guess would be that the reason "Present" was put before "Simple <S> " is because that's the main concept, which is further extended by the adjectives "simple", "progressive" and "perfect". <S> It's also easier to organize mentally as categories of tenses: Present simplePresent progressivePresent <S> perfectPast simplePast progressivePast perfect Someone then would naturally tend to see them as the 3 different forms of the "Present" tense, instead of the 3 different tenses of the "Simple" form as below: Simple presentSimple pastSimple futureProgressive presentProgressive pastProgressive future <S> The latter doesn't emphasize the main categories which should be the tenses.
| Also agreeing with VonC, I don't think it truly violates adjective noun ordering, only because it has crystalized as a set phrase — like an idiom. The English Grammatical aspect Wikipedia entry mentions: "The English tense-aspect system has two tenses, present and past, which are morphologically distinct."
|
Connotations of trite, passé, and cliché What are the differences between trite, cliché, and passé? They seem to all have a similar denotation, but what are the subtleties of their connotations? The only difference I really see is that cliché is an expression that has become trite or passé, whereas trite and passé can be related to anything, e.g. ideas, words, fashion, etc. I’d love to hear your thoughts. <Q> Here are some example sentences from the Oxford English Corpus : <S> I have come to the conclusion that he is a tired cliché in search of a point. <S> Just my luck <S> , I was being stalked by a tired cliché . <S> You have written a cliché , a worn-out metaphor. <S> As with all questions of connotation, one must go by the evidence, and one can only make an educated guess. <S> I would say that cliché has a negative connotation and, in keeping with its definition, is something over-used and well-worn. <S> It seems almost trite to say it is a major disaster <S> but it is difficult to find words to express the significance of this second attack. <S> Quibbling about definitions of freedom is a trite response to a serious issue. <S> This is more than the trite truism that there is a thin line between love and hate. <S> Trite definitely also has a negative connotation -- I think all these words do -- but it has an entirely different implication than cliché : <S> something that is trite is something that is not deep or meaningful enough. <S> What you think is in style <S> one season may be viewed as passé the next, especially by the hardcore fashionistas. <S> Most unpolished is the dialogue, which is often so clunky and forced that Rudnick smears the awkward moments with passé humor. <S> Out in the seats I imagine we're all feeling the same fear -- that our jobs are drying up, that they can be done for a fraction of our wages by someone more desperate somewhere else, that our hard-won skills are passé . <S> Again, it has a negative connotation, but refers to something that was once in widespread use, but should not be used today because it has lost its effectiveness. <S> This is different from a cliché in that a cliché is most often a phrase, whereas anything can be passé. <S> These are just my interpretations of a very small set of data. <S> Feel free to make your own. <A> I can give an insight as a French native speaker. <S> trite is not a French word an cannot really comment on its subtleties, but the roots of the words are the same than triviality. <S> A cliché in French is simply a snapshot taken with your camera. <S> Passé is the name for the past. <S> All things that has happened before belongs to the passé . <S> Te summarize, I'd make these distinctions: <S> trite <S> ~ <S> superficial cliché <S> ~ commonplace passé <S> ~ outdated <A> Cliché is the most commonly used of these three words in American English. <S> It's come to refer to a phrase or idea that has been encountered too often and is thus both unoriginal and unsatisfactory. <S> A cliché-ridden speech will bore its listeners. <S> A cliché ending to a story may disappoint an audience (though, if the genre is romantic comedy, it may well be exactly what the audience is looking for). <S> Of the other two words, trite is closest in meaning to cliché. <S> It is generally used to refer to something that feels worn-out and dull, which accords with its root in the Latin verb meaning to rub/wear down. <S> (This isn't correct, per se - something trite has, by definition, been encountered excessively - but it does occur.) <S> Additionally, things described as cliché are often intended to be sweet or sentimental and end up saccharine; things described as trite were more likely intended to be sincere and deep and end up sounding hollow. <S> Passé is rather different from these two words. <S> A fair synonym is dated - something that was once fashionable (perhaps even quite recently), but no longer is. <S> While phrases, images and ideas are often described as cliché or trite , the word passé is more often used to describe objects, fads or fashions. <S> A story's ending would not be described as passé ; heroin , on the other hand, might be. <A> My answer: <S> For me, cliché is an extravagant expression that becomes burdensome and people stop listening to the speaker as s/ <S> he trundles through a speech or conversation. <S> The extravagant expression was catching and a good eye opener, but now concise economical use of language is desired (like an obvious fact that needs no introduction or flourish). <S> That is my impression <S> the word cliché. <S> I am not familiar with the usage of passé. <S> The word trite, I find interesting in certain phrases. <S> The connotation of a word is not absolute, but relative to the context and the way the words form and are delivered in speech and writing. <S> Trite <S> The word “Oh, you speak such trite” <S> (it's connotation depends on the person receiving it)= <S> [your speak is irrelevant]. <S> To what is my speak irrelevant? <S> Why is it irrelevant? <S> Does it matter? <S> Why tell of one of their trite? <S> Is it trite to inform one of their trite speak? <S> “Not, if it gets you to change the subject or entertain me with things that interest.” <S> [light connotation]What interests you <S> what does not? <S> Of my answer: The dictionary is based on culture and culture the experience of individuals; therefore personal impressions of the usage of words can be a good barometer test. <S> I am one such barometer, a single point in a continuum.
| The biggest difference I've observed between cliché and trite , aside from the fact that the latter is slightly less common, is that people periodically use trite as a synonym for boring or vapid , even if the subject hasn't specifically been encountered before. Cliché comes from a photographic language. Passé is used to show that something has passed its use-by date, that it was once appropriate and worthwhile, but is no longer.
|
What is the meaning and usage of the word "very" in the following sentence? XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language: Transformations) is a language that, according to the very first sentence in the specification (found at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/ ), is primarily designed for transforming one XML document into another. <Q> It's a shorthand for saying XSLT is a language that, according to the specification — in fact, not just any place in the specification, but the first sentence of it —, is primarily designed for transforming one XML document into another. <S> Or: XSLT is a language that is primarily designed for transforming one XML document into another — that's what the specification at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/ says <S> right in its first sentence. <A> In this case, "very" is used to give emphasis to "the first sentence." <A> It is used in the sense of "true". <S> "Very" is derived from a Latin word which means true. <S> It is the root of veritas.
| Here, the word "very" is used to put additional emphasis on the word it modifies: "first".
|
"Tourists" for visiting sports team In news about English and "Commonwealth" team sports (e.g., rugby, cricket), I occasionally hear the visiting team being referred to as "tourists" (e.g., "the tourists won the match ..."). This usage is listed in very few dictionaries, probably because it is almost unknown in North America, and those are the sources I have available. I'm wondering what the connotations of that usage are. Does it simply mean "one who tours" in the very original sense of the word, or does it have sarcastic undertones, likening the visiting team to sightseers? Also, what constitutes a tour? If an English football team plays a match in another English town or, say, in Italy, are they also "tourists"? <Q> I would say that the term is predominantly used for cricket. <S> Perhaps because of all the major international sports the participating countries in the main are very dispersed (in particular from a British perspective). <S> So cricketing teams would traditionally have to travel long distances for an international fixture. <S> And once you have made a long trip it would make sense to arrange a series of fixtures (a "tour") rather than a one-off. <S> There is no sarcastic intent. <S> If an English football team plays a one-off match in another English town or a nearby country then that is never referred to as a tour because they'll return home straight after the match. <A> <A> Tours are a specific form of sport organisation. <S> A team will travel a long distance - usually to another country, but for very local teams, perhaps just a long distance in their own country - and then stay there for many days, and play a series of matches, perhaps all against the same opponent, perhaps against many different opponents, before returning home. <S> They are common with international teams in rugby union and cricket, and most professional association football teams will have a pre-season tour where they travel to another country to play exhibition matches. <S> The USA and the Far East (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Japan, China, Taiwan in particular) are common places for pre-season tours to go. <S> There is a distinction between a tour and a tournament (such as the Football World Cup), but I'm having trouble expressing it clearly; perhaps someone will clarify that in the comments. <S> A cricket tour will involve the representative team of one country travelling to another, usually for two to four months, and playing a number of matches against various first-class (the highest level below international) teams as a warm-up, then playing a formal series of Test matches against the representative team of the country they are in. <S> The "touring team" or "tourists" stay in the country they are playing against for the whole duration of the tour. <S> A typical example might be the Australian team travelling to England. <A> 'A tour' would be several, successive games/matches/fixtures, played in different locations, while 'playing away'.
| A visitor to a country is often known as a tourist and it is in this sense that a sports team is called a tourist team , it means the same as a visiting team .
|
How would you abbreviate surnames starting with Mc/O/D? On my sport team, when we communicate we would like to use first name plus initial last name initial, e.g. John S. for John Smith, however I always wonder how I should abbreviate some of the Gaelic / Irish / Italian names. McDonald (M.? MD.? McD?)Macdonald (M.? MD.?)O'Donnell (OD.?)D'Arco (DA.?)LaPat (LP.? L?) <Q> I live in Ireland. <S> > <S> M.MacDonald <S> > M.Macdonald <S> > M. (this is a Scottish name)O'Brien > O. <S> The other option (which I prefer) is to include the entire surname up to the second capital letter, thus: McDonald <S> > <S> McD.MacDonald <S> > <S> MacD.Macdonald <S> > M. <S> (no change there)O'Brien <S> > <S> O'B. <S> I've never seen McDonald > <S> MDMacDonald > <S> MD <S> You might see O'Brien > OB <S> but that's probably just people having trouble with apostrophes. <S> Some people introduce spaces and write O'Brien as O Brien, MacDonald as Mac Donald, and McDonald as Mc Donald. <S> This seems iffy to me in English, though the prefixes do derive from independent Irish words. <S> But if a man is going to give his surname as Ó Briain, I would expect his sister's surname to be Ní Briain. <A> The only situation where this becomes relevant is if there are 2 John Ms on the team. <S> Then it could be very useful to abbreviate one John McD. vs plain John M. <S> I do wonder about Dutch "van" names, like Greta van Susteren. <S> I could very easily see this abbreviated as GvS. <A> Since using the first name + last name initial is the convention chose by your team, you should also agree on what the convention should be for these surnames on your question. <S> As long as the chosen convention is followed by everybody, it should work for you guys, shouldn't it? <A> <A> We use COD for Christine O'Driscoll. <S> Each capital letter gets an initial letter. <S> Grace McDonnell would be GMD.
| The simple last initial form is the most commonly used: McDonald Your last initial is your last initial. I always use A O'D, my family are from Liverpool, and that was the convention used there.
|
Should there be a space before a percent sign? Should there be a space before a percent sign or not?Should you write 20% or 20 % ? I'm not sure if there is any consensus about this or not. Is one way more common than the other? <Q> There is no consensus as to whether or not to include a space between the number and percent sign in English . <S> Many authorities prescribe that there should be a space, whilst others advise against it. <S> The brochure of the International System of Units declares in chapter 5: "a space separates the number and the symbol %". <S> This is in accordance with the general rule of adding a non-breaking space between a numerical value and its corresponding unit of measurement. <S> However, style guides – such as the Chicago Manual of Style – commonly prescribe to write the number and percent sign without any space in between. <A> There may be no consensus among the standards bodies, but outside of technical writing at least, it doesn't matter what the ISO says. <S> Modern U.S. usage <S> overwhelmingly uses no space. <S> Note that Wikipedia uses no space, as in the article for Percentage . <S> Demonstration <S> As a demonstration, one can download the first billion bytes of an English Wikipedia database dump (commonly used as a test file for data compression benchmarks): user@host:/run/shm$ wget http://mattmahoney.net/dc/enwik9.zip and count the (approximate) number of occurrences of 50 % and 50% : user@host:/run/shm$ unzip <S> -p <S> enwik9.zip <S> | fold | grep '50 %' | wc --lines71 vs. user@host:/run/shm$ unzip <S> -p <S> enwik9.zip <S> | fold | grep '50%' | wc --lines9216 ( <S> The first 1 usages of 50 % are: On efficacy measures, a successful antidepressant trial involves just 50 % or mo signifies a mere 50 % or greater reduction in depression symptoms as opposed to* '''Beta brasses''', with 45-50 % zinc content, can only be worked hot, is hard* '''White brass''' contains more than 50 % zinc and is too brittle for general was very profitable for the V.O.C., initially yielding profits of 50 % or even ms 40 to 50 % of the capacity of the elevator. <S> The grooves in the drive sheave arnt process, usually requiring at least 50 % more electricity than the energy sto 50 % and this in turn affected both the trade-in value of used vehicles and theer molecules. <S> Water containing 50 % H and 50 % D actually contains about 50 % HDhe 1980s. <S> About 50 % of these moves were within the same prefecture; the others and of 50% : 50% higher than nearby forested areas because snow does not cover the trees as <table <S> border=0 cellpadding=2 <S> cellspacing=2 width=50% <S> > Afghanistan as being [[Persian language|Persian]] <S> (local name: [[Dari]]) <S> 50% anNote: Albania has a large gray economy that may be as large as 50% of official Grriages occur very early in a pregnancy. <S> Approximately 10-50% of pregnancies endtal, and a 20% increase since 1981, 50% since 1971. <S> Major towns are Peterhead (1MND is typically fatal within 2-5 years. <S> Around 50% die within 14 months of diagnosis. <S> The remaining 50% will not necessarily die within the next 14 months as tn up to 50% of SOD1 cases. <S> In people of [[Scandinavia]]n extraction there is a r[[Cognitive]] change can and does occur in between 33–50% of patients. ) <A> When the "percent" word is used, there should be space. <S> Examples from the Chicago Manual of Style <S> Online : <S> Fewer than 3 percent of the employeesused public transportation. <S> With 90–95percent of the work complete, we canrelax. <S> A 75 percent likelihood ofwinning is worth the effort. <S> Herfive-year certificate of depositcarries an interest rate of 5.9percent. <S> Only 20% of the ants wereobserved to react to the stimulus. <S> Thetreatment resulted in a 20%–25%increase in reports of nightblindness. <S> The manual explicitly advices the following: <S> Note also that no space appearsbetween the numeral and the symbol %.
| When the symbol % is used, there should be no space. According to Wikipedia there is no consensus on this in English: The ISO 31-0 standard also specifies a space, and the TeX typesetting system encourages using one.
|
Is "earnt" a real word? Is the past tense for the word "earn" "earned" or "earnt", and does the word "earnt" even exist? <Q> According to the Wiktionary , "earnt" is correct but not common: <S> This is an uncommon (<0.5% as common as earned in the British National Corpus) but entirely acceptable alternative form of the simple past and past participle earned. <S> Still considered to be incorrect by many, who are largely unaware of the historical development of the English language. <S> "Earned" is much more common. <S> The Merrian-Webster online dictionary doesn't even have an entry for "earnt". <S> The entry for "earned" is here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earned <S> According to the same Wictionary page, Other verbs which can be conjugated in this way are: learn (learnt), dream (dreamt), <S> spell (spelt). <S> But it should be noted that " learnt ", " dreamt " and " spelt " are more common than "earnt". <S> See comments below. <A> Yes, "earnt" is common in Australian English (and is probably common in other areas as well). <A> "Earnt" clearly exists, both as a spelling and as a corresponding pronunciation that is distinct from "earned". <S> The formation of "earnt" is irregular, but not randomly so: the past-tense/past-participle marker takes or may take the form -t <S> after /n/ <S> in some other words, such as burnt, learnt, or after the phonologically similar sounds /l/ <S> ( felt, knelt ) or /m/ <S> ( dreamt ). <S> The exact development of these kinds of irregular past-tense forms seems somewhat unclear (there was a separate question about it <S> Why does the preterite of verbs such as "deal", "feel" and "dream" have a devoiced dental suffix? ), but that doesn't change the fact that standard English includes many irregular past-tense/past-participle forms in -t. <S> Whether something "exists" in the sense of "is accepted as a word" is a matter of opinion. <S> Sometimes, there is widespread agreement; sometimes, there is disagreement. <S> There is no simple principle that will allow you to objectively determine whether something "is a word". <S> For example, "syllabus" is widely considered to be "a word" even though etymologists think that it originated as a mistake. <S> At most, you could determine whether some specific person or organization accepts the use of some particular word or word-form (such as "earnt").
| "Earnt" seems to be uncommon, not only in American English but also in standard written British English.
|
When will "Present Perfect vs. Past Tense" cases be affected by culture? Regarding actions taken in the past, besides the differences those two tenses have semantically, my teacher shared that it could be a British vs American English case. When talking about past action, British prefers present perfect because they take into account that the effect from their past action still happens until now. As for American, they prefer to state the action only. It happened in the past, so past tense it is. I have had dinner. [British] vs. I had dinner. [American] I hope to hear it from the native speakers, both British and American. What do you think about this? Is it true? If it is, I don't think it can apply to all cases of past actions. There have to be cases when both style agree to use the same tenses. Could you please help me define the situation when this kind of difference applies and when doesn't? <Q> I think, in formal usage, you will find that American and British are basically identical. <S> We each use both of those constructions in the appropriate situation. <S> Obviously, there is a semantic difference between these two constructions and neither dialect exclusively uses one or the other. <S> So, as a US English speaker, I would correctly say: (1) I've never gone to a tennis match before, but I am going to one today. <S> But, sometimes I say: (2) I never went to a tennis match before, but I am going to one today. <S> I would not say that this second example is standard US English — <S> in any formal situation I would use the present perfect. <S> But, I suspect it is common in speech <S> and I do it quite often. <S> This could be the very beginning of a semantic shift in the present perfect construction in English. <S> Perhaps (2) will be preferred in several hundred years. <S> (Such things are not unheard of; German now uses the present perfect form to indicate simple past in speech.) <S> If a non-native speaker asked me about this, I would never recommend to use the construction in (2), because (1) is right in every situation and never sounds strange or formal. <A> I think one aspect of this question is not being given enough emphasis: the difference between formal written English and informal colloquial English. <S> I am a humble retired English teacher (UK!) <S> who spent many years trying to encourage his pupils to feel that good English mattered - for several different reasons, not least of which is accuracy in the communication of thoughts. <S> I quickly learnt that my young charges were "bilingual": they spoke one language amongst themselves and wrote another "correct" one for me! <S> I think this applies to people both sides of the Atlantic. <S> The best journalists in the USA and Britain know perfectly well the difference between "I did" and "I have done" and regularly get it right along with other usages. <S> Frasier and Niles know their grammar! <S> In everyday speech people don't bother too much about such refinements - well, some of us still do... <S> But there is no excuse for Microsoft asking me <S> "Did you forget your password?" <S> "Have you forgotten?" <S> and "Did you forget? <S> " mean totally different things. <A> The simple past tense is definitely more common here in the States. <S> Though I still do hear the present perfect specifically in response to making decisions or responding to questions: <S> "Would you like some dinner?" <S> "No thanks, I've already had dinner." <S> or <S> " <S> Since I have already had dinner, I can do this while you eat." <S> Adding "already" seems necessary, somehow, to keep it sounding conversational. <A> Isn't the main difference between Past and Present Perfect that the latter in most cases focusses on the present result of some past event/action rather than at the action itself? <S> As a non-native teacher of English I find the logic behind very conclusive: If my car broke down, I could be talking about some past event, e.g. last year, if I said: My car has broken down -- I still have a problem, I can't drive it and I need help. <S> If I submitted an application for a job opening, I might have been declined already. <S> If I have submitted an application, it's still there and no decision reached yet <S> , I'm still waiting for an answer. <S> Of course, in many cases the context will settle these differences, but English as a language can do it very effectively with its grammar... <S> Hope <S> I'm not completely out of touch with current developements!
| I am not certain, but I think what you are referring to is the fact that American English speakers can sometimes use simple past in places where one normally uses present perfect.
|
Can "cattle" be singular? I've grown up on a farm, and my dad and his dad, apparently, always used "cattle" to refer to both the singular and plural forms of the domestic bovine. I've always assumed it's how the word "deer" is. However, I've heard people say that this is incorrect and the singular is just "cow", but this has always offended us as a cow is a mother cattle, and is incorrect if you're referring to a steer, a bull, or a heifer. So, is cattle singular as well as plural? If not, is there some general, non-gender-specific word that should be used instead? <Q> Historically, cow refers to a female, and steer or bull refers to a male. <S> The plurals of these are cows , steers and bulls . <S> The 1896 edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (found on Google books) defines cow as: <S> The mature female of bovine animals. <S> The female of certain large mammals, as whales, seals, etc. <S> If you want to refer to more than one of this kind of animal, and don't want to specify the gender, you call them cattle. <S> Cattle is often treated as an uncountable noun. <S> 1 <S> To specify three of them, you would say three head of cattle. <S> There is historically not a singular, non-gender-specific word for one head of cattle. <S> Your father and grandfather used cattle as a singular to fill this gap. <S> Other people are now using cow for this, and this usage is common enough to have made it to the dictionaries. <S> I don't know whether it's common enough to be considered correct among farmers, however, or whether it's just us ignorant city-folk who use it. <S> 1 <S> Update: <S> Looking at Google Ngrams and books, I was surprised to find two cattle used instead of two head of cattle relatively often, although two head of cattle is the more common term. <A> Singular should be bovine, a cow is basically a female bovine, and bull or steer is a male. <S> People started saying cow, I don't know why, in the 20Th century for some reason (I do not know why) <S> and the correct name should be bovine, cattle (Bos Taurus), is just multiple bovines, but bovines works the same way. <S> If you are saying a domestic bovine, then say ox/oxen . <S> Hope this helps... <S> I have general knowledge on "cows" <A> In Western Australia, in my youth (1960s), people on cattle stations called individual cattle a 'beast', especially when the sex was unknown. <S> I'm not sure how widespread this was/is <S> but WP says it's a known usage in (at least parts of) Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Britain. <A> In the 1950's and 60's in the county of Angus in Scotland where we had a farm with cattle, the singular of cattle; e.g. one far enough away for one not to know its sex; was called a 'cattle-beast'. <S> That sounds a bit clumsy but is quite precise, in that it states that the animal being spoken of is bovine but sex is undetermined. <A> According to the Oxford English Dictionary , cattle is the plural of cow in US English and <S> cow refers to 'the female of any bovine animal'. <S> However, it also mentions that cow can also refer to 'a domestic bovine animal, regardless of sex or age'. <S> There are no entries in the Oxford English Corpus of cattle being used as a singular noun. <S> I would say that it is fine to refer to both the male and female as cows, and also that I can see no evidence that cattle can be used as a singular. <A> What ever happened to 'cain'. <S> In my early dicationaries that was the correct singular non-gender specific of domestic cattle. <A> Oxford Living Dictionaries (aka Oxford Online Dictionary or ODO) offers as a definition for cow <S> 1.1 (loosely) a domestic bovine animal, regardless of sex or age. <S> ( Link ) <S> But the same resource answers the vocabulary question <S> What is the word for a cow that doesn't specify its sex? <S> Zoologists use two terms. <S> The first is 'ox' , which is often restricted to animals of the genus Bos (i.e. the wild cattle - gaur, banteng, yak, aurochs, and kouprey - as well as domestic cattle). <S> In popular use, though, the word 'ox' often refers to a castrated male animal, so that isn't a perfect solution. <S> The second zoological term is 'bovine' , which is used as a noun to refer to any animal of the wider group that comprises cattle, buffaloes, and bison. <S> But this would be a strange choice in most general contexts (emphases mine). <S> And the same source in a blog entry called The peculiar history of cows in the OED says: ... <S> Very rarely [sic] <S> do we stop and think about the fact that cows are not, technically speaking, a species. <S> They’re only the female half... ... <S> In the plural, we can say that they’re cattle (except when cattle is used to mean livestock generally). <S> But the singular is messier. <S> The word ox is one candidate, as it originally meant ‘a cow, a bull’, but now is more often specified to a ‘castrated adult male of this animal.’ <S> Heifer is also sometimes used as a sex-neutral term, though this too is not strictly correct. <S> Some may accuse such a position of pedantry, noting that the use of cow to refer to the species has grown so pervasive as to have changed its meaning, but that doesn’t mean the phrase ‘male cow’ is going to make scientific sense any time soon (emphases mine). <S> Note that The opinions and other information contained in OxfordWords blog posts and comments <S> do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Oxford University Press . <S> When I am amongst my rural kin I have learned to call a cow a cow and a bull a bull and not to mix the two.
| The truth is that there is no noun in general use that refers equally to a cow or a bull.
|
What is the difference between "thee" and "thou"? What is the difference between thee and thou and how are they used? <Q> Thee , thou , and thine (or thy ) are Early Modern English second person singular pronouns. <S> Before they all merged into the catch-all form you , English second person pronouns distinguished between nominative and objective, as well as between singular and plural (or formal): <S> thou - singular informal, subject <S> ( Thou art here. <S> = <S> You are here. ) <S> thee - singular informal, object <S> ( He gave it to thee. ) <S> ye - plural or formal, subject <S> you - plural or formal, object Interestingly, when the first English translations of the Bible were being made, <S> the informal thee and thou were used specifically in reference to God to indicate an approachable, familiar God, but as the language changed this paradoxically brought thee and thou to sound more formal to the modern English speaker. <A> ‘Thou’ is historically perceived in Yorkshire (England) as being disrespectful, or over-familiar in a formal context, e.g. if used to address a teacher, or upon greeting a stranger… <S> However, ‘thee’ is perceived to be more respectful, as with the French usage of the words ‘vous’ and ‘tu’, of which ‘tu’ is regarded as offensive if used inappropriately (another conversation altogether). <S> Barnsley folk are especially well know for having the bad habit of using ‘thou’, including one instance I’ve heard of with a French teacher, who mistakenly believed it to be endearing, and quickly chastised her pupils once she was put in the picture. <S> A classic Yorkshire phrase, often attributed to Ossett: Don't thee <S> thou me, thee thou thissen, and 'ow tha likes thee thouing. <S> (Don't you thou me, you thou yourself, and see how you like it!) <A> A paradigm would help here: I, me, my (mine) <S> we, us, our(s) thou, thee, thy (thine) <S> you, you, your(s) <S> he/she, him/her, his/her(s) they, them, their(s) <S> A table would be better still but I don't know how to do that here. <S> Now all you've got to remember is that the left side of the second row is obsolete, so that both sides of that row are now the same. <S> If you're ever moved to try to sound archaic, as when using a rotary dial phone or having God over for tea, you can use the second row, choosing the appropriate form on the pattern of the corresponding forms in the first or third row. <S> There are still a lot of dialect forms heard in different places. <S> For instance in a pub in Edinburgh I saw a sign above a urinal: NOW WASH YOUR HANDS. <S> Under it one wag (or just a Scottish pedant) had written <S> We Scots dinna pee on we'r hands . <S> Perfectly good Scots - and perfectly good sense too. <A> Great answer from keithjgrant. <S> Put otherwise, thou is closely equivalent to the French tu or the German du , and ye is like the French vous or the German Sie. <A> These answers are helpful. <S> To succinctly clarify one aspect: <S> Thou is a more familiar or informal way to say 'you.' <S> Thee is the more formal way to say 'you.' <S> Dustin Hoffman, as Ben Braddock, might say "Dost thee desire tea, Mrs. Robinson?" <S> but "Dost thou desire tea, Elaine?" <A> I was 'brung-up reet proper' around Preston, Colne, Lytham and so on. <S> This is now forty years ago and these forms existed then and were in common use. <S> Thou didn't exist except in approbation. <S> If thou don't come 'ere reet now <S> I'll give 'ee heck. <S> The most common usage was Thee/Thou art. <S> You could never tell which it was because it was always spoken as Th'art. <S> As pointed out before thy is possessive, but it could used in place of thee/thou. <S> If thy (or maybe tha) wants some th'ard better get a move on. <S> I am not quite sure what verb and conjugation 'ard is. <S> And th'all <S> (they-all this time) knew a brogue was a shoe. <S> (cf. <S> y'all Central SE USA) <S> Only just realised ... <S> them there Lancashire lads also tended to pronounce words like <S> knew with an American-ish vowel sound.
| Thou is the subject form (nominative), thee is the object form, and thy/thine is the possessive form.
|
What is the best salutation to use in cover letter when I don't have contact information? I prepare to write a cover letter to several banks. The application is online and I need to submit it to each employer.So how could I write in the salutation of the cover letter. I don't have the contact of HR people. Could I write something like this: To whom it may concern, ... Dear Citibank HR, ... <Q> According to Debrett's General Rules for Writing Letters : The sign-off depends on the salutation. <S> As a broad rule, if you addressed the letter to 'Dear Mr Debrett' the sign off is 'Yours sincerely'. <S> If addressed to 'Dear Sir/Madam', then 'Yours faithfully' is correct. <S> However, I would strongly urge you to find out the name of the HR manager. <S> Individually addressed letters are obviously more personalised and, while it won't make a huge difference, will appear better than standardised ones. <S> EDIT (CLARIFICATION): <S> The only traditionally appropriate way to start a letter to an unknown person is 'Dear Sir/Madam'. <A> It is also possible to address a letter to a position title. <S> Dear Human Resources Manager: Dear Human Resources Director: <S> (I would avoid using the abbreviation, since it is less formal.) <S> I would not include the company's name in the title—it should instead be listed in the address above the salutation (if you are including those) or in the body of the letter. <S> ( I would be an asset to Citibank because . . . ) <A> Right from the start, your cover letter must convey to your prospective employers that you're an aggressive, professional, business minded person eager to belong to their company. <S> And so, I would go for " Dear CityBank Human Resources: " as a sign on, and would sign off with a sober, yet quite effective and professional " Sincerely, ".
| If you don't know the name of the person to whom you are writing, start with 'Dear Sir/Madam' and end with 'Yours faithfully'. That said, in order to enhance your chances of being hired, I think your best bet would be to inquire about the name of the person you're writing to by any possible way you can find.
|
How do I pronounce Gaudí, the architect? How do I pronounce 'Gaudi', in the name of Antoni Gaudí (the architect) ? <Q> The "au" in Catalan (his native language) is pronounced like English "ow" (how, cow ...etc) <S> and there's an accent on the "i" to indicate emphasis, so <S> you pronounce it as "gow-DEE". <S> However, most native English speakers would not be aware of the emphasis on the "i", so you most commonly hear "GOW-dee" in English-speaking countries. <A> The closest approximation to how a Spaniard, whether Castilian or Catalan, would say Gaudí is as [ga̠u̯ˈð̞i]. <S> That won’t sound very English, of course. <S> That’s because the second consonant is not one that occurs in English, and English-speakers often struggle to hear it clearly at all. <S> That letter ‹d› <S> there is actually a voiced dental approximant in Spanish, which is like a voiced ‹th› per English this but not so strong. <S> It can be very faint indeed. <S> If you just say the sound from English this <S> there instead, it will be ok, and people will know whom you mean. <S> If you say the sound of English dud , it won’t be ok <S> — at least if you are trying to sound like it’s <S> Spanish. <S> More IPA details available here . <A> Gaudí's name and language were Catalan , a Romance language related to Spanish and French. <S> There are multiple common ways to pronounce his name: <S> The Catalan way: <S> [ɡəwˈði] How Gaudí himself and most people in Catalonia would pronounce it. <S> the 'au' is pronounced similar to the vowel sound in an RP pronunciation of <S> go <S> The 'di' is pronounced like thee <S> The stress is on the second syllable 'gau-DÍ' <S> similar to the Catalan pronunciation, except the 'au' is pronounced like the 'ow' in cow <S> The English way: [ˈɡaʊdi] <S> How most of the English-speaking world pronounce it. <S> Rhymes with rowdy <S> If you want to sound authentically Catalan just stressing the second syllable (instead of the first) gets you most of the way there, but it's common for loanwords to undergo changes in pronunciation using the 'closest approximations' of phonemes native to the target language, so there's no shame in using the anglicised pronunciation. <S> There's a famous anecdote about the Basque essayist Miguel de Unamuno pronouncing <S> Shakespeare in the Spanish way <S> /sakespeˈaɾe/ (sa-kes-pay-AH-ray) during a conference. <S> He was apparently laughed at by his compatriots for this 'faux pas', but to their embarrassment and surprise he then delivered the rest of the lecture in fluent English. <S> Or see, for example, how Dalí (another Catalan architect, among other achievements) pronounces Velazquez's name when speaking English , vs when he is speaking Spanish .
| The Spanish way: [ɡawˈði] How most non-Catalan people in Spain would pronounce it.
|
Plural of an initialism that ends with the letter S Possible Duplicate: What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym? I was answering something on Super User and wrote OSes as part of my normal flow without really thinking about it. On a re-read I decided that it didn't look right, so I changed it to OSs , which still felt incorrect. I also considered OS's , but that didn't feel right either, so I thought I'd ask on here. In this specific case, what is the written plural form for OS ? The intention is to mean multiple Operating Systems . And, is there a general rule for the plural form of an initialism that ends with the letter S? <Q> I disagree with Antony Quinn's assertion that just because he can find relevant results by Googling <S> OSes <S> this justifies calling it "valid". <S> I don't say Google Books is an ideal "arbitration tool", but it's a lot better than a simple Internet search. <S> I searched for: "OSs" unix windows linux 3120 written instances <S> "OSes" unix windows linux <S> 1060 instances <S> "OS's" unix windows linux 520 instances <S> That's 3:1 in favour of the "regular form" (plurals of initialisms are formed by simply adding "s"). <A> A search on Google for OSes returns results from several established websites such as infoworld.com, osnews.com and linux.com, which suggests OSes is the accepted form. <A> <A> Here's my argument: <S> I'm not convinced that being an acronym is of any signifcance here. <S> I believe that the fact that it ends in 'S' is what's important. <S> If we were talking about Political Action Committees and wanted to use its acronym in plural form, we would say PACs. <S> I don't think there would be much debate. <S> So, to support my answer, I'm thinking of the family name 'Jones'. <S> Now take the sentence, <S> "The Joneses attending the party traveled from different parts of the country." <S> The plural, not possessive, of Jones is Joneses. <S> I'm not completely sure <S> but I think there's some grammatical rule about a noun in its singular form that ends in <S> 's' is made plural by adding 'es' to the end. <S> So, I vote for OSes.
| I think the best choice would be OSes. When the word sounds like it ends in an "s" or "sh" (for example, witch /wɪtʃ/), you make it plural by adding "es."
|
"A/An" preceding a parenthetical statement When a/an precedes a parenthetical aside (sometimes seen in informal/conversational writing), should the vowel rule depend on the first word in parentheses, or the next word in the "regular" flow of the sentence? I need a (memorable) idiom (preceding an m word; use a ) or I need an (memorable) idiom (preceding an i word; use an ) <Q> The a/an rule is based purely on sound. <S> Would you say the words inside the parentheses if you were reading the sentence out loud? <S> If yes, then you use the first word in the parentheses to decide whether or not to use an or a . <S> If not, then—wait, <S> what do you mean you wouldn’t say the words in parentheses?! <A> The example given is not parenthetical: <S> (i) <S> I need a (memorable) idiom. <S> A parenthesis is a remark which you insert into the middle of a sentence as if you are interrupting yourself. <S> A parenthesis contributes to the meaning of the sentence but interrupts and stands outside its syntax. <S> In writing, we typically use curved brackets, dashes, or commas to mark a parenthesis. <S> The syntax of the example sentence is not interrupted by the word memorable . <S> Instead, the word memorable functions as an adjective modifying idiom . <S> Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word <S> memorable and the article to use is a . <S> Compare this variation: (ii) <S> I need <S> an (well, if I need anything at all) <S> idiom . <S> Not an example of great writing, to be sure. <S> But it shows how a parenthesis interrupts and stands outside the syntax of a sentence. <S> The phrase “well, if I need anything at all” is not part of the noun phrase “an idiom”. <S> The pronunciation rule still applies, but it applies to the word <S> idiom and the article to use is an . <S> This is true even though you would not normally pair <S> an with well . <S> You would, for instance, say: (iii) <S> I need a well known idiom. <S> The difference is that well is parenthetical only in example (ii) above. <A> A bracket only means that the word or phrase inside is less important or in some cases less relevant. <S> But in any case that does not exclude bracketed words from the general sentence structure. <S> Therefore, in this case the preferred way is: <S> I need a (memorable) idiom. <S> But you must understand that this is only the preferred way, not necessarily the right way. <S> English is a rapidly growing and changing language and has numerous styles and methods. <S> Sometimes more than one way can be called "right". <S> And in my opinion both examples may be correct grammatically. <A> Having the word in (parentheses) doesn't change this any more than having a word in "quotes" or italics does. <A> As a practical matter, I try to match the a/an status of first word enclosed in parentheses and the first word on the other side of them. <S> Thus, in this instance, I might try: <S> I need an (easy-to-remember) idiom. <S> or: I need an (unforgettable) idiom. <S> If no available alternative adequately expressed my intended meaning, I would simply drop the parentheses: <S> I need a memorable idiom. <S> or rework the sentence to avoid the break after the indefinite article: <S> I need an idiom (memorable preferred). <S> I call my policy "practical" because I suspect that a mismatch—justifiable or not on appeal to logic or to outside authorities—would be distracting to a certain number of readers, and I would rather have them focus on what I'm trying to say than ponder whether I've used the right indefinite article. <S> Since the trick of enclosing a word or phrase in parentheses for effect isn't high on my list of essential literary tools, I don't mind using it after a/an only when the preceding indefinite article suits both the first word in parentheses and the first word beyond them. <A> Parentheses are meant to be optional; the sentence should make sense both with and without the "memorable". <S> So neither option will work. <S> Instead, try: <S> I need a memorable idiom. <S> I need a (preferably memorable) idiom. <S> I need an idiom (which must be memorable). <S> I need a (memorable) way of putting things. <A> It all depends on how you would read it aloud. <S> In your example you want "an". <S> Reading this aloud you would not notice the bracket and instead want to hear "an easy". <S> If you had a parenthetical phrase rather than a tightly coupled adjective you might want to keep the article tied to its eventual partner. <S> For instance, "He provides a (actually he doesn't provide much of anything <S> and I hate his stupid guts) path to information. <S> " <S> In this case, it sounds like you've broken off from the main idea of the sentence and your parenthetical expression is more of an apostrophe . <A> Since it's followed by memorable , not idiom , in your second example, a is the correct choice. <A> In real life, you'd say "I need a memorable idiom". <S> So write it that way too. <A> In this particular structure, I have no doubt the article would go with the parenthetical: "an (easy) path," because we read the sentence with the parenthetical (that part with <S> a pause and a 'lower tone' to signify parenthesis). <S> We don't skip it.
| You choose "an" vs. "a" based on the following word, be it in brackets or parentheses or anything else.
|
Mixing contracted and uncontracted phrases in the same sentence Is there anything wrong with mixing contracted with uncontracted phrases in the same sentence? Examples: I'm not sure it is possible. ("I'm" is contracted, but "it is" is not). I am not sure it's possible. ("I am" is not contracted, but "it's" is). I know that it is not grammatically incorrect. But is it not recommended? Or is there any other reason to not use it? <Q> One valid use is when you want to emphasize one word: <S> I am NOT sure it's possible <A> Is there anything wrong with mixing contracted with uncontracted phrases in the same sentence? <S> No, there isn't. <S> As reported by Mr. Shiny and New, sometimes a word is written without to contract it to put emphasize on it. <A> Is there anything wrong with mixing contracted with uncontracted phrases in the same sentence? <S> It's perfectly fine to mix contracted and uncontracted forms and you find occurrences of it in reliable sources, but the tendency is to be consistent. <S> Take a look at the examples here . <S> I'm not sure it is possible to think too much. <S> (The Guardian) <S> and I'm not sure it's possible to be anything but naive when moving abroad. <S> (The Guardian) <S> Full disclosure, I work at Ludwig.guru
| You can freely write a word contracting it, and write another one without to contract it.
|
"Shall" and "will" in legal requirements What is the implication of using shall versus will in writing a specification document? For instance, lets say I have the paragraph, "upon by all parties involved." All information between persons involved in this project will be kept confidential and limited distribution of information only to persons agreed upon by all parties involved. Have I just exposed myself legally to allow a breach of confidentiality because I didn't use shall ? What would use of shall/will in this paragraph imply? Related, but does not fill my need: When should I use "shall" versus "will"? . <Q> This is a late reply, but I happen to be looking into the difference between shall, will and must right now. <S> What I find is the following, according to plain English: <S> Shall does not refer to the future. <S> It can be paraphrased as "has the duty to" and refers only to capable subjects (meaning, Lessor, or Buyer shall do something, but not Property or Product shall). <S> Must refers to the duty to perform of inanimate subjects (like the product or the property). <S> This was useful: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/wordsuggestions/shallmust.cfm <S> and it quotes Bryan Garner <S> so it's a good source. <A> RFC 2119 is the standard here. <S> So although not necessary legally, but logically you have exposed yourself to a breach. <S> I am not a lawyer. <S> This is not legal advice <A> Both "will" and "shall" are ambiguous, because they can denote prediction rather than obligation. <S> Most legal writing experts now prefer the unambiguous "must", and I usually used that when I was a solicitor. <S> Here, for example, are the opening words from s.2 of the UK's Human Rights Act 1998: <S> "A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account ..." <S> But someone signing a contract in which they said "I will do X" would be hard put to persuade a judge that they hadn't contracted to do X. <S> The Law Society's "Standard Conditions of Sale" have been using "X is to do Y" since 1990. <A> Things are coming to an end. <S> See: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/ <S> “Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." <S> Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall. <S> " Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."” <A> Late reply, but this page from FAA.gov looks very authoritative to me: <S> What's the only word that means mandatory? <S> Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must." <S> ( https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/ ) <S> The simple conclusion: We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. <A> Forgive my late input, however - at least in Britain - the court would unlikely look too closely at the words used, instead more emphasis will be placed on the underlying "thrust" of the statement. <S> Both words you identify imply the same thing, that something will be done. <S> there is little need to worry further about the semantics. <S> It would be much more prudent to re-word the entire "term" so that the provision is expressly conveyed: Any information relating to this project will remain confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior agreement. <S> or a variation thereof.
| However, shall being the "most misued word in legal English", it is suggested to avoid using it altogether and to replace it with must , which is now being used for obligations of animate subjects as well. Will in a contract should reflect only the future tense (not create obligations to perform). If something must happen, you need to use Shall.
|
"Let's" vs. "lets": which is correct? Say I'm promoting a product. Which is correct? [Product] let's you [do something awesome]. [Product] lets you [do something awesome]. Or neither? <Q> let meaning to permit or allow. <S> In the questioner’s examples, the sentence means to say “Product (allows/permits you to) do something awesome”, so the form with lets is correct. <A> The second one is correct. <S> Let's is a contraction of let us . " <S> Let's go to the ballgame today!" <S> Lets <S> is the third-person singular simple present indicative form of <S> let -- <S> but of course we all knew that already.... <S> It means allows , which looks like what you want to convey here. <A> Here's an easy way to figure out which to use: replace the word <S> lets with the words <S> let us . <S> If the sentence still makes sense, then use the contractual form. <S> Let's try a few examples: <S> Lets/ let's see how it can be done. <S> (should be Let's) <S> Flubber let's/ lets <S> you jump high. <S> (should be lets) <S> Let's /lets go to the movie after dinner. <S> (should be Let's) <S> This trick <S> lets /let's us pick the right word. <S> (should be lets)
| Let’s is the English cohortative word, meaning “let us” in an exhortation of the group including the speaker to do something. Lets is the third person singular present tense form of the verb
|
What is the antonym of "abjure"? Affirm Cajole Insist Pronounce Shout What's your opinion? <Q> If you look up abjure in a dictionary, you will find: formally reject or disavow a formerly held belief <S> The two most likely antonyms are insist and affirm . <S> But affirm 's is closer: <S> confirm: <S> establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts <A> The opposite of abjure is objure . <S> Per the OED : <S> Etymology: <S> classical Latin obiūrāre to bind by an oath < <S> ob - prefix + <S> iūrāre to swear (see <S> jurant adj . <S> and n .). <S> Compare Middle French objurer (1460 as oubjurer ). <S> trans . <S> To bind by or charge under oath; to urge. <S> 1609 <S> R. Cawdrey Table Alph . <S> , ― <S> Obiure , binde by oath. <S> 1993 Irish Times (Nexis) <S> 9 <S> Feb. 17 <S> — We are objured, in our so-called freedom of monetary exchange, to be patriotic. <S> intr . <S> To utter an oath, to curse. <S> Obs . <S> 1830 <S> Fraser’s Mag. <S> II. <S> 178 ― <S> As the people only laughed at him, he cried the··more vehemently; nay, at last, began objuring, foaming, imprecating. <S> It is not particularly common. <A> I am not very familiar with the term "abjure". <S> I may have seen it before, but I do not recall its specific meaning, nor the context in which I saw it. <S> Here is how I quickly processed this question, and came up with the same answer as Billy ONeal -- despite not being familiar with the word. <S> Note that the actual meanings of the words are as Billy ONeal looked them up; the guesses below are just approximations. <S> Approximations are usually good enough to do well on a test like the SAT or GRE: <S> The unknown word is a verb. <S> All of the proposed opposites are also verbs, so we cannot rule any of them out on part-of-speech grounds. <S> Break the unknown word into its parts <S> : "ab" + "jure". <S> "ab-" means "not" or "negate". <S> (Google defines " ab- " as meaning "away" or "from", which is a weaker form of "negate".) <S> " -jure " means "having to do with the law", as in "judge", "jury", "jurisprudence", and "jurisdiction". <S> Thus, "abjure" might mean "declare not to be the law" or "claim not to be binding". <S> It is therefore opposite in meaning to the guess. <S> Here is an optional confirmation: Break down "affirm" into its parts: "ac" + "c->f" + "firm". <S> (Google breaks it down as "ad" + "d→f" + "firm", but the idea is the same.) <S> In English, double-consonants near the start of Latin-derived words are usually the result of a multi-letter prefix being modified to match the root word's first letter. <S> They are usually not the result of a single-letter prefix like "a". <S> "ac-" means "with". <S> (Google defines " ad- " as meaning "toward".) <S> "- firm " means "solid". <S> Thus, "affirm" might mean "make solid", which is consistent with "uphold a ruling".
| "affirm" is a legal term that means "uphold a ruling" or "agree that something is valid".
|
How do you handle "that that"? The double "that" problem Have you ever had a case where you felt compelled to include strange things like a double that in a sentence? If so, then what did you do to resolve this? For me, I never knew whether it was acceptable grammar. However, what I did learn was that it was a logic distractor , could lead to confusion, and therefore should be reworded to avoid this. <Q> There are three very different uses of <S> that : <S> Subordinating <S> that : “I know that this is the answer.” <S> Demonstrative pronoun <S> that : “ That is not the answer.” <S> Adjectival <S> that : “ That answer is not it.” <S> Double <S> that occurs because the first that is the subordinating that , and the second that is a demonstrative pronoun or adjectival that . <S> That is, if you subordinate a clause that begins with pronominal or adjectival that with <S> that , you get that that , as in “you know that that that that from the previous sentence was different from the one in this sentence.” <A> Of course it is acceptable grammar . <S> The rules of English grammar are the very reason why such "strange things" happen in the first place. <S> Now, whether or not you actually end up using a double "that" or rewording it, is a different question. <S> But it is a question of style . <S> Read: personal preference. <S> Personally, more often than not <S> , I don't find a double "that" to be distracting or leading to confusion at all. <S> Quite the contrary: it is a) perfectly self-explanatory and b) <S> it certainly leads to less confusion than leaving one of those "that"s out. <A> I don't think that that is a problem. <S> Having said that, it would still make sense if one of the "that"s in the previous sentence were omitted. <S> EDIT: <S> In response to Reg's comment: If a "that" is omitted, it's the first one that is removed. <S> Replacing the second "that" with "it" may clarify things: <S> I don't think that it is a problem. <S> I don't think it is a problem. <S> Hence saying "I don't think that is a problem" is fine - as long as you're familiar with this particular usage of the word "that". <S> If not, then it could obviously cause confusion. <A> This is correct. <S> The two words are performing different functions. <S> The first that is used to introduce a clause. <S> The second that is used to refer to a specific thing. <A> I would argue that it might very well be correct, but if it makes you uncomfortable, it may also distract your readers. <S> You've likely seen the common example: <S> The human brain often skips any extra words that appear in the the sentence <S> they're reading <S> The same behaviour might happen with the extra "that" appearing in your sentence. <S> So while it might be correct in theory, perhaps you could reword your sentence such that it becomes more readable for your audience. <A> It's perfectly fine to write "that that" or to simply write "that": your choice, your style, your need at the moment. <A> If the question is about <S> how do I handle the problem personally, I always try to minimize my usage of the word "that" in order to avoid these instances altogether. <S> "That bike that is blue" becomes " the bike which is blue" or simply, "the blue bike." <S> Therefore: "That that is blue" becomes "that which is blue" or even "what is blue" in some contexts. <S> "I know that it is true" becomes " <S> I know it is true." <S> I simply omit the word "that" and it still works. <S> "That that is true" becomes "That which is true" or simply, "The truth." <S> I do this not because it is grammatically incorrect, but because it is more aesthetically pleasing. <S> The overuse of the word "that" is a hallmark of lazy speech. <S> Indeed, if avoiding these instances causes you to think outside the box, your speech and writing will become more fresh and creative as a result. <S> To clarify, I don't go out of my way to avoid the word "that." <A> I use 'that that' quite often because it gives you an explicit reference to the exact subject referred to previously. <S> Simply replacing it with 'this' sometimes will not do as I sometimes wish to refer to 'that' specifically.
| I simply reduce my daily usage of it in order to avoid confusion.
|
A phrase as an interjection Often in spoken English, I see one sentence or phrase "set up" another much like an interjection. For example: I forgot to ask. Did you find that book I told you about? How do you generally punctuate this? I've seen a comma used for this, but I that's only correct if it can be argued that I forgot to ask is a proper interjection (can it be?). Should I use a colon? Semi-colon? Does it matter? <Q> You can certainly use a colon. <S> I forgot to ask: did you find that book I told you about? <S> Technically, using a semi-colon would not be grammatically incorrect (both parts being complete sentences), but it wouldn't really fit the situation. <A> (:) <S> I forgot to ask <S> : did you find that book I told you about? <S> With a dash (–) I forgot to ask—did you find that book I told you about? <S> With an ellipsis (…) I forgot to ask…did you find that book I told you about? <S> The colon is the most formal, the ellipsis quite informal. <S> The ellipsis here is used to indicate a pause or an unfinished thought, which some purists might object to (claiming that an ellipsis can only be used to indicate something which has been left out). <A> I would use a comma: <S> I forgot to ask, 'Did you find that book I told you about?' <S> (comma, direct speech) <S> One could rewrite it using indirect speech as well: <S> I forgot to ask whether you found that book I told you about (indirect speech)
| You could punctuate this in a few ways, in decreasing levels of formality With a colon I personally would use a dash.
|
Would or Could, in a list of questions, is the first verb always the correct choice? Here is an example of what I am wondering about: I wonder why or how someone could kill a person. In this sentence we have two questions, why and how . They both require different supporting words: would and could . Here I have chosen could , but would also sounds fine. Which is correct? Does the order of why and how in my sentence matter? Finally, what is the name for why and how in this sentence? Edit: I think this is a Syllepsis, and thus correct. <Q> The answer to "is the first verb always the correct choice?" is No . <S> The reason is the following: <S> If you choose "I wonder why and how someone could kill a person. <S> ", you're saying the same as "I wonder why someone could kill a person and how someone could kill a person. <S> " You don't mean that. <S> And if you choose "I wonder why and how someone would kill a person. <S> ", you're saying the same as "I wonder why someone would kill a person and how someone would kill a person. <S> " You don't mean exactly that either. <S> The only solution that I can think of is to rebuild the sentence, otherwise you won't be expressing what you mean clearly. <S> Something like: <S> I wonder why someone would kill a person and also how someone could do it. <A> Either is correct, depending on the intended meaning. <S> 1) <S> I wonder why or how someone could kill a person. <S> This is asking two questions, of course. <S> The first is: "I wonder why someone could kill a person.". <S> This is a somewhat odd question if taken literally. <S> The appropriate (though rather trite) response might be "Because we are all physical beings and are thus capable of killing. <S> " <S> The second question is: "I wonder how someone could kill a person.". <S> To this, a valid response might be, "With the use of a weapon such as a gun or knife, or one of various other means.". <S> 2) <S> I wonder why or how someone would kill a person. <S> Again, taking the first question: "I wonder why someone would kill a person.". <S> To this, a valid response might be, "Perhaps because that person is an enemy in war.". <S> The second question being, of course: "I wonder how someone would kill a person. <S> " This is quite similar to the second question of version 1, though with a subtle difference. <S> It implies a specific intention that someone would kill another person, or similarly, what would be a likely means of killing. <S> Finally, the order of why and how is not really a matter of grammar, so either way round is acceptable. <S> However, I would tend to put how first as it is the more direct/superficial interrogative. <A> "Would" infers motive (love, money, jealousy, etc.), whereas "could" infers method (with a gun, knife, radiation poisoning, etc.). <S> Noldorin answered this in a more detailed manner, however. <S> "Could" and "would" are two entirely separate questions.
| Edit: In my opinion, there isn't a "correct" use here -- it depends on what you mean.
|
Where can I obtain an English dictionary with structured data? I would like to download an English dictionary -- not just a word list -- in a structured format such as TXT, XML, or SQL. Specifically, I need phonetic pronunciation and parts of speech (definition is not required). Surprisingly, I can't find this online anywhere. Wiktionary is available for download , but it only the mediawiki articles themselves. Crawling all articles and extracting the phonetics and parts of speech would be a huge exercise. Is this available anywhere? I don't mind paying. Note: cross-posted on StackOverflow . <Q> Ask around on the Omega Wiki , formerly known as the Ultimate Wiktionary or WiktionaryZ. <S> Basically, they collect data from all the various wiktionaries, and make it available in a relational database. <A> What about WordNet ? <S> It's released under a BSD-style licence. <S> I heard somewhere this was the basis for the WordWeb programme. <S> WordNet® is a large lexical database of English. <S> Nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs are grouped into sets of cognitive synonyms (synsets), each expressing a distinct concept. <S> Synsets are interlinked by means of conceptual-semantic and lexical relations. <S> The resulting network of meaningfully related words and concepts can be navigated with the browser. <S> WordNet's structure makes it a useful tool for computational linguistics and natural language processing. <A> I would suggest these databases formatted for the DICT protocol servers and clients, but I don't think they meet your criteria. <A> There's the Moby project tar. <S> Z in tar. <S> Z format, or at Project Gutenburg: <S> in zip format . <S> It has parts of speech and pronunciation, in formatted text. <S> There's also a thesaurus and other useful word lists. <A> Here are a couple of valuable databases. <S> According to this paper on ZeuScansion , To calculate the basic stress pattern of words necessary for step 1, we primarily use two pronunciation dictionaries: <S> The CMU Pronouncing Dictionary (Weide, 1998) and NETtalk <S> (Sejnowski and Rosenberg, 1987). <S> Each employs a slightly different notation, but they are similar in content: they both mark three levels of stress, and contain pronunciations and stress assignments. <S> They don't seem to include information about part of speech.
| WordNet is also freely and publicly available for download.
|
How do I ask for advice politely? I came across the following phrase: I was wondering if you might be able to give me some advice. Is it a natural construction for a conversational context? Can I use the following instead in order to sound less formal: I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Or is it less polite? Or which phrase would be better to use instead? <Q> In practice, they're usually the same. <S> The "if you could" might be read to imply that you doubt the ability of the person being questioned to help you. <A> I don't think 'might be able to' is very good style, personally. <S> Further, 'might be able to' just means 'could'. <S> There is some difference between <S> would and could , i.e., between 'I was wondering if you would give me some advice' and 'I was wondering if you could give me some advice'. <S> In most situations, I would use would , as usually the person you're asking is capable of giving you advice. <A> They are both OK. <S> I'm guessing that someone who says "might" is not OK is from the US."Might" used in this way <S> is much more common in the UK than the US. <A> Yes, the first statement is a "natural" construction. <S> And yes you can use the second statement instead. <S> It wouldn't impact your formality in a big way, and it's not impolite, though all things being equal <S> I guess you could say it's slightly less formal or polite because it contains slightly less polite hedging. <S> Asking "could you" in this context is not about ability, and "would you" is no better in a literal sense because it implies a hypothetical situation, which this is not. <S> In the same way, the speaker's point is not really about his own "wondering. <S> " These are all ways to couch a request politely, and often the bigger the couch, the more polite the request. <S> Literal responses to these kinds of requests might look like this: A: <S> I was wondering if you know what time it is. <S> B: <S> Oh. <S> That's interesting... <S> do you spend a lot of time wondering what I know? <S> A <S> : Could you help me with this broken pipe?B: <S> Yes, I could. <S> A <S> : Would you help me with this broken pipe?B: <S> If what? <S> We can build a progression of requests or questions that illustrates the effect of polite couching. <S> As the expressions get longer, the actual thing being asked for gets buried deeper, becomes more indirect, and is placed further away in time and possibility from the speakers: <S> What time is it? <S> Do you know what time it is? <S> Would you happen to know what time it is? <S> I was wondering if you happened to know what time it is? <S> I'm terribly sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if it would be at all possible for you to tell me what time it is. <S> Splitting hairs about the relative politeness of the original two statements in the post's question is not going to bear a lot of fruit, because they're so close that how well your shirt is ironed and hair is combed (not to mention your intonation and body language) <S> will have a greater impact on formality than your choice between the two constructions.
| The "might be able to" is a bit more formal -- perhaps because it implies more hesitation on the part of the asker if this is an appropriate time and place and topic for the question.
|
fait accompli – to italicize, or not to italicize Background I was looking up the rule about italicizing foreign phrases and found an apparent consensus that the criterion is if the phrase is familiar. Well, who gets to decide that? I know perfectly well what "fait accompli" means, and I don't know French. So I recently chose to not italicize it, but someone had a different opinion. Here is a summary of my findings. Wikipedia suggests : Loanwords or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e.—do not require italicization. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online. The University of Minnesota recommends : Italicize isolated words and phrases in a foreign language if they are likely to be unfamiliar to the reader. Capital Community College Foundation Guide to Grammar & Writing says : If a word or phrase has become so widely used and understood that it has become part of the English language — such as the French "bon voyage" or the abbreviation for the latin et cetera , "etc." — we would not italicize it. Often this becomes a matter of private judgment and context. For instance, whether you italicize the Italian sotto voce depends largely on your audience and your subject matter. University of Sussex Guide to Punctuation notes : If you are not sure which foreign words and phrases are usually written in italics, consult a good dictionary. "Fait accompli" appears unitalicized in Merriam-Webster Online . I was not able to find an online English dictionary that was different. I don't have access to the OED. Question Is "fait accompli" likely to be familiar to readers here? Is this a good guideline to use for choosing whether to italicize it? Or is the fact that it is in English dictionaries unitalicized enough? Or is the fact that it is in English dictionaries—at all—enough? Note: I recognize that italics are appropriate when referring to a phrase rather than instantiating it—in any language. I've instead chosen in this question to use quotes to clearly separate the issues. Edits to correct grammar welcome. No comments necessary. <Q> Or, if the writing is for a certain publication, the editors will have a policy for whether a given word should or should not be italicized. <A> Since fait accompli functions in English as one word, but is written as two, I'd be inclined to keep it italicised. <S> If nothing else, it's a handy hint for anyone who decides to look it up in a dictionary that they should look up the two words together. <A> The OED has examples both in italicized form (from 1845) and non-italicized form (from 1895). <S> If you are using naturalization as a standard, it lists fait accompli as a "not naturalized, alien" word. <S> However, I'd agree with you that a word's presence in dictionaries isn't a great gauge of how well an audience understands it as native. <S> Even so, I'd assume that most readers here would be relatively familiar with fait accompli . <S> And I doubt there's much you could do to change this. <A> Here's one more perspective. <S> ... <S> Do not italicize foreign terms familiar enough to appear in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. " <S> p. 312 <S> "Fait accompli" does, strictly speaking, "appear" in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary--and the formatting of the inclusion ( here ) suggests to me that it has, indeed, its own entry. <S> (Although I said before that there was no independent entry in the volume, I now have my doubts.) <S> The New Yorker doesn't italicize "fait accompli"; if you want to follow Chicago style to the letter, you shouldn't, either. <S> But I think your choice would be defensible either way. <A> I think it depends on who your target is. <S> Ask yourself if they would know for sure or not and write accordingly.
| Turabian/Chicago (a very good style guide!) says: "Italicize isolated words and phrases in foreign languages likely to be unfamiliar to readers of English, and capitalize them as in their language. I think this is a case where authors can decide for themselves where to draw the line.
|
'less' is to 'fewer' as 'more' is to what? This question is related to the previous one on less-vs-fewer. I prefer using fewer instead of less when referring to discrete items. Something sounds off about less than ten people , in my opinion. But what about the flip side? The phrase more than ten people doesn't sound quite right either. If less and more are natural antonyms, then what word relates to more the same way fewer relates to less ? <Q> There is no distinction: <S> less is to fewer as more <S> is to more . <S> more water; less water <S> more dogs; less/fewer dogs 10 items or more ; 10 items or less/fewer one <S> more bell to answer; one less bell to answer weighing 100 pounds more ; weighing 100 pounds less 500 words or more ; 500 words or less <S> more than 10,000 miles; less than 10,000 miles <A> less is to fewer as greater is to more <A> My opinion is that, in principle, 'less' relates to uncountable nouns and 'fewer' relates to countable nouns. <S> However, the concept in the mind of the speaker has an influence. <S> We can say 'less than a thousand miles' because the concept in the mind of the speaker, is distance , which is not countable. <S> Similarly, bridge players often assess the strenth of their hand by points but it does not offend me to hear 'I had less than ten points' because the concept in the mind of the speaker is strength , not points . <A> As nohat pointed out, the distinction does not exist for more. <A> We do say "less than, greater than" but other than adding "even" we don't really change "more" to fit the noun. <S> "We have even more people here today than yesterday" or "We have a greater number of people here today than yesterday. <S> " Those are both comparisons. <S> If you didn't want to compare and if you didn't want to use "more" then you could potentially say "We have a great number of people." <S> That one could be confusing though because it could be any number that your personal opinion deems as great, rather than "great <S> " meaning a large number, so in that case it might be better to say "We have a lot of people" or "We have many people..." <A> As has been stated already, ‘more’ is the opposite of both ‘fewer’ and ‘less’. <S> But I would like to suggest English take after their cousin Swedish (my native language). <S> In Swedish we have: <S> - less/more = mindre/mer - fewer <S> /more = färre/fler <S> So my suggestion is English use the word ‘flore’ to mean ‘more objects’. <S> This of course makes it easy to confuse with ‘floor’ and to mend this, I suggest ‘floor’ gets replaced by the Swedish counterpart ‘golv’.
| As far as I understand it, it could be said "'less' is to 'fewer' as 'much' is to 'many'" though.
|
Is "How and why child is become criminal" proper English? My friend is writing a paper for his Criminal Justice class and has asked me to take a look the the rough draft and point out any grammatical errors that I can spot. The first thing that jumped at me was the subject of his paper: "How and why child is become criminal". I suggested that he instead write: "How and why a child becomes a criminal". He told me that nothing was wrong with the way the subject is written. It has been submitted to and approved by his Professor, reviewed by his entire class and none pointed that out to him. He refered me to the Openheimer quote of the Bhagavad Gita and some Bible verses to support his point. Still I find it difficult to believe that this is the proper way to use the verb become in Modern English. <Q> Provided that we accept the archaic is become as grammatical use of the present perfect—which I would not use for something so prosaic as a paper for a criminal justice course—there are still two problems with the proposed title: (1) present perfect is not right in this context for a paper title and (2) <S> the subject noun phrase is not properly determined. <S> I am assuming that the paper is about the general principles by which children become criminals. <S> For a title like this, you can’t use a past construction, such as the present perfect or the simple past. <S> Generalities about how a process occurs must be described in the simple present tense, as this sentence does. <S> If you use the past or present perfect, you necessarily are discussing a particular instance of something or a process which is no longer occurring: “ <S> Second, the subject “child” is not determined. <S> It would be fine as a plural—“children”—or with a determiner—“a child”. <S> The original questioner’s suggestion to determine “criminal” as “a criminal” is fine, but so is leaving it as a simple adjective “criminal”. <S> Any of the following would be grammatical: <S> How and why a child becomes a criminal <S> How and why a child becomes criminal <S> How and why children become criminal <S> How and why children become criminals <A> No, it's not correct. <S> Your version is correct. <S> No question. <A> @Nohat and @gkrogers have already given excellent answers for correcting the grammar of the mentioned title. <S> I'd like to suggest completely changing the title, though: The Making of the Criminal Child <S> This has much more punch to it. <S> Variations on plurality or definiteness would work fine. <S> There's an even more minimalistic title available, too: Child Criminals <S> Or you could play up the change from one kind to another, rather than how the base creature simply gains an attribute: <S> When Children Become Criminals <S> A lot of artistic variation is available here. <S> In my mind, "How and why children become criminals," while adequate and certainly descriptive, somewhat misses the opportunity for a great title. <A> If you place child in quotation marks, then it would make sense as the use of the word "child" as in <S> How and Why "Child" is Become Criminal, meaning it has somehow become illegal to use the word. <S> However, I find the subject as named rather ambiguous to say the least. <S> I would definitely change the word <S> is to has.
| How and why a child became criminal” or “How and why a child has become criminal” would have to describe a particular instance of a child becoming a criminal.
|
Is "kinda" a word? I've used "kinda" as a word basically meaning "kind of" just run together. I wouldn't use it formally, but I noticed that Microsoft Word's spellchecker says that it isn't a word. I searched some and it seems that I'm not the only one who uses it, but it doesn't seem to be too popular. So is it an actual word? How accepted is it? <Q> As you said, it means "kind of". <S> It's very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. <S> In formal contexts, you can use "rather" with the same meaning, e.g.: <S> It was rather cold. <S> Note: <S> "kind of" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see below). <S> "Kinda" is not. <S> Definition: 1: to a moderate degree 2: in a way that approximates : <S> moreor less Synonyms: enough, kindly [chiefly Southern],fairly, <S> like, moderately, more orless, pretty, quite, rather,relatively, something, somewhat, sortof <A> The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 1650 incidences of kinda : TOTAL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC1650 <S> 172 <S> 1023 <S> 244 <S> 169 <S> 42 <S> It is used overwhelmingly in fiction, and the few examples in newspapers and academic texts are almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English. <S> So, as the other answers have said, kinda is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations. <S> I personally would only use the word in very informal situations. <S> Its 1650 incidences in COCA are comparable to other adverbs, such as besides (1720), tight (1642), and regardless (1607). <S> As to whether or not it is an “actual” word, I think this is pretty clear evidence that it is. <S> As for its acceptability, it is listed in some dictionaries, including Random House and Merriam-Webster . <A> Wiktionary contains such words. <S> The entry for kinda ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda ) includes: <S> kinda (colloquial) <S> kind of <S> I kinda hafta do this right now. <S> That's kinda funny. <A> The NOAD reports that kinda is an informal contraction of kind of ; it was first used in the early 20th century, and it was originally an American English alternation. <S> Kind of is an informal phrase for rather . <A> It is a word in spoken language and used in private letter-writing, but has not yet reached the level of recognition as standard language just as words like gonna, or "of" for have and others. <S> One more generation <S> and it is in dictionaries with a note about usage and <S> in two generations it will be a normal variant. <A> Authorities at Oxford and Webster do not control or shape the English Language, they only define it. <S> In reality, the collective mind of every English speaker shapes the language. <S> And because some words have gained popularity in some groups and not others, the language has spread out into many dialects. <S> If you've ever read Mark Twain, you might have found his works difficult to understand as he wrote in the dialect of the Mississipi region. <S> Now imagine if all English speakers wrote in their own dialect. <S> We would all have to make a great effort to understand each other. <S> Authorities of the English language basically determine what words and grammatical structures the majority of English speakers can understand, so that every English speaker can read books and other published works without trouble. <S> However, not everyone can understand their English. <S> My mother teaches in an inner city school and many of her students struggle in grammar because phrases like "Y'all goin' to the zoo <S> " sound perfectly fine to them as they are grammatically correct in their dialect. <S> When writing, I would consider to what audience the work is intended for. <S> For example, if I were to write an article about the Packers and Bears rivalry, I would use it because people in the Midwestern United States commonly use it. <S> However I would replace it with a word like "rather" or find stronger diction if writing a formal and proper essay to an English Teacher.
| So in short, "kinda" is a word, but not in the common dialect that English Authorities provide.
|
Usage of "might" and "would" to indicate doubt Do the sentences She might be only 28, but Jodie Whittaker.... and My parents would have walked along the Barrow wrongly suggest doubt, or are they normal usage? Are there names for these constructions?Taken from An Irishman's Diary . I googled "would have spent their time". Many cases were counterfactuals ("... otherwise they would have spent their time...”)But plenty simply describe past events, as the in the usage sited above.I couldn't detect a regional bias.As an Irish-English speaker this usage is unremarkable. For example, I might say This is the exact spot where Caesar would have crossed the Rubicon I think the intention is to evoke the event rather than just record it. <Q> Having skimmed now the linked article, I would say that the first construction is perfectly grammatical and normal-sounding to me as a speaker of American English, though may would work equally well as might in that sentence. <S> Merriam-Webster says for might that it can be “a polite alternative to may ”, and their definition of may gives as part of sense 3 “used in auxiliary function expressing … concession <he <S> may be slow but he is thorough>”, which I suppose is the sense here. <S> The second sentence, though, with the implication that the parents did walk along the Barrow, is strange to me. <A> Might implies possibility . <S> She might be 28, but she very well could be older. <S> Would implies intent . <S> My parents would have walked along the Barrow had they lived by it. <S> I don't think either of your statements imply doubt of any kind. <A> So... <S> Might <S> She might be only 28, but <S> Jodie Whittaker... <S> The use of the but following indicates that something about Jodie Whittaker is unusual for her age. <S> This could be something positive, like a string of successes, or negative, like a medical condition normally associated with advanced age. <S> The use of might be in this case doesn't indicate uncertainty, but irrelevance. <S> The aliens might be from Alpha Centauri Means <S> we don't know where the aliens are from, but Alpha Centauri is a possibility. <S> The aliens might be from Alpha Centauri, but they still preferred to settle in Croydon <S> Means that the aliens are from Alpha Centauri, but they're settling in a place we would not expect from Alpha Centaurans <S> (I hear there's a thriving Centauritown in New York). <S> The construction is perfectly natural to a native speaker, though I have to admit it's a little odd from the outside ( <S> indeed, the first time I typed this sentence, I wrote "It might sound a bit odd, but the construction is perfectly natural to a native speaker" ). <S> It's a way of indicating an exception; "X may or may not be true, but the important part is Y". <S> Would <S> The usage of would is more straightforward. <S> It's simply the past tense of will . <S> If it were followed by a <S> but , it would indicate something that prevented it from happening. <S> My parents would have walked along here, but the path wasn't built until they had moved away. <S> Present <S> tense... <S> I will walk along the beach, unless a tsunami warning is sounded becomes past tense... <S> I would have walked along the beach, but a tsunami warning sounded.
| In the case of both may/might and would , it's the later part of the sentence that determines the usage.
|
Is there any difference between "All the night" and "All night long"? Is there any difference in nuance between these two expressions, any examples of where one would be more appropriate (or even just sound better?) (On reflection, I'm not sure I'd ever say All the night, but someone just asked me the question) <Q> Those are mainly two different ways of saying the same thing. <S> The "the" in the first phrase can be dropped because it is meaningless since "night" is understood as being singular. <S> The "long" in the second phrase might carry a negative connotation. <S> Someone who had to take care of a fussy baby all night might use the 2nd phrase, while someone woke up well rested might simply use the first phrase like this: "I slept all the night." <A> Strictly speaking, the difference is that "all night long" is a fairly common phrase, while "all the night" sounds awkward at best. <S> Now, if you were wondering about the difference between "all night long" and "all night" , that would be a different matter. <S> (As Flotsam N. Jetsam hinted, the " long " adds emphasis, but the phrases are grammatically interchangeable.) <A> My boy is so much like the sun, so full of energy, so bright; and also like the sun, he is unconscious throughout all the night.
| Thus, the only real difference in the two phrases is the addition of the word "long" in the second. "All the night" sounds like a construction designed to fit a poetic meter rather than a common phrasing.
|
Is there an online sample sentence database or search engine? Sometime, I am not sure if I use a specific word correctly. I would like to get some sample sentences to learn from. So, is there a online sample sentence database/search engine? <Q> You could try using a corpus . <S> For example, a search for copper in the British National Corpus returns 50 random sentences -- simply refresh the page to see another random sample: http://bnc.bl.uk/saraWeb.php?qy=copper <A> Lots of dictionaries offer sample phrases. <S> Merriam-Webster , Wiktionary , and the Free Online Dictionary come to mind. <S> Complete sentences are usually provided to put expressions in context . <S> And then, of course, there is Google. <S> It allows you to search for sample sentences by using the operators <S> * (wildcard) and ~ (similar word or synonym). <S> For example, if you are not sure which preposition to use in the phrase <S> "he has not covered himself __ glory", you can use the search string "not ~covered * glory". <A> Use a corpus to help you. <S> You can search for sentences with specific words, limit results by formality level (spoken, magazine, newspaper, fiction, academic), search by word class, and find common collocates for words, along with many other features. <S> Here are some corpora: BYU Corpus Collection Corpus of Contemporary American English Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) <S> BYU-BNC: <S> British National Corpus <S> TIME Corpus of American English . <A> I like netspeak more. <S> You can search for usages of a single word or a combination of words. <S> It gives you sample sentences and tells you how often each word is used, so you can see what is the most common way to use a word. <S> I was introduced to this website in a writing course about academic writing <S> and I've been using it ever since. <A> Their dictionary service is blazing fast . <S> Wordnik.com also provides meanings for words as well as sample sentences for those words <A> You could also check out http://www.freescrabbledictionary.com/api/ <S> They provide an api as well.
| Vocabulary.com's dictionary provides usage examples of a word from popular magazines and newspapers.
|
What usage arguments are persuasive? Given the recent blog post that some kinds of subjective questions are OK on Stack Exchange sites, I thought I would try to formulate a good subjective question about usage to see what kinds of arguments people find persuasive and why. So, for questions about a usage dispute: What basis do you use for deciding what is correct or grammatical? Why do you find some arguments persuasive and others not? Does the pervasiveness of a usage affect your opinion of it? What kinds of authorities on usage do you respect and who do you find to be not authoritative? <Q> This is a great question. <S> Combination of ear <S> , what I've gleaned by formal study and by learning from colleagues (I'm an editor), opinions by informed people (see next points), and -- importantly -- context. <S> Your question doesn't explicitly ask about this, but the appropriateness of usage will depend on whether we're talking about conversation, emails, cover letters for a job, or Supreme Court rulings. <S> :) <S> Arguments are persuasive if (as in any context) they reflect knowledge and experience and provide specific and reasoned evidence for their POV. <S> Perhaps the best way to answer is to address the opposite: arguments are not persuasive if a) <S> they obviously reflect just a personal opinion ("I really hate it when people say _ ") <S> ; b) they provide no particular evidence (historical and/or practical); c) the person opining has no particular expertise or experience in thinking about usage; d) <S> it's easy to find counterevidence among native speakers. <S> For me personally, any argument that reflects a belief that English is in decline or is being "ruined" has no credibility, since that is a kind of litmus test for all of the previous. <S> Sure. <S> How else would you establish usage guidelines? <S> But again, it's about context -- maybe everyone says <S> "I was just laying there". <S> Arguing with your friends about it in conversation is dumb, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't respect the distinction between <S> lie and lay in formal written communucations. <S> The trick is taking into account the pervasiveness of usage in the context you're interested in. <S> Good: <S> Garner's Modern American Usage <S> [http://astore.amazon.com/theslotaspotforc/detail/0195382757]. <S> Garner meets all the criteria listed above for persuasiveness. <S> Good: the usage notes in AHD and M-W, ditto. <S> Good: <S> The style guide(s) from my work, which are written by professional editors and ditto. <S> Bad: <S> The Elements of Style , which is vague, is full of personal opinion, and effectively represents two people's opinions about "rules" that are over 100 years old and some of which were never real rules to begin with. <S> Bad: <S> Any reference that lays out "rules" without explanations based on actual usage, including examples. <S> Bad: Any reference that purports to be anything other than the author's opinions about usage or that does not acknowledge that usage is contextual and to some extent arbitrary. <A> I'm not a linguist but I do read Language Log and speak a couple languages. <S> So here are my guidelines: <S> If it sounds natural to me (vague), if I can understand it, if I can parse it, or if I recognize it as an established usage then I consider it correct and/or grammatical. <S> If I don't immediately recognize it as grammatical, a reasoned logical explanation might convince me, in which case I'd revise my opinion, but otherwise an argument based on the actual usage would convince me. <S> Other arguments I find unpersuasive because I've concluded that language arises from how people use it, and thus if you see it being used it's part of the language. <S> I'm not sure what is meant by "opinion" in this question. <S> But the pervasiveness of a usage affects my acceptance of it as part of the language. <S> There may still be problems with it; for example lots of people say "nucular" when they mean "nuclear". <S> I consider that pronunciation wrong, yet accept that it's part of the language. <S> Is that a contradiction? :) <S> I'm not informed enough to answer this question reliably. <S> I trust Language Log because the writers there seem to be honest and they do not seem to be prescriptivists. <S> But for all I know they could be lying to me. <S> Language Log has conditioned me to reject Strunk & White and by extension be suspicious about any book which tells me how to write. <A> 1 2 and 4 are tooo difficult, but I'd say 3 has a fairly straightforward answer. <S> If a word, phrase or construction is commonly used wrongly, the mistake will eventually become a (or the) new meaning; all languages change over time. <S> But some old meanings are worth retaining whatever the mass of people say, for the sake of clarity. <S> For example, indifferent used to mean disinterested ; it can still be found in a few historical contexts such as judges swearing to "truly and indifferently administer justice". <S> The world has moved on, and I'd never use it that way now. <S> But a lot of people use disinterested , when they mean uninterested . <S> I would always correct these people even if it makes me unpopular, because disinterested <S> is an important concept for which there is no other English term, and changing it to become a synonym for bored is impoverishing the language.
| Some things are correct but don't appear grammatical, and some things are grammatical but don't appear correct.
|
Meaning of "moving right along" What does the slang moving right along mean? <Q> It means "enough of that topic, let's go to the next topic since we are under time constraints"... <A> It also means "making good progress," in reference to a lengthy project, like constructing a building, writing a book, planning a wedding, etc. <A> For example, "My painting is moving along," means that the painting I am working on is getting closer to completion. <S> If you change that to "moving right along" it means that you are making progress without any setbacks or interruptions. <S> As Geoffrey Pullum describes it, you can use right as an adverb when there is a proper, perfect way to execute a verb. <S> You can move right along, but you can't wander right around. <S> The way correctness links to the special preposition-modifying use of right, then, is that there can be an absolutely right way to instantiate a spatial or temporal relation (or metaphorical analog thereof). <S> Right lays emphasis on the instantiation being exactly the right one for the job.
| If you were to say "moving along" it would mean making progress along some course of action.
|
Does the following sentence make any sense? Is the following sentence grammatically correct and does it make any sense? "Humans made god to live in pieces and not peace." It was posted by some atheist in response to this quote: "God made us to live in peace and not pieces." <Q> how much sense it makes depends on your interpretation of it. <S> It's not the clearest way to say that <S> but it does closely match the original sound-bite. <A> Edit: <S> My original interpretation was incorrect. <S> See Comments by Colin Fine and Benjol, plus the answer posted by Mr. Shiny and New . <S> The confusion regarding these two sentences revolves around the phrase to live in pieces , which must be interpreted based on context. <S> This phrase exists implicitly in the original sentence, and explicitly in the atheist's response. <S> I originally though that to live in pieces really meant to die , used in contrast to living in peace. <S> Colin Fine pointed out that it probably means to live in disparate groups , and I agree. <S> The first part of the original sentence makes sense on its own: God made us to live in peace . <S> The second part makes some sacrifices in order to keep the quote short and to make use of the rhyming between peace and piece . <S> The fragment not in pieces is missing both subject and verb, which implies that they should be borrowed from the first part of the sentence: God made us to live in peace and not [to live in] pieces. <S> This sentence conveys two ideas: God made humans <S> God wants/expects humans to live in harmony <S> The sentence written by the atheist is intended to contradict the meaning of the original sentence using the same basic structure, but flipping some of the parts. <S> Following the same logic as above, his response should be interpreted as follows: <S> Humans made god Humans use god as an excuse for conflict <A> I think it makes sense, but it would be easier to understand if we added "for them", like this: <S> "Humans made god for them to live in pieces and not peace." <S> Some languages such as Galician have a form of the infinitive called the conjugated infinitive, in which an infinitive (such as "to live") can be modified to point to a specific person and number; it would look something like this: <S> "Humans made god to-live-them in pieces and not peace." <S> English does not have that kind of construction and instead needs to add a couple of words to the infinitive "to live" as in my example above to achieve the same effect. <S> Whether or not the sentence is understandable when eliding those two words is another matter. <A> God made us to live in peace and not in peaces <S> I would propose that the original writer is talking about God (of a monotheistic religion). <S> Answering from a Christian view point, this sentence would mean: <S> Apart from God, and as most of us experience and feel in real life, we are but patchwork, incomplete, something missing. <S> Sometimes we feel shattered into pieces, most the time we don't feel complete and at peace with ourselves. <S> Yet in a living relationship with God we find peace. <S> Now, I am not going to debate the statement here. <S> But it will give trhe necessary context for the interpretation of the answer <S> Humans made god to live in pieces and not peace. <S> Men, in the opinion of the atheist most probably invented god , but it could be interpreted as well as turned god into a being to be what he likes it to be, a patchwork to take parts and leave others. <S> As man interprets and defines god at wish, god himself cannot live in peace, as he contradicts himself depending on definition. <S> The sentence itself is grammatically correct, but hard to interpret without context. <S> Which is OK. <A> It's just somebody trying to sound clever <S> ; not really worth analysing. <S> "God" should have a capital "G" though. <A> "Humans made god to live in pieces and not peace." <S> There is a manifest ambiguity, which makes it a poor sentence. <S> Does god live one way or the other; or do humans?
| I would say it is grammatical and Humans made god to live in pieces and not in peace means, to me, that humans invented gods to reinforce living in separate groups that maintain non-peaceful relations with other groups.
|
Could the word "artist" be used to refer to a writer? According to the dictionary, artist could be a painter, singer, dancer, or actor. But I think maybe writers could be considered artists as well. What's your opinion? I'm writing a composition about art and artists, and I'm not sure if a writer is appropriate as an example. <Q> Language is meant to convey meaning or emotion, and linguistic art would be a happy use of the tools created to record events or write royal decrees. <S> In calling a writer an artist, would you be misleading the reader? <S> If so, is the deception or misdirection serving a purpose? <S> If you want to make the point that writers can be artists, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that some writers have gone beyond clarity and craft, creating a thing that someone, somewhere would define as art. <A> I think if someone thought about it they would agree that writers are artists but the common thought of "artist" is a painter, singer, dancer, actor. <S> A writer is not the first example that would spring to many minds. <A> For example, Shakespeare is certainly an artist, but a person making a living writing as a writer of technical articles for MSDN probably is not (even if they authored a few books). <S> Of course, the line is subjective and can be disputed. <S> Are bad poets artists? <S> What about exceptionally good technical writers?
| There is some overlap between artists and writers, but not all writers are artists.
|
'Am I interpreting' vs 'Do I interpret'? Am I interpreting the results correctly? Do I interpret the results correctly? Do they have the same meaning? Are both or just one correct? <Q> Certainly either is correct, and they are equivalent in meaning. <S> You're much more likely to hear #1, though. <S> You might hear #2 in a confrontational context. <A> If both of those sentences were coming from a native English speaker, then I'd say that they don't convey the same meanings. <S> #1 is seeking confirmation that the speaker's interpretation of the results up to this point in time has been correct. <S> #2 sounds a little strange in this context, but is asking for clarification as to whether the speaker should, as a future action, interpret the results correctly (as opposed to, say, deliberately producing an inaccurate interpretation). <S> A more natural usage of the construction from #2 might be, for example, if someone is asking for directions: "Do I go left or right?" <S> Coming from a non-native English speaker, I might interpret #2 as meaning the same as #1, on the grounds that some languages don't distinguish between the present continuous (#1) and the simple present (#2) in the same way as English, so it may be difficult for the speaker to know which form is appropriate in cases like this. <A> I think #2 is valid and equivalent to #1, but #2 is less common, not only because English is prone to using the present progressive where other languages would use simple present, but also because #2 is somewhat archaic and sounds more formal. <S> Another common construction with basically the same meaning would be "have I interpreted these results correctly?" <S> For #2, consider a person making a statement about what they've just heard, followed by <S> "do I understand you correctly? <S> " <A> John McWhorter in Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue makes a really clear case that the present progressive is the true present tense in English. <S> The simple present is used in poetry, for habitual actions, in some idioms, and in certain other situations. <S> For example, it is often used to describe the content of a written text: "The author argues that..." or "King Lear retires and divides his kingdom among his daughters." <S> But when we mean to indicate an action that is going on in the present moment, the present progressive is usually the correct tense. <S> One exception is in verbs of understanding, perceiving, and knowing. <S> It is almost as if the English language sees the act (or rather state) of knowing as something that does not happen at this moment but rather outside of time entirely and therefore uses the simple present. <S> Your question, I think boils down to whether "to interpret" is one of these verbs of understanding. <S> For example, a native English speaker would say, "Do I understand the results correctly?" <S> but also "Am I analyzing the results correctly?" <S> Is your interpretation a state of knowing or an act of analysis? <S> If it is a state of knowing, then "Do I interpret the results correctly?" is the right answer. <S> Otherwise say, "Am I interpreting the results correctly?"
| All of these phrases have the same meaning in context: seeking affirmation. I think the answer is ambiguous and has to do with the nuance of meaning that you want to convey.
|
Should I use 'or' or 'nor' after a negative statement? This document does not cover the SDK interfaces nor any other reference material. I think the above is correct, but my grammatical checker in Microsoft Word underlines nor and suggests or . Why? <Q> Otherwise, use "or". <S> Your example sentence can be reworded to read, "This document covers neither the SDK interfaces nor any other reference material." <S> NOTE : <S> In my experience, Word's grammar checker is mediocre at best. <S> It has a tendency to look at a sentence and suggest the opposite of the correct word. <S> It was especially bad with [your/you're] in versions up to and including 2003, so I just keep it turned off and rely on thorough proof-reading. <A> My ear agrees with Word on this one. <S> Two other possibilities: "This document covers neither the SDK interfaces nor any other reference material." <S> "This document does not cover the SDK interfaces, nor does it include any other reference material." <A> My guess is Word interprets this as: <S> This document does not cover [either] the SDK interfaces or any other reference material. <S> Compare: <S> I don't study French or Spanish. <S> [Equivalent to Word's preference]. <S> *I don't study French nor Spanish. <S> [Equivalent to your sentence]. <S> I study neither French nor Spanish. <S> [Equivalent to moioci's first rewrite]. <S> ? <S> I study neither French or Spanish. <A> According to Grammar Girl and her references used, your original sentence is correct, because your direct objects (ie the SDK interfaces , any other reference material ) are noun (phrases): <S> When to Use “Or” Instead of “Nor” <S> “Neither” and “nor” are bosom buddies. <S> They require balance. <S> In all our examples so far, we’ve used “nor” to indicate a negative state that continues after something else negative happens. <S> However, when the second negative item is a noun, adjective, or adverb phrase (4), you should use “or” to continue the negative thought because according to Bryan Garner “the initial negative carries through to all the enumerated elements” (5). <S> For example, when you use the word “not,” the structure “not A or B” is correct. <S> You’d have to say, “He is not interested in math or science”; “He is not interested in math nor science” won’t work. <S> Likewise, “She didn’t speak slowly or clearly” has a better ring to it than “She didn’t speak slowly nor clearly.” <S> [BUT] When to Use Either “ <S> Nor” or “Or” If, on the other hand, the second part of the negative is a verb phrase—not a verb clause—then you can choose to use “nor” or “or” (6). <S> Both of the following sentences will work: “Santa will not permit naughty behavior or even consider bringing presents.” <S> “Santa will not permit naughty behavior nor even consider bringing presents.” <S> You as the writer get to decide which one sounds better. <S> If you’re unsure which word to use, or if you want to avoid the problem, you can try saying, “and <S> no” for the second part of the negative (7) <S> : “I have no time and no money.” <S> The phrase “and not” will also work: “Santa will not permit naughty behavior and will not even consider bringing presents.” <A> "Does not cover" is a single verbal unit, so we effectively ignore the "not" when considering the rest of the sentence structure. <S> That implies we should use "or" to link the noun phrases. <A> Look at this website: https://www.wikihow.com/Use-nor <S> It gives a thorough explanation of when to use nor. <S> In your example, or is correct because it is connecting two nouns and the negative is established by the not . <S> To use nor is redundant. <S> (See Part 2 #3 in the above website.)
| If the two options are negative (neither this nor that) then use "nor".
|
Is there any difference between 'often' and 'frequently'? Do both mean exactly the same or do they have slightly different meanings? <Q> Personally I would put more of a regular scheme to frequently, as the word comes from the same stem as frequency (a sine curve of certain wave length, therefore repeating itself in a certain pattern). <S> Often would denote more of an irregularity. <S> Maybe this is a déformation professionel, as I am programmer with a math background, or I derive it from German and Latin languages, <S> for example French: <S> fréquenter quelquechose would mean to regularly go somewhere. <S> Therefore I would hear this <S> I frequently go to the gym - usually I go there several times a week on the same days each week I often go to the gym <S> - I go there as often as I can, but can't keep a clear schedule <A> Secondly, they occur together (collocate) with different words . <S> I can't see a clear semantic pattern to the collocations, but it does seem that the strongest collocations for frequently also commonly co-occur with often, but the strongest collocates for often usually don't go with frequently. <S> This suggests that often has a broader meaning that includes frequently but goes beyond it. <A> In colloquial English, they mean the same thing. <S> Remember the pun in <S> The Pirates of Penzance (which only works in British English): <S> "When you say 'often', do you mean 'often' 'someone who has lost his parents' or 'often' 'frequently'?" If there is a difference, it is that "frequently" describes a periodic relationship with an ongoing action, while "often" means a lot of times during the defined period. <S> In effect, it's the same thing, just a very slightly different flavor. <A> They have the same meaning: http://thesaurus.com/browse/frequently
| First of all, although the meaning is essentially the same, to the point of one being used as a definition for the other in some dictionaries, often is an order of magnitude more common than frequently.
|
Is "substract" (versus "subtract") a proper word? I read an article recently where the author used "substract" instead of "subtract". I'm more familiar with the latter word but after doing a bit of googling, it seems that both words are being used, although "subtract" seems more mainstream than the other. Which of the two is more appropriate? Is "substract" even acceptable? <Q> "Subtract" is the word. <S> Though the obsolete word "substract" did exist, any occurrence you see these days is most likely just a common mistake, formed by analogy either with "abstract" or with other languages whose corresponding words do have <S> two ‘s’s. <S> Many recent dictionaries do not list "substract". <S> Of "substract", the Century Dictionary (1891) said : An erroneous form of subtract , common in vulgar use. <S> Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of 1913 called it "obsolete", while the even older version of 1828 said Note.--Substract was formerly used in analogy with abstract. <S> But in modern usage, it is written according to the Latin, subtract. <S> See this word and its derivatives. <S> Additionally, I know people who find "substract" very annoying. :-) <A> However, I disagree about explaining this usage as a "showing-off". <S> It seems that other languages do contain the letter <S> "s" as in "soustraction" in French. <S> People with a multi-lingual background are more likely to make mistakes, and it is nice if we just point that out to them without prejudice. <A> French people use "substract" mistakingly a lot because in french, the word is "soustraction", which contains the sound "s" inside. <A> If sub s tract is incorrect according to established English usage, this is only because English usage derives this verb from Latin subtraho ‘to subtract’, which excludes the ‑s‑ . <S> In many a Romance language — for example, in Spanish — it derives from the Latin prefix sub‑ coupled with the Latin verb extraho ‘to extract’; hence Spanish sub s traer . <S> You say <S> ‘sub-tract’ in English where in Spanish we say ‘sub- ex tract’ ; hence the extra s . <S> Substract is incorrect in English, but it could equally have been correct if imported differently. <A> I've never heard of "substract" and, more to the point, neither has my edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. <S> Even if it is a word, assuming that it means the same as "subtract" I can't see any point in preferring it over the better known word, apart from showing off. <A> I found the word "substract" in a memoir written by an old Boston lady in the 1920s, describing how she as a child (during the 1850s) pilfered newspapers from her mother's cache and was able to trade them for candy. <S> I like this usage, as it conveys a kind of arch, sneaky tone better than either "extract" or "subtract" <S> But it's not mathematical at all. <A> By looking at the etymology, we can see that "substract" is erroneous. <S> "subtract" is derived from a the Latin compound verb "subtraho", whose supine is "subtractum". <S> There is no form "substraho" of this verb.
| It seems that the usage of "substract" is linguistically incorrect.
|
When should I use "Would", "Would have", "Will", and "Will have"? I hope someone, once and for all, can clarify (with examples) the difference in usage of will vs. would vs. would have vs. will have . <Q> This question is quite broad, and I find it quite hard to come up with an answer that is comprehensive yet succinct, technically impeccable yet easy to understand. <S> At the risk of failing miserably, I'll give it a try nonetheless. <S> Will is used to form Future Simple, to describe something that takes place in the future. <S> I will be there. <S> ⇒ <S> I am not there. <S> But I plan to be there at some point in the future. <S> I will do that. <S> ⇒ I am not doing it right now. <S> But I plan to do it at some point in the future. <S> Will have is used to form Future Perfect, to describe something that not simply takes place in the future, but is completed ("perfected") at some reference point in the future (which is usually specified). <S> I will have done that by the end of the week. <S> ⇒ I will do that, and at the reference point (end of the week), my action will be over; I will be able to say "I have done it". <S> Would is a past-tense form of will . <S> If you are writing about past events, you can use it to indicate something that was in the future at that point in time , but is not necessarily in the future right now . <S> In other words, you use would to preserve the future aspect when talking about the past. <S> She said that she would visit me. <S> ⇒ <S> This is the same as: She said, "I will visit you". <S> It's called making verb tenses "agree". <S> I thought she would have visited me by now, but she hasn't. <S> Would is also used as a modal verb to indicate a conditional or subjunctive mood, or to "soften" <S> what is being said: I would love to see that movie. <S> If I had a hammer, I would use it as often as possible. <S> Would you give me that book, please? <S> I realize that I have omitted a few things (say, Future Perfect Continuous). <S> Again, that was a conscious decision for the sake of simplicity. <A> "Would” implies the same, but is typically used when the probability is more hypothetical. <S> The article <S> Will you or would you? <S> gives a few examples. <S> Will have or would have <S> you might find useful. <A> "Would" has two meanings and I'm not sure which you mean, but one is a modal verb and conditional. <S> ex. <S> I would wash the car if the water was working. <S> The other one is past tense and basically just means "used to" ex. <S> He would plow the field with team of horses in just days. <S> "Will" is for certain. <S> ex. <S> The next year will be 2011. <S> Adding "have" to the end just makes them the perfect tense, which kinda references the past too. <S> I'm not sure it works with the conditional type of would, but I could be wrong. <S> ex. <S> He would have taken me, but he had a flat tire.ex. <S> It will have been gone for a whole month by tomorrow.
| From Commonly Misused Terms and Phrases “Will” suggests strong probability or future likelihood. Will , would , and have are auxiliary verbs used to form different tenses .
|
Which is correct: "Set up something" or "Set something up" or "Setup something"? As a programmer, I often have to use this expression: Set the application up. or something like that. But I'm not sure what the correct grammar is, and what this grammatical area is called in English. <Q> As kajaco mentions, "setup something" is just a spelling error (although it is fairly common). <S> Of the two correct phrases, I don't think one is inherently more clear than the other, if the something part is short enough. <S> But, it is important not to let the two words separate too far. <S> That is, when the something part gets longer, it becomes increasingly worse to separate "set" and "up". <S> For example, these sound good, because "all of your accounts" is short enough: <S> I will set all of your accounts up . <S> / <S> I will set up all of your accounts. <S> But the following only really works if you don't separate the phrasal verb components: ? <S> I will set a table of all the people who haven't logged in since May up . <S> (sounds awkward) <S> I will set up a table of all the people who haven't logged in since May. <S> If you are a non-native speaker, you might ask, "what is the line between too long and not too long?" <S> Well, there is no clear line that can be given as a rule. <S> But I would say that if the something part is more than 5 words, you might want to play it safe and keep "set" and "up" together. <A> "Set up something" keeps the two parts of the expression (set and up) together, so that seems clearest. <S> Other wording might work better: Install or initialize. <A> Somebody did a pretty extensive analysis of this at <S> "Setup" Is Not a Verb . <S> You can probably guess from the title what the conclusion was!
| Both "set up something" and "set something up" are perfectly correct English, as "set up" is a phrasal verb. "Setup" is noun, not a verb, so you wouldn't "Setup something".
|
When is it appropriate, if at all, to use the suffix "ish"? When is it appropriate, if at all, to use the suffix ish ? Consider the following: She was a largish woman According to Google the word largish is defined as somewhat large . However, Merriam-Webster seems to redirect the search phrase to large instead. I have seen people abuse this quite a bit. When does one draw the line when using this suffix? Or does it have no place in formal english? <Q> I think you could make the argument that the -ish suffix should not be used in formal English to create ad-hoc words on the spot, like "largish". <S> There is nothing grammatically wrong — you will, of course be understood — but it has a definite informal connotation. <S> However, there are a number of established words, e.g. impish , boorish , devilish , sheepish , etc., <S> where -ish is accepted in all contexts, including formal ones. <A> She was a largish woman. <S> ⇒ <S> She was a rather large woman. <S> She will be here by fiveish. <S> ⇒ <S> She will be here by any time close to five o'clock. <S> The boy is fiveish. <S> ⇒ <S> The boy is five years old or about that age. <S> The interior has niceish plastics covering the dash and the doors <S> ⇒ The interior has rather nice plastics covering the dash and the doors. <S> The exam went well, ish. <S> ⇒ <S> The exam went fairly well. <S> See Wictionary page here. <A> As an aside, sometimes (in British conversational English at least), people use 'ish' on <S> it's own: <S> "So, are you happy with your new job?""Ish."
| Adding the "ish" suffix to a word X is a colloquial way to say that something is "somewhat" X, "approximately" X, "rather" X, etc.
|
Should we say "borrow from" instead of "borrow off"? I hear and read the term "borrow off" frequently however I say "borrow from" as that makes more sense to me. Is it grammatically incorrect to say, "may I borrow the book off your friend"? In my mind this sounds as though the book is on the friend? Edit: The use of "off" and "from" isn't solely related to the word "borrow". I hear "off" used in sentences like "I bought it off eBay". <Q> This is colloquial grammar used in England, and occurs with other verbs that indicate acquisition; "steal off" and "hear off" are other common examples. <S> The replacement of "from" with "off" carries a slightly stronger sense of the act of taking, but the construction carries a distinctly lower-class sense and is to be avoided in polite or formal situations. <A> According to online usage guides , borrow from is standard. <S> The sites on the first page of google results for "borrow off" that aren't usage guides or completely irrelevant (such as "borrow off-limits" or "borrow off-campus") <S> are from the .au domain ( example 1 ; example 2 ) -- perhaps this is an Australian colloquialism? <S> In response to your question, this is not an issue of grammatical correctness; English prepositions often don't make sense when interpreted spatially (your example of the book being on your friend). <S> But borrow from is certainly nonstandard. <A> So to "borrow off" someone is to remove (with permission) <S> the item in question from the object of the sentence. <S> It's not technically correct, but definitely in common usage. <S> I've heard it more often used when the speaker doesn't think the object will miss the subject of the preposition. <A> This is a phrasal verb and these are common in the English language. <S> When you come across <S> an adjective and preposition or adverb used in conjunction like 'borrow off' the term will often have a meaning that is not directly related to the definitions of the words. <S> How often do you say that you 'hung out' with your friends? <S> When was the last time that you 'shut off' a light? <S> Hanging out with your friends has very little to do with hanging or being out <S> and I'd be very interested to see how you attempt to shut a light. <S> While you can dispute whether or not these terms are grammatically correct <S> the fact will remain that they are in common use and will continue to be so. <S> It's more important to understand how you are using language than to know if its deemed grammatically 'right' or 'wrong'.
| It is technically incorrect from a purist's perspective, but is nonetheless in frequent use. As an American English speaker, I have never heard borrow off , always borrow from . "Off" generally carries the connotation of removal in American English.
|
"Any" or "some" in various questions? I'm wondering why I always hear "some" in questions, although according to English grammar there should always be "any". At least the one I'm looking at uses "some". For example: Why are some organizations using X? Are there any organizations using X? Is it due to the different nature of these questions? Open-ended vs. closed-ended? <Q> It is true that in general in English, 'some' is replaced by 'any' in negative and interrogative contexts. <S> I would disagree with kajaco about just what nuance is conveyed: to me the choice of 'some' rather than 'any' is meant to exclude 'all'. <S> So Why are any organisations using <S> X may be appropriate even if all organisation are doing so (though the question is perhaps a little unlikely if everybody is doing so); whereas Why are some organisations using X implies "and others are not". <A> "Some" implies we are looking for more than one. <S> In your example, we want to know why some organizations are using the frobisher widget, when our experience with it has been terrible (for instance). <S> Carrying the example further, we want to know if any other organization is using frobisher widgets, or did they all switch to wozgood widgets because they're better. <S> I do not know what grammar you are referring to that says "there should be always "any". <S> " I've never heard any such thing. <A> I have studied thoroughly the issue of any and some and with your permission I would like to contribute with an answer to the question above. <S> SOME <S> - when one has the object or knowledge of possession. <S> You have some bread. <S> Can you give me some bread? <S> (SOME -is used because I know you have, so it is my opinion that SOME can be used in questions in which we know that the person has the object.) <S> Do you have any bread? <S> (ANY - one does not know or is not sure if the person has it or not.)SOME - affirmations and questions emplying that the person has the object in question ANY - negation and question in which one does not know whether the person has the object ANY is always used for NEGATION. <S> I have also discovered that some/any work with UNSPECIFIED QUANTITIES <S> only.i.e. <S> if one says that Do you have an orange? <S> - the person specifies the quantityDo <S> you have some oranges? <S> - unspecified quantity.
| But it is not as simple as that: 'Some' can be used in interrogative contexts, and is then 'marked' as linguists say: choosing it rather than the default conveys some meaning. "Any" means, we are wondering if even one exists that meets the criteria.
|
How do you greet multiple recipients in an e-mail? How do you greet multiple recipients in an e-mail? Assuming they're both male, I just use "Sirs", but it seems a bit informal. <Q> Dear All, <A> If you don't know the recipients' names, I refer you to the other answers. <S> However, if you do know their names, then I will add that I would actually just write: <S> Dear John, Dear Jack, I have been using this formula for more than a decade. <S> So far, nobody has complained. <S> For me, this approach has quite a few advantages. <S> First of all, it is more personal than simply "Greetings" or "Hi all". <S> Secondly, if one of those people is the main recipient and the other is CC, or if one of them has a higher rank (say, he is the boss of the other), I can reflect that in my address by mentioning him first. <S> Lastly, this formula can be easily adapted to many situations. <S> If some (or all) of the recipients are female I simply write: <S> Dear John, Dear Jane, If I need to make it more formal, I simply write: <S> Dear Mr. Smith, Dear Ms. Black, <S> And I can easily extend it to three or even four people: <S> Dear Mr. Smith, Dear Ms. Black, <S> Dear Mr. Blunt, <S> Now, when I am addressing more than four people, I often do use something like "Greetings", "Hi everybody", "Dear clients", "Dear colleagues". <S> However, even then I sometimes set the most important recipient apart by writing: <S> Dear Prof. Black, Dear colleagues, or <S> Dear Mr. President, Dear Members of the Committee, <A> I rarely begin emails with a salutation. <S> If I do, it is usually just the name - I have never transferred the pointless 'Dear' to emails. <S> If I wanted to put one in a group email, I suppose I would start with a word like "friends", or "people", or "folks", depending on the context and formality. <A> It's kind of a carryover from my medievalist hobby, but <S> for emails to a group of people. <S> It's also really handy for addressing a single person when you're unsure of that person's gender and/or title. <A> If you are working together on a project, then I rather like Dear team <S> This can be appropriate even if the recipients include people from both your company and the client. <S> It's a subtle reminder that you are all working towards a common goal. <S> More generally, I'd just use <S> Dear all, or just All, <A> "Sirs" is just completely wrong. <S> If you are addressing more than one man, it would be "Gentlemen". <A> I find it useful to imagine myself in the mind of the recipient and ask what information I need to give them in the greeting. <S> If the email is really to be sent with equal priority to a number of recipients and they regard themselves as part of a group (fellow developers for example), then I would use Dear All, If, actually, the email is a mailshot to a number of individuals who don't know each other, then its an individual email. <S> Dear Sir, or possibly Dear Sir (or Madam), Here, I prefer to use the convention that Sir is neuter. <S> And lastly, if an email is really to a single individual, but with a few more individuals copied in (such as a question to an individual developer, but where I want the email trail to be visible to the group), then I would use Dear Bob (Alice, Charlie, Dilbert) <S> The last one is not a convention I have seen elsewhere, but I find it works for me. <A> I have been using, "Hello to all". <S> It seems to work well for both male and female recipients and is formal enough to use in a business setting. <A> Hi' addresses either one person or many, the same as 'you' refers to one person or many. <S> I would not ever use 'Gentlemen', but I am from Australia where our English is more informal. <A> I usually just use the words <S> Hi All, <A> <A> I agree with louiser89 and I will add that - even though many people or perhaps most people don't think that "Dear" is appropriate on emails - I will continue to use "Dear" or, in my language, "Caro (Cara)". <S> It is not only because we have always used it in letters and in commercial correspondence; it is not just traditions. <S> "Dear" is a nice word, it is gentle and polite. <S> It is not a word that could ever offend anybody. <S> And it is certainly not formal, unless you consider formal the people you love or that you consider your friends, or the people you like. <S> So why not use it also in emails? <S> How can something nice become formal or old fashioned or, worse, strongly disliked? <S> Of course we should never consider it obligatory, but why be against it? <S> Dear Friends, don't be too angry with me: <S> English is not my language, but it is a very "dear" language to me for many reasons.
| If I am addressing a few people who are well known to me, I would generally use: Dear John, Bill, Jack, If I am addressing a lot of people, or people who are not familiar to me, I would go with: I really like using Greetings, or even Greetings! If it is a formal letter, then you can use 'Dear Sirs' but if it is informal, simply 'Hi' is fine. ' You can also use gents to refer to many recipients. Email is still sufficiently young that formal conventions have not emerged.
|
Is there a difference between "eatable" and "edible"? I thought only edible was correct, even Google suggested edible when I did a search to see which one was more popular on the internet: Edible : 17.2 million Eatable : 2.2 million The first results are from dictionaries, the meaning being "that can be eaten". What's the difference between them? <Q> I always assumed it's like the difference between "readable" and "legible". <S> The former is a measure of how comfortable it is to read (e.g. short lines are more readable than long lines), and the latter simply whether it can be read at all, or not. <S> As cindi says, like the difference between palatable and not poisonous. <A> I think eatable is more often used to mean palatable. <S> eatable sample usage <S> Whereas edible is more often used in relation to plants etc that are not poisonous. <S> edible sample usage <S> But there is an overlap. <S> (I learnt the sample usage trick from Anthony Quinn ) <A> In 'Crocodile Dundee', the ingenue looks at some 'bush tucker' and asks "Is it really edible?", to which the hero replies "Well, you can live on it ...but it tastes like shit." <S> Good example of something edible but not eatable - unless you're really hungry, which brings the two closer together. <A> It is not poisionus and safe to consume. <S> Like-milk,sugar,egg,floar etc <S> Eatable-Something that you can eat but can't enjoy. <S> Like- make a batter of milk,sugar,egg & floar. <S> It is safe to eat as we make cake out of it, but never enjoyable. <S> Ex- <S> This red one is not an 'edible' berry .Ex- <S> This cake she made , is not at all 'eatable' due to heavy salt. <A> The SOED gives one definition of eatable as an adjective: "food in a state to be eaten". <S> That definition does not seem to me to carry any negative connotation; it refers to food, after all. <S> The SOED also gives a definition of the noun eatable as an item of food (usually in the plural). <S> That usage does not necessarily carry any negative connotation. <S> I have certainly heard 'eatables' used to denote food that was entirely delicious.
| Edible-Something that , anyone can eat.
|
How do I pronounce "ratio 1:1"? How do I pronounce "ratio 1:1"? Should I pronounce it "ratio 1 to 1"? <Q> " I just wanted to add that you wouldn't say "ratio one-to-one. <S> " You would either say "a ratio of one-to-one" or "a one-to-one ratio." <A> In speech this is obviously always pronounced "ratio one to one." <S> In writing, it is a matter of style. <S> Anything of a technical nature should always be written in the 1:1 form, but when writing prose, fiction or something informal, you should certainly consider writing it as it would be spoken: "The mix was applied in a one-to-one ratio." <S> The use of hyphenation and words instead of numerals makes the sentence flowing and readable, and encourages the reader's eye to see this as a single, commonly-occurring term. <S> Note that for the purpose of clarity ratios should generally be stated in the same clause and the same order as the two sets being compared: "Boys and girls were present in a ratio of 3:2." <A> You would pronounce it "a ratio of 1 to 1", but it's worth noting that there are sometimes exceptions. <S> In films and photography , for example, ratios such as 16:9 and 4:3 are often described as "16 by 9" and "four by three", respectively. <A> Hmm, not sure how correct this is <S> but I read <S> a:b as "a is to b". <S> And a: <S> b::c:d as "a is to b as c is to d". <S> Probably British English (else it's Indian :)) <A> I am Indian and I say 1:1 "one to one" and a: <S> b::c:d <S> "a is to b as c is to d". <A> In the United States, "one-to-one ratio" is preferred. <S> A pronunciation of "ratio" is given at the following. <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yVnFCNMchA <S> In addition, The American Heritage Dictionary shows both a two-syllable and three-syllable pronunciation for ratio. <S> https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=ratio
| The pronunciation/spelling-out of "1:1" is "one to one" or "one-to-one.
|
Which is correct: 'Drafty' or 'draughty'? I have been changing 'drafty' for 'draughty', or because of my confusion, removing the word altogether while subbing online articles. I'd appreciate guidance on which term is correct for UK English. <Q> Draft is also considered the standard British English spelling for certain definitions such as a technical drawing, a preliminary or rough version, or the act or result of "drawing" from or upon something (e.g. a Military Draft.) <S> Draughty is preferable for British English as this is the more common spelling when referring to a current of air. <A> This is entirely subjective, and coming from a BritEng, but I see these differences: Draft <S> I would use for being taken into military service, for a preliminary drawing. <S> Draughts I would use for the game (that's checkers for AmEng, I believe) <S> For the windy variety, I'd be comfortable with either. <S> Wikipedia seems to agree , and has more detail. <A> The free dictionary says draughty US, drafty and drafty [ˈdrɑːftɪ]... <S> the usual US spelling of draughty <A> I would always use 'draughty' myself for the currents of cold air definition - like you <S> I've been wrong-footed by the spelling checker online many times! <S> I think it's extraordinary that despite our region there is no option for an English language setting as opposed to American.
| Draft is principally an American English variant that, like many other such simplified spellings, has entered the British English lexicon as an increasingly acceptable alternative spelling.
|
"Your" vs. "you're": Why the confusion? I have seen many comments on different blogs and forums where English native speakers spelled you're as your . I'm not a native speaker, but I know and understand the difference between the two. Why is there a confusion? My initial guess is that your and you're have similar pronunciation and because I carry some accent from my native language (Romanian) I can identify the difference better. Edit (thanks Chris): The same can be asked for other homophones: there/their/they're , its/it's . <Q> The answer is simple. <S> You just need to think about how you learned your native language. <S> By ear. <S> Children learn how to speak their native tongue first, and only then learned the grammar and spelling. <S> Thus, many will "sound" a word out to spell it. <S> English language learners, on the other hand, usually learned how to spell a word first, and focused on pronunciation later. <A> I think that the same goes for all languages. <S> In French, for instance, many people will replace infinitive form (« manger », to eat ) with past participle (« mangé », eaten ), or confuse « ses » and « ces » (his,her vs these). <S> Astonishingly enough, foreigners that study the language do not have this homophony problem in their “source language” and therefore are aware of a grammatical difference. <S> It sounds like people assume translation is mathematically speaking an injective thing. <A> The confusion is that in many UK (and probably US) schools the difference is not taught. <S> The use of the apostrophe is considered by many to be totally confusing <S> and so it is omitted in many places where it is required. <S> There is a name for the addition of extra apostrophes in places where they are not needed. <S> These are "Grocers' Apostrophes" which refers to the common sight on market stalls and grocers' shops where the price labels may erroneously refer to "Banana's" or Apple's". <A> Sometimes I wonder how often this mistake is made out of carelessness, versus ignorance. <S> I'm well-versed in the difference betweent the two, yet I've still made the gaffe on occasion. <S> Due to the homophoneous nature of the words, the mistake is easily made while typing, and particularly easy to miss while proofreading, too. <A> In American English (I can't speak for other varieties), even though the two are both spelled and pronounced distinctly in standard writing and slower articulate speech respectively, they tend to be pronounced the same in regular speech. <S> you're = \yər, ˈyu̇r, ˈyȯr, ˌyü-ər\ and <S> your = \yər, ˈyu̇r, ˈyȯr\ (from Merriam-Webster, with American rhotic pronunciation). <S> Note that the only difference is the one variant for "you're". <S> So it is understandable that there is the possibility of mistaking one for the other. <S> This pair, like other homophones are often mentioned explicitly in language studies in elementary school in the US. <S> Making the mistake later in life is usually simply a one time mistake (like the other homophones). <S> If the mistake is systematic then that is probably a sign of lack of concern for orthography. <A> I think people get confused because the apostrophe is used in possessives as well as contractions, but in this case the possessive your has no apostrophe. <A> Not an answer as such, but I'm sure this might help some people: http://yourandyoure.com/ :)
| Native speakers that do not take the time to learn their own language properly, or that do not read much, tend to misspell homophones.
|
"In the middle" of a time span – will "middle" work? Better ideas? I am translating a German text into English. It contains a sentence that translates roughly to In the middle of life, you stand alone. I'm unsure about "middle" here, and can't think of a more fitting substitute. "Life" is related to the time span of a single human life. Therefore, "center" is out of the question of course. Or is it? Would you use "middle" in this sentence? Do you have a better idea? <Q> A similar phrase in English would be middle age : <S> Middle age is the period of age beyond young adulthood but before the onset of old age ... usually considered to occur approximately between the ages of 40 and 60 <S> At middle age, you stand alone. <S> Note that this phrase does indicate a specific time period in a person's life. <S> If you are looking to describe everything between birth and death, a more correct sentence would be: In life, you stand alone. <S> If the intended time frame is from the end of childhood to the beginning of old age, I would go with: <S> As an adult, you stand alone. <S> Or: <S> In adulthood, you stand alone. <A> Not part of your question, but I wonder about the intended meaning of "you stand alone". <S> I don't know the whole context, but as it stands, what is conveyed leans towards "you are on your own, there is no-one with you". <S> If what you are trying to say is "you are independent and no longer dependent on others for your identity", you might want to consider something like "you are your own person", "you stand on your own two feet"... <S> Just a thought. <A> Regardless of what you mean by "you stand alone," I think you could use “at midlife <S> (= middle age) as a noun as a good replacement for “In the middle of life”: <S> (from Merriam-Webster) <A> What about "In life, you are alone."? <A> In the prime of life refers to the time of maturity when power and vigor are greatest. <S> Example : A male Lion, in the prime of life, coloured by early morning sunshine, looking across Kenya's Masai Mara. <S> I like the bulging muscles and steely stare of this fellow. <S> No wonder he is dubbed 'The King' .
| At midlife you stand alone.
|
Difference between an acronym and abbreviation? TLA is an acronym for "Three Letter Acronym". Is it also an abbreviation, since it abbreviates the original phrase? <Q> Examples of acronyms as the term is commonly used: FBI, which stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation , but is pronounced ef-bee <S> -I <S> NATO, which stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization , but is pronounced NAY-toe IUPAC, which stands for International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry , but is pronounced <S> I-U-pak <S> An abbreviation is written differently from the expanded form but is pronounced the same. <S> Examples: <S> Mr., which stands for mister and is pronounced mister <S> ft., which stands for feet and is pronounced feet etc., which stands for et cetera and is pronounced et cetera <S> Whether the form is pronounced as a “word” or as letter names or as some combination of the two is a red herring. <S> The key difference is whether the abbreviated form is pronounced differently from the expanded form. <A> An acronym is a type of abbreviation that is pronounced as a word (e.g. SCUBA, LASER). <S> The following article is worth a look: The Difference Between Acronyms and Abbreviations (and Acrostics) <A> An acronym (sometimes called an initialism) is simply a word formed by taking letters (usually the first) of each word in a phrase to form an abbreviation. <S> Acronyms are thus a subset of abbreviations. <S> Examples of acronyms: CEO (cheif executive officer), AIDS (Acquired immune deficiency syndrome), FAQ (frequently asked questions), CD-ROM (compact-disk read-only memory) <S> (Notice that they may be pronounced as words themselves or spelt out depending on the case.) <S> Examples of abbreviations that are not acronyms: Mr. (Mister), Prof. (Professor), op. <S> (opus), mm (millimeters),
| An acronym (as the term is commonly used) is a term that is formed from the initial letters of some longer name and is pronounced differently than the expanded form .
|
Difference between "get" and "take" What is the difference between "get" and "take"? Both are used to describe receiving something. By intuition I mostly guess which one to use, but would like to know some rule which will stick in my head. <Q> In my sense, take will denote some action from the subject, whereas get is more passive. <A> It's hard to say. <S> Generally, take denotes an active action, like "I took his cheese," while get denotes a passive one, like "I got my paycheck today. <S> " Besides that, you just have to memorize which one to use where. <S> Examples of take <S> : I take a shower. <S> I take it that you're going. <S> (Meaning: From what I can tell, you are going.) <S> I take my pills daily. <S> (Action of consuming.) <S> I took your cheese. <S> (Physical removal of an object.) <S> The main point I took away from that was... (understanding a concept) <S> I took her to the opera. <S> (Conducting someone.) <S> I took up doing cocaine. <S> (to start a habit) <S> Examples of get: I got my paycheck. <S> (Received from someone else giving it to you.) <S> I get you. <S> (As in, I understand you). <S> I didn't get that, please repeat it. <S> (As in, I didn't hear). <S> Get out of here. <S> Get dressed. <S> Take your time. <S> (From PyroTiger). <S> Get up! <S> Get a life. <S> I could go on. <S> You can check dictionary.com's entries on <S> take and get for more. <A> "I take from you. <S> You get from me." <S> The first sentence would be construed as I don't require your permission to 'get' something. <S> The second sentence would mean that unless I give, you cannot 'take' something. <A> You left your book in your locker? <S> Go <S> get it. <S> "Take your book" would be to grab it and go elsewhere, like from home to school. <A> It depends how you use the two words. <S> The both words can be used as passive or active verb depending on the situation. <S> Let's look at this example <S> : My boss asked me to (take, get) <S> the office key from his office assistant. <S> Here, if you use (take), your expression may sound harsh. <S> Example 2 <S> :The detective (got, took) <S> the suspect by force as he left the restaurant. <S> In this example, either of the two verbs in the parenthesis are correct. <A> There is two words of same meaning that is "take" & "get". <S> Mostly, words "take" is use to be for take something hard. <S> For example, take my pen. <S> Whilst word "get" is to be use for get permission from someone.
| "Get" also means to go and "fetch" something then bring it back to where you currently are. 'Take' would seem authoritative when used in a 'person as a subject' setting.
|
Why do we say "I win" instead of "I won"? For a long time I was wondering why there is I win instead of I won . I met such usage in a lot of games and movies. For me, it's logical to say I won , because this winning action is done already. I win for me seems like I'm winning right now . Can anyone clarify this for me? <Q> The statement "I win" is typically used to declare that the subject has just won the game. <S> Before the statement, it may well not be known that a "win" has occurred. <S> Indeed, because the action is so extremely recent in the past, it is effectively considered the present. <S> While you technically may be right in that the win occurred in the past, language does not make this distinction. <S> Call it an idiomatic usage case, if you will. <S> I wouldn't over-analyse the reason. <A> I disagree with the accepted answer in its explanation. <S> If you've just had lunch, you'd say "I ate" (past-tense) and not "I eat" ( <S> present tense) <S> - even if you're saying it "just a few seconds after" having lunch. <S> It is absurd to argue that "I win" is used because the winning has only happened in the recent past, it is being carried over to the present (although a runner might say "I win" as he is overtaking another runner).This is sledging , whereas the usage above is clearly about semantics/phraseology. <S> Conventionally, an umpire would say "Player X wins ", and not "Player X won ". <S> If there was a third person (acting as an adjudicator) physically present, and he declares one of the two players the winner, you'd certainly say " I won! " <S> even if it was immediately/seconds after. <S> In linguistics, there are three honorifics assigned to any discourse : the speaker, the hearer and the bystander. <S> Here, the speaker is speaking for the invisible bystander. <S> You're also likely to say " I won! " <S> with a particularly tough-to-beat opponent, implying incredulity/emphasis. <A> I think you can use both. <S> I win <S> means I've won when the game has just finished. <S> I've won means for example that you've won 30 minutes ago. <S> You can call something that happened 2 minutes ago by present, not past. <A> There are elements of RaghuramMK's and Noldorin's answers at play here. <S> I do think an exclamation of "I win!" <S> at least in part serves as an answer to "OK, so who wins?" (even if that question wasn't explicitly asked). <S> I believe this is its grammatic function, if you will. <S> It's a declaration, like a shorter form of "I am victorious!". <S> I also think there is some period of time beyond which the winner stops saying "I win" and switches to saying "I won", and it's not very long. <S> But how long depends a lot on the venue and the emotional magnitude of the victory. <S> Someone who has just won a world championship might be screaming "I win! <S> I win! <S> I win!" <S> for what seems like quite a long time, as they run around in celebration. <S> Whereas if my brother beats me in a casual game of cards, he might say "I win" as he plays the last card, with the "winning moment" lasting less than one second. <A> Usage varies, of course, but I would only use I win in situations where it's pseudo-future. <S> Chess commentaries commonly say '...and Black wins in 3 moves', meaning that the game, though technically still in progress, is effectively over. <S> There, wins could be replaced by will have won , since the game reported on has finished (presumably by White's resignation); if I were Black in that situation I could say I will win in three moves or <S> I win in three (or, of course, Mate in three ). <S> The gloating phrase would be "I've won!" <A> I'm winning <S> I'm winning this time (while the game continues). <S> I've won <S> I've won this time. <S> (after it is over).
| When you say "I win," you're being helpful - by effectively speaking for/on behalf of an umpire/adjudicator (or a referee), who is the proper authority to declare the winner.
|
"Consider the bear that/which scratches his head." Which is correct? If I wish to say something along the lines of Consider the bear that scratches his head. It seems to me that I could instead say Consider the bear which scratches his head. I am unsure which of these is correct, if it even matters. Does anyone know a rule which makes this clear? <Q> That is restrictive, it limits / restricts / specifies the identity of the subject. <S> Using your example, the bear that scratches his head refers to one specific bear -- "the bear that scratches his head". <S> Which is non-restrictive, meaning it refers to something incidental about the subject. <S> Hope that helps! <S> EDIT: <S> ShreevatsaR has pointed out that this is a convention, not a grammar rule. <S> In the end it doesn't "matter", use the convention if it appeals to you. <S> Here is MW's take (thanks, nohat). <A> What the other answers have said about "which" having to be used with commas (or in non-restrictive clauses) is wrong. " <S> Which" has long been used by respectable writers in restrictive clauses as well. <S> And when it's used in a restrictive clause, it's wrong to use a comma before it. <S> There's a separate question about this: When to use “that” and when to use “which”? <S> Consider the bear which scratches his head. <S> This sentence does sound wrong, but for another reason. " <S> Which," whether used restrictively or nonrestrictively, has a strong tendency to be used with inanimates. <S> For this reason, "which... his" sounds bad, because "which" implies you're thinking of the bear as an object, or at least as a not-very-animate thing, while "his" implies you're thinking of the bear as a person, or at least as a somewhat animate being. <S> "Consider the bear who scratches his head" would be better, or, as the other answers mentioned, you could use "that" and say "Consider the bear that scratches his head." <S> (In general, "that" is not as common as "who" when referring to people , but either is grammatical.) <S> ShreevatsaR in a comment mentioned a third option, "the bear which scratches its head. <S> " This doesn't sound as clashingly bad to me as "which scratches his head," but it also doesn't sound as good to me as any of the alternatives I listed in the previous paragraph. <A> One practical, grammatical difference is that, in writing, 'which' will be preceded by a comma (or other visual pause).
| "Consider the bear, which scratches its head" refers to the bear (could be a single bear, could be the species), which happens to scratch its head.
|
Difference between "Lots of" and "A lot of" What is the difference between "Lots" and "A lot"? For instance: I've got a lot of apples I've got lots of apples <Q> I think informally, they have the same meaning. <S> However, the phrase "a lot" refers to an indeterminate unit of measure (which may in certain contexts actually be determinate, e.g. land measurements). <A> Both phrases are very informal; however, there is a denotation for "lot" that indicates "a group" e.g. "a job lot" or, at an auction, one "unit" that is being bid upon. <S> This is not a very common definition outside of certain markets; dictionary.com gives it as "11. <S> a distinct portion or parcel of anything, as of merchandise: The furniture was to be auctioned off in 20 lots." <S> Thus, it is entirely possible that "a lot of apples" could refer to a specific grouping of apples being sold or auctioned; if one purchases several of these, then one might refer entirely correctly to "lots of apples." <S> To avoid confusion, it may be better to use "many" and the verb "to have," e.g. <S> "I have many apples. <S> " <S> You will almost certainly be understood with either of your phrases, but as they are colloquial they may not translate as precisely to non-native speakers as you may wish. <A> There is no difference. <S> They have the same meaning. <A> The NOAD I had on my Mac Mini reported the following: <S> The expressions a lot of and lots of are used before nouns to mean a large number or amount of. <S> In common with other words denoting quantities, lot itself does not normally function as a head noun, meaning that it does not itself determine whether the following verb is singular or plural. <S> Thus, although lot is singular in a lot of people , the verb that follows is not singular. <S> In this case, the word people acts as the head noun and, being plural, ensures that the following verb is also plural: a lot of people were assembled (not a lot of people was assembled ). <S> Written as one word, alot is incorrect, although not uncommon. <S> See also the notes given from the Oxford Living Dictionaries . <A> There IS a difference between lots and a lot. <S> When "a lot" means "too much" then "lots" cannot be substituted. <S> When you say, "I've eaten a lot today," you are talking about the QUANTITY of food you have eaten. <S> However, "I've eaten lots today" indicates frequency. <S> You have eaten lots of times. <S> Additionally if someone gives you too much, you say, "That's a lot (of whatever!)!You would NOT say, "That's lots (of water)" for example. <A> The phrase " A LOT OF" is a determiner used to identify if the noun that comes after the phrase is plural or singular. <S> In the sentence "A lot of works are missing. <S> " <S> The word "work" refers to a number of works finished in class, I would say the verb which comes after the noun should be plural because the works referred to -are many following the grammar rule <S> "A plural noun takes a plural verb".
| So, technically, "lots of" should be more than "a lot of", since the latter refers to a single unit of measure, and the former refers to multiple units of the same measure (if used in the same context). A lot of and lots of are very common in speech and writing, but they still have a distinctly informal feel and are generally not considered acceptable for formal English, where alternatives such as many or a large number are used instead.
|
"At the beginning of the century" or "in the beginning of the century"? At the beginning of the century. In the beginning of the century. How to clearly distinguish when to use at , or in ? <Q> In general, "at" marks a spot and "in" marks a space. <S> Obviously, there are idiomatic exceptions, but this really isn't one. <S> The beginning of a period of time is a "spot", the period of time itself is rather "spacious". <A> To answer the question: I would never say "in the beginning of the century". <S> I think Peter Eisentraut's argument is essentially correct: "the beginning of the century" is notionally a point, not a period (even though in practice, "at the beginning of the century" may in context cover a period of several years). <S> In fact the only instance I can think of of "in the beginning" is the opening of St. John's Gospel. <S> That phrase is now archaic, and would not be used except in imitation of that specific use. <A> "In ~" is Just Plain Wrong. <S> Acceptable usages would be "at the beginning of the century" or "in the early years [etc.] <S> of the century". <S> It is familiar as the opening words of Genesis and of the gospel of John in the King James Bible.
| "In the beginning" as a collocation does not take a referent - it refers to some (contextually defined) absolute start (the beginning of the story, the creation of the world, etc.).
|
'Tonight' and 'this evening' If I ask Are you available tonight for a drink? does tonight refer to this evening and/or this night ? If not, what would be considered the beginning of the night and the end of the evening? Do they overlap? <Q> I would say that this really depends on the context and common understanding between speaker and hearer. <S> Are you available for a drink tonight? <S> If the person asked works in a bar at night, it might mean "right now", no matter whether it is 6pm or 5am. <S> Asking <S> Where will you sleep tonight? <S> Tonight will denote the normal sleeping period. <S> Best is to further specify if necessary. <A> It depends. <S> I think they overlap for the beginning of the night/evening, but "tonight" goes further. <S> So you can say "I'm dining in this evening", meaning you probably won't stay up too late, but if you say "I'm going to go out tonight", it could mean that you won't stay late, but it could be 2am or 5am also. <S> You would never use "this evening" for going out until 2am, though. <A> I agree with Claudiu -- when I hear "this evening" I think more klassy or low-key, like dinner and a movie, whereas "tonight" says festivities will go later and maybe get a little crazy. <S> According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "Evening (n.) -- from Old English æfnung "the coming of evening, sunset, time around sunset. <S> " This is opposed to "night", which is synonymous with "darkness".
| I would understand tonight as starting after work (if asked by a coworker) and lasting through something reasonable, like midnight nowadays.
|
What is the plural form of "zero"? I tried looking on Google, but there are some fairly contradictory results. I thought I'd ask you guys so we could get an authoritative answer on the subject! <Q> The usage stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the British National Corpus (BNC) look as follows: COCA <S> BNCzeros <S> 312 <S> 132 zeroes.[n] <S> 106 5 <S> So in practice zeros <S> is preferred in the US and even more so in the UK, though citations for zeroes include such prominent examples as Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time . <S> (Mr Hawking is British, but the book was first published by an American publishing house.) <S> The oldest citation for zeroes in the BNC is from 1978. <S> The Corpus of Historical American English has six citations that are even older, the oldest one being from 1914. <A> Note that dictionaries document the (current, at the time of going to press) usage of language, they aren't authoritative. ' <S> Correct' is what is in common usage and largely understood to be correct, even if that contradicts a dictionary (in which case the dictionary is probably out-of-date). <S> So, as RegDwight has already answered, either zeros or zeroes is 'correct', <S> but.... <S> It's interesting to note that the Oxford English Dictionary's Oxford Dictionaries site's sole definition of zeroes is related to zero as a verb, e.g. "watch as he zeroes his sights on the target"; not as the plural of zero . <S> It states that the plural of zero is zeros . <S> This doesn't mean that using zeroes as a plural is wrong, as I've already said, it just shows that such usage is probably a more recent occurrence, gaining acceptance as the use of <S> zero <S> as a verb falls into decline. <S> See http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/zero <S> As Barrie England helpfully points out in a comment (thanks Barrie!), the link above isn't to the OED, as I'd initially specified, and the OED quotes zeroes as the only plural of zero . <S> Both sites are run by Oxford Press, <S> the former providing data from a collection of Oxford Press dictionaries. <S> I think the difference between the two emphasizes my point that there is no 'correct', and that dictionaries merely document popular usage. <S> I imagine there are more resources dedicated to the OED and that this is more likely to be up-to-date, but really that's just speculation. <A> I prefer "zeroes" because "zeros" resembles the Greek singular and seems to invoke the pronunciation ZEH-ross, and I'm not the only one . <S> Oxford explains their pluralization rules including an appearance of zeros, here: Oxford Dictionaries: Plurals of Nouns . <S> In sum: Usually add -s ( solos, zeros ). <S> If vowel+o, add -s <S> ( studios, zoos ). <S> Some words take -oes ( buffaloes, dominoes ). <S> Other words can take -os or -oes <S> ( banjos/banjoes, cargos/cargoes ). <S> At this point I am beginning to sympathize with Dan Quayle and his potatoe incident!
| Both zeros and zeroes are acceptable, see e.g. Merriam-Webster , Wiktionary or TheFreeDictionary .
|
Which day does "next Tuesday" refer to? At what point does next Tuesday mean the next Tuesday that will come to pass and no longer the Tuesday after the Tuesday that will come to pass? And, when does the meaning switch back? <Q> To me, “next Tuesday” means the Tuesday that comes next week. <S> For example, on Monday, October 11 and Wednesday, October 13, “next Tuesday” means October 19. <S> Whereas on Monday, October 18, “next Tuesday” means October 26. <S> “This Tuesday” refers to the Tuesday that comes this week, which on Wednesday would refer to yesterday, and on Monday refers to tomorrow. <S> Similarly, “Last Tuesday” is the Tuesday that came last week. <S> Without any descriptors, day names by themselves mean the next such day in the future unless used in the past tense. <S> “He will do it on Tuesday” means the next time there is a Tuesday, which on Monday would mean “tomorrow” <S> but on Wednesday would mean the following Tuesday. <S> In the past tense, day names mean the last such day which occurred. <S> “He did it on Tuesday” means the most recent day that was a Tuesday. <S> Not everyone may agree with this analysis, but in my experience this is what most people mean when they use “this”, “last”, and “next” with day names. <A> To me, "next Tuesday" means (strictly) the next instance of a Tuesday, although I just wouldn't use it on Sunday or Monday (preferring the day after tomorrow/tomorrow or an unqualified "Tuesday", which generally refers to the current week, past or present). <S> However, I accept that this is personal and that others may sometimes mean "the next Tuesday but one", bizarre as that may seem. <S> This assumes that I know what day it is, which cannot always be relied on. <A> My preferred use is to specify "this coming Tuesday" or "the Tuesday after next" when I talk about days, specifically because of the ambiguity of what "next Tuesday" could be. <S> That's just my preference, though. <A> My answer to another question making a similar inquiry about using the phrase "next week"— <S> The issue isn't as definitive as you might think. <S> Ultimately, it comes down to what interpretation of "next" you consider to be correct. <S> For example, the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) defines 'next' simply as Immediately following, as in time, order, or sequence Following this definition, "next weekend" will always mean the weekend with the start date in closes proximity in time. <S> If the phrase is used during a weekend, of course, you'd be referring to the weekend following the one you are currently experiencing. <S> However, the issue gets more complicated if you look to other definitions. <S> The Oxford American Dictionary has a specific definition for 'next' when used in the context of time: <S> (of a day of the week) nearest (or the nearest but one) <S> after the present : not this Wednesday, next Wednesday <S> Here, we're given the choice: it can either mean the weekend with the closest start date, or the following one (as specified by the parenthetical addition or the nearest but one ). <S> This definition has come about mostly because of usage development. <S> Many words and phrases in the english dictionary have meanings contrary to their technical definitions, and yet are still used commonly and considered valid. <S> Thus, while technically "next" implies immediate sequence, it is used in other ways (which dictionaries like the OAD have accommodated for validity), so it's really a matter of personal preference. <S> For example, it is unlikely that I will even use the phrase "next weekend" during the week, because some people might be confused as to what I am referring to. <S> Instead, I will say "this weekend," unless it is currently the weekend, in which case I will say "next weekend." <A> "next-Tuesday" would be better said as "Tuesday of next week". <S> Thus, the answer to your question would be "on Tuesday". <A> There are several possibilities: <S> This Tuesday is the Tuesday of the week that we are in. <S> This appears to be the most common usage, and makes most sense when you're trying to distinguish between imminent Tuesdays. <S> They both refer to the same date; this (coming) <S> Tuesday, which is the next Tuesday on the calendar from today. <S> This Tuesday refers to this (coming) <S> Tuesday, or the Tuesday that comes next on the calendar from today. <S> Next Tuesday refers to the Tuesday after this (coming) Tuesday, or the Second Tuesday on the Calendar from today. <S> This usage seems rare... but is actually what I understood for many years (although I was aware that people didn't always share my views). <S> Some people switch meanings on Tuesday. <S> For example, they mean (1) on Sunday and Monday, but (2) from Wednesday onwards. <S> Occasionally, I've heard people talking who have different understanding of the terms, but who happen to come to the same conclusion about the date of an appointment! <S> And then there's "Last Tuesday"... <S> but let's not get started on that one! <S> All in all, unless you know that you speak the same "calendar language" as someone else (and it isn't always obvious) <S> your best bet is to: Use a different way to express yourself, "Tuesday of Next Week", for example. <S> Use dates, "Tuesday 11th". <S> Or get out your calendar and point. <A> I know someone who would confuse it even further with the usage "Tuesday first" meaning the first Tuesday after today - where most people would interpret that as meaning a Tuesday which landed on the 1st of a month.
| Next Tuesday is the Tuesday of the week we'll be in after this one. This clearly has no definitive answer - usage varies between speakers.
|
Is kickassiness an accepted word? I have been looking for a word that means kickassiness, but haven't come across one. Is this an accepted word? If not, what word can be used in its place? <Q> You don't say something is "kick-assy", you say something is "kick-ass." <S> So I think the correct form would be "kick-assness". <S> You wouldn't use this in any formal setting, though. <S> I agree with awesomeness as an alternative. <A> Kickassiness uses the often-sarcastic <S> -iness <S> ending (compare "truthiness", "maverickiness", and the phonetically similar "helpy"); <S> so, analogously to those words, it gives the impression that something is trying to pose as kickass but is not succeeding. <S> I'd probably go with "kickassness" or "kickassitude" if that was not the desired impression. <S> All the above are perfectly cromulent productions from the base word <S> ; don't let any prescriptivist tell you different. <A> I'd say "kick-assery" is a lot better than kickassiness since "kick-ass" stems from a verb. <A> English - natural language in general, is "productive", which is to say that it happily accommodates new words derived from existing ones on standard patterns. <S> Slang and familiar language are by nature more productive than formal language. <S> Thus, if you use "kickassiness", people (at least, people who understand "kick-ass") will mostly understand you even if they have not heard it before. <S> Whether or not they adopt it themselves is in the lap of the gods, of course (and the answers by @Epago and @Claudiu suggest that it is unlikely because slightly more natural alternatives already have some currency). <S> It is also unlikely to impress English teachers, judges in courts of law, or prospective employers, of course, but you probably already knew that. <A> Instead, I would use "awesomeness". <A> Even Wordnik turns up zilch, and Google shows a measly 300 something hits. <S> There doesn’t really seem to be a need for this word. <S> Futhermore, I agree with @Claudiu.
| “ kickassness ” seems to be the term you’re looking for. Although it's rarely used in slang, it's neither an accepted nor a proper word.
|
Can "prior" or "previous" be used to describe the same month of last year? If I want to show the comparison between rate in 2010 Jan and 2009 Jan, which of the following should I use? Comparison of rate between 2010 Jan and its prior month. Comparison of rate between 2010 Jan and its previous month. <Q> In my opinion, neither previous nor prior work in this context for what you want to express, because both expressions imply December 2009. <S> Also, 'between' is a bit vague, because while the context implies you are comparing the rates of the two months, 'between' carries the idea of comparing the rates for the whole period between those two months. <S> Why not simply 'Comparison of rates: Jan 2010 and Jan 2009'? <S> It is not especially clever, but it is shorter than the two phrases you propose. <A> Neither "previous" nor "prior" are correct here, because they would refer to December 2009. <A> The Oxford Corpus of English lists several example sentences for prior : <S> She visited me on the day prior to her death. <S> Mrs Scott had to spend two weeks in hospital, including a week prior to the Caesarian birth. <S> For previous : <S> The month previous to publication . <S> . . <S> The starting grids are based on a reversal of the finishing order of the previous race. <S> From these two points (examples of usage in English and dictionary definition), I can see no evidence that either word is more or less appropriate in your context. <S> However, I would say the following sound better: Comparison of rate between January 2010 and the prior month. <S> Comparison of rate between January 2010 and the previous month. <S> That is, I would use the rather than its , although your sentences are grammatical. <S> EDIT: <S> Now that I understand that the OP was talking about comparing January 2009 and January 2010, I offer these suggestions: Comparing the rates of January 2010 and the prior January. <S> Comparing the rates of January 2010 and the previous January. <S> I also agree that it would be easier, and perhaps better, just to say 'Comparing the rates of January 2009 and January 2010. <S> * <A> In general for comparing corresponding periods across years you use the expression year on year <A> Neither prior nor previous are words necessary to convey the meaning of the statement. <S> The clearest way, so that no one misunderstands the question, is to delineate it completely: Comparison of rates between Jan 2009 and Jan 2010. <S> This "statement" implies that there is a list to follow with the said comparisons indicated. <S> It is not meant to convey all of the actual comparisons. <S> It seems to be more of a heading.
| If you want to use a business analysis buzzword, you could use "year over year", as in Year-over-year comparison of rates for January If you are addressing normal people, however, I'd suggest simply Comparison of rates between January 2010 and January 2009 Both prior and previous have similar definitions: 'existing or occurring before in time or order' and 'existing or coming before in time, order, or importance' respectively.
|
Correct spelling/italicization of e.g., i.e.? Should e.g. and i.e. have periods, e.g. "e.g.", or no periods, eg "eg"? Should they be italicized, e.g. " i.e. " or not, eg "i.e"? <Q> In formal contexts, I would go with "e.g." and "i.e.", with two periods and without a whitespace. <S> The spellings without periods are quite popular, but informal. <S> For example, Merriam-Webster does not have an entry for either "eg" or "ie". <S> Wiktionary marks "eg." and "eg" as informal , and offers the following usage notes : <S> It also offers the following usage notes for "i.e." : <S> Opinion is mixed about whether the abbreviation should be italicized, or whether there should be a separating non-breaking space as in i. e. . <S> ie is often found in current usage, and is perhaps now considered acceptable. <S> Personally, I would argue that there's no need whatsoever to italicize "e.g." or "i.e.". <S> Both expressions are extremely common in English, and have been for a long time. <S> They are full-fledged citizens of the English language, and as such, they do not have to be italicized as if they were foreign words. <A> eg & ie should be: e.g., and i.e., Don't forget the comma. <A> Most style guides I have seen also say no italics for e.g. or i.e. — they are common Latin abbreviations. <A> I.e. and e.g. are written without periods in AMA style (10th edition).
| Opinion is mixed about whether this term should be italicized as although it is Latin, it has become part of standard English, and whether it should be written with a separating space "e. g." as it was originally two separate words.
|
Handling quotes ending in exclamation or question marks Possible Duplicate: Is it correct to use “punctuation outside of the quotations”, or “inside?” I've always had trouble dealing with quotes ending in question marks. Any solution has been awkward. What's the best way to use it? Examples (which are probably wrong): Did you know how he asked me "how do you do?"? After he said "Do I know you?", we hit him with some bricks. "Fool!" he exclaimed. <Q> British rules more or less follow common sense logic: <S> Otherwise, it shall be put outside. <S> Example: <S> “Where is the milk?” <S> he asked his cat. <S> See Guardian style guide & “Quotation marks” on grammar.ccc.commnet.edu . <A> Here's the problem with the inside-the-quote rule. <S> If you asking a question about a value in a data field, the question mark appears to be part of the value. <S> For example, if you ask the question: Should the Zip Code field contain "12345?", the question mark appears to be part of the data. <S> Data integrity would require this sentence to be: Should the Zip Code field contain "12345"? <S> Looks funny <S> but there you have it. <A> The rule I was taught is that there is one and only one punctuation mark associated with the speech fragment, and it goes inside the quotes. <S> It doesn't matter whether it logically belongs there or not <S> , that's where it goes. <S> Mercifully, it seems I was taught wrong (see all the comments below), and we get to apply common sense: if the sentence would put a "stronger" punctuation mark than is part of the quote itself immediately after the quote, it goes outside the quote marks instead. <S> So... <S> Did you know how he asked me "how do you do?"? <S> The final question mark is wrong; the question mark in the quotes does duty both for the quoted greeting and the sentence as a whole. <S> Yes, that means you can't tell just from the punctuation whether just the quote or both the quote and the sentence is a question. <S> It's usually obvious from the wording, but sometimes you might need to rephrase to eliminate ambiguity. <S> In this case you also need a capital 'H' on the second "how" and a comma after "me. <S> " <S> After he said "Do I know you?", we hit him with some bricks. <S> By the same token, the comma after the quotes is wrong; the question mark does duty for it. <S> You do, however, need a comma after "said." <S> "Fool!" <S> he exclaimed. <S> Spot on. <S> An extra example to illustrate dropping the punctuation from the quote: Did you hear how he said, "The door is open"? <S> In this case the quote isn't a question itself, so the question mark doesn't belong there, but the overall sentence is a question and needs to be marked as such. <A> I cannot really answer in terms of proper, correct or official style rules but here are the basics of how to choose what to do. <S> Minimize the amount of punctuation visible. <S> If you can eliminate a "duplicate" mark, do it. <S> When removing extraneous marks, work from the outside inward. <S> Marks outside of quotes get hit first. <S> If at all possible, move mark to inside the quotes but never change the meaning of the quoted section. <S> Examples: <S> Did you know how he asked me "how do you do?"? <S> The extra '?' can be removed. <S> Leave the internal '?' <S> alone: <S> Did you know how he asked me "how do you do?" <S> After he said "Do I know you?", we hit him with some bricks. <S> This is probably controversial, but the comma is fair to remove: After he said "Do I know you? <S> " we hit him with some bricks. <S> "Fool!" he exclaimed. <S> This is fine. <S> Other examples of how I would do things: He yelled, "I want cake!" <S> He asked, "Do you want cake?" <S> Did he ask, "Do you want cake?" <S> I cannot believe he said, "I do not want cake"! <S> Note the exclamation point outside. <S> I am exclaiming; the fool who passed on cake was simply talking. <S> If the cake hater was also yelling we could do this: I cannot believe he said, "I do not want cake!" <S> This is slightly ambiguous with regards to my exclamation <S> but I find it acceptable.
| When the punctuation logically belongs inside the quote, this is where you put it.
|
"He was playing when he fell" or "he fell when he was playing"? Which one is correct? He fell down when he was playing in the field. He was playing in the field when he fell down. Why? <Q> Both are correct; you would choose according to context. <S> The first suggests that the fall is the topic (i.e. you are explaining the circumstances of a fall, for example to a doctor) while the second suggests his play is the topic (you are describing his play in the field, and mention the fall as the next event in a sequence.) <S> The ambiguity of the sentence structure arises because "when" has slightly different meanings in the two contexts. <S> In the first sentence, you use "when" to introduce the answer to a potential question: When did he fall down? <S> He fell down when he was playing in the field. <S> In the second sentence, the word "when" is actually used in place of the now-uncommon "whereupon," meaning "at which time": <S> He was playing in the field, whereupon <S> he fell down. <S> In speech however, the second sentence could convey the same meaning as the first, provided emphasis is place on the first clause, especially the gerund and noun playing and field . <S> In this case the sentence-reversal is used to emphasise the circumstance of the fall by bringing it to the beginning of the sentence. <A> For example: I was walking down the street with my mom when she got hit by a truck. <S> He was playing piano when he dropped dead. <S> Compare that with: <S> My mom got hit by a truck when we were walking down the street. <S> He dropped dead when he was playing piano. <A> Wouldn't: He fell down WHILE he was playing in the field. <S> and He was playing in the field when he fell down. <S> be both correct and viable?
| Grammatically, both are equally correct, but stylistically, the second construction can be used for greater effect.
|
What is the difference between "Per year" and "Per annum"? I know per annum is from Latin, but what are the real-world differences between these two phrases? Dictionary.com appears to suggest that they are synonyms (see definition below), but I wonder if one used in certain contexts and the other in other contexts? per annum : by the year; yearly <Q> From the Oxford Corpus of English : PER ANNUM <S> For 30 years, it had gone remorselessly ahead, at about 80% per annum. <S> An Elan bond, where the bondholder can exercise the right to be repaid in 18 months, currently yields 19 per cent per annum. <S> With this fresh impetus, the total edible oil processing capacity, including vanaspati, is expected to cross 20 million tonne per annum. <S> PER YEAR <S> We can currently get about 5% per year from investing in long-dated gilts, so we might aim to get 6% per year from the property. <S> Penetration of digital has hit 20 % in a year, with incremental revenue per subscriber at $22 per year and growing, he said. <S> This still leaves teachers $3,000 per year short of accountants, $17,000 short of computer systems analysts, and $25,000 short of engineers. <S> These example sentences are representative of the most common uses of these two phrases and, as one can see, there is no real difference between per annum and per year in usage. <S> As kiamlaluno says, per annum is traditionally used more in financial contexts than per year , but these sentences show that per year is also perfectly acceptable. <A> <A> Annum is the Latin word for year . <S> Its meaning in English has not really diverged at all, so it is basically just a snooty (or jargonistic) way to say year . <S> Fewer people know the word, so it is probably a good word to use if you are trying to bury the truth of something under a blanket of obscure verbiage. <S> The cynic in me begs to point out that financial institutions and lawyers like to use it...
| Per annum is used in financial contexts to mean for each year.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.