source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Is it correct to use "punctuation outside of the quotations", or "inside?" Possible Duplicate: How should I punctuate around quotes? When should end punctuation go inside quotes? Or is it region specific? I was always taught that when ending a quotation, that punctuation remains inside of the quote. I think he said, "we should go to the store." Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store?" As opposed to: I think he said, "we should go to the store". Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store"? This is just an arbitrary example off of the top of my head, and it's hard for me to come up with an example for the second usage because it looks completely wrong to me. I actually got into a small argument with my girlfriend earlier this year because she uses something similar to the second example, and said that's how she was taught (which is why I ask if it's region-specific.) Anyway, is there a correct usage for ending a quotation with punctuation? <Q> In American English, commas and periods go inside the quotation marks. <S> E.g., "What time is it?" <S> he asked. <S> Did he really say, "I don't care"? <S> So your example should be the following: <S> I think he said, "we should go to the store. <S> " Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store"? <A> The convention is universal for direct quotations ; British English places the punctuation inside the quotation marks just as other forms of English. <S> (Parentheses work in a similar fashion.) <S> There are however variations in British publishing practice when not making a direct quote, but the conventions are not entirely straightforward . <S> Something I find interesting is the marked tendency of programmers to place punctuation outside quotations and parentheses due to a familiarity with the programming convention of "nesting" punctuation. <S> I hope you were able to reconcile your differences... <A> My UK-centric interpretation would be: <S> I think he said, "we should go to the store". <S> Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store"? <S> The first sentence is a statement, correctly terminated with a period; the second sentence is a question, thus the last character should be a question mark. <S> Also, consider a statement that quotes a question: <S> I think he said, "Should we go to the store? <S> " Are you sure he said, "Should we go to the store"? <S> My understanding is that, in the first sentence, the question mark within <S> the quotation is effectively used to 'terminate' the sentence. <S> in the second, because the wrapper statement is a question itself, its question mark is used to terminate the sentence. <S> Unlike other cultural differences, I think this approach is common to both [British] English and American English. <S> However, personally (being a 'logical' person), I would offer an alternative to the first sentence in this latest example: <S> I think he said, "Should we go to the store?". <S> Are you sure he said, "Should we go to the store"? <S> Quite simply, I really don't like terminating a sentence with a quotation mark, so I add an 'incorrect' period after the first sentence. <S> Yes, it means I'll go to grammar hell, but my time on earth will be that bit more comfortable! <S> ;) <S> See: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm
| Semi-colons, question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation marks only if they're part of the quotation.
|
What's the difference between "harrowing" and "poignant"? What's the difference between "harrowing" and "poignant"? <Q> Odd question as these words are not often synonymous. <S> Briefly, harrowing means very distressing while poignant means emotionally moving or powerful. <S> Poignancy is not necessarily negative. <A> However, the former can be used in several other situations, as illustrated below: harrowing could mean: causing pain or distress. <S> It was after a harrowing journey on foot that we reached the belly of the Amazonian rainforest. <S> poignant could mean: <S> incisive <S> The journalist's poignant queries left the senator lost for words. <S> apt <S> ; to the point His poignant summary of the poem garnered a huge round of applause. <S> emotionally moving; sometimes to thepoint of distress. <S> The poignant tale of the girl's suffering moved many to tears. <S> pleasurably stimulating The sight of his childhood sweetheart brought back poignant memories. <A> Compare the etymology of the two words: harrow (n.) <S> "agricultural implement,heavy wooden rake," c.1300, haru, fromO.E. *hearwa, apparently related toO.N. harfr "harrow," and perhapsconnected with O.H.G. herbist"harvest" (see harvest). <S> Also possiblyfrom hergian (see harry). <S> harrow (v.) <S> especially in harrowing of Hell inChristian theology, from hergian (seeharry). <S> In the figurative sense of "towound the feelings, distress greatly"it is first attested c.1600 inShakespeare. <S> Related: <S> Harrowed;harrowing. <S> So "harrowing" carries connotations of being more long-term, part of an ordeal, or how you might feel after being worked over by a rake (or a swarm of ants). <S> poignant <S> late 14c., "painful to physical or mental feeling," from O.Fr. <S> poignant (13c.) <S> , prp. of poindre "to prick, sting," from L. pungere "to prick" (see pungent). <S> Related: Poignance; poignancy. <S> And "poignant" is sharper, more acute, possibly deeper. <S> It's the feeling of sudden loss or unexpected injury (like a scorpion sting).
| In a nutshell, "poignant" could be used in place of "harrowing", to indicate distress. I would say it's the difference between being being bitten by hundreds of ants (harrowing) and being stung by a scorpion (poignant).
|
Preposition to follow "copy and paste" The rows should be copied and pasted to the spreadsheet. Does that sound right? If not, how could we reword the sentence? I ask because "to" applies to "paste" but not to "copy". The logical preposition to follow "copy" would be "from", but I don't see how it would fit in this sentence. <Q> This is a unique situation in my opinion, because "copy and paste" has attained the status of a compound verb in common parlance, so can be conjugated as such. <S> I would say that the sentence you have proposed is both clear and flowing, and would be accepted without comment by 99% of English speakers, whereas the "correct" alternatives would be a little clunky to read. <S> Therefore I would stick with what you've got. <A> I think to sounds right there, and into could work, too. <S> The rows should be copied and pasted into the spreadsheet. <A> The sentence as you use it pertains a little different meaning than the alternatives. <S> The rows should be copied and pasted to the spreadsheet. <S> Here the spreadsheet is only the recipient of the copied data. <S> It is perfectly OK to say <S> The rows should be copied. <S> The from is only necessary if a source is specified. <S> The rows should be copied from, then pasted to, the spreadsheet. <S> or The rows should be copied from and pasted to the spreadsheet. <S> In these cases the spreadsheet is both source and target for the copied rows. <S> The rows should be copied then pasted to the spreadsheet. <S> And this gives a time dimension that is not relevant in your original sentence. <S> Of course the copying will usually take place before the pasting (especially when you are talking about the clipboard in todays operating systems), but it might be that the copy-past is done intertwined, reading and writing blocks at the time, which is probably true when copying files. <S> Will say, using then instead of and adds implementation or prozess specific knowledge that might not be necessary in the context. <A> There is nothing wrong with <S> The rows should be copied and pasted to the spreadsheet. <S> You appear to be considering the two verbs to form a single action, and yet they are two separate operations that can be performed upon the subject (rows). <S> First the rows are copied and then they are pasted. <S> What they are copied from is not stated, but is likely to be understood. <S> If you are really worried about clarity here you could write "The rows should be copied from the one spreadsheet and pasted to the other spreadsheet." <S> But the meaning of your example is clear, and what is really happening there is an omission of extra (and probably unnecessary) syntax. <S> The rows in question are probably referenced already and their identity understood by the addressee. <S> If they are not, the specifier should be added. <A> I think it should be: <S> The rows should be copied then pasted to the spreadsheet. <S> As it describes a series of actions pertaining to one object. <A> This way, the prepositions fit with their respective verbs, and the commas help keep them separate.
| You could say: The rows should be copied from, then pasted to, the spreadsheet.
|
Difference between "I have got" and "I have gotten" I see these two expressions are used almost identically in different contexts. Is there a difference between I have got and I have gotten ? <Q> In general, "have got" is the present perfect form of "to get" in UK English, while "have gotten" is the US English version. <S> However, even in US English, "have got" is used in certain instances, namely to mean present tense <S> have (in the sense of possession, or to mean <S> must ): <S> I have got a lot of friends. <S> (=I have a lot of friends) <S> I have got to go now. <S> (=I have to go now <S> /I must go now) <A> Gotten is probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical differences, but British people who try to use it often get it wrong. <S> It is not simply an alternative for have got. <S> (= <S> obtain) <S> They've gotten interested. <S> (= become) <S> He's gotten off the chair. <S> (= moved) <S> But it is not used in the sense of possession <S> (= have). <S> AmE does not allow <S> *I've gotten the answer. <S> *I've gotten plenty. <S> but uses <S> I've got as in informal BrE. <S> The availability of gotten does however mean that AmE can make such distinctions as the following: They've got to leave (they must leave) <S> They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave). <S> From the The Cambridge Encyclopedia of English Language . <A> I try to avoid the "have got" constructions whenever possible. <S> Usually where you feel like saying "I have got" you could substitute the simpler "I have" <S> and no one would be the wiser. <S> Unless you're speaking informally and using got for emphasis, as in "I have got to get out of this place," you can usually just drop that got . <S> As for gotten , I see no harm in using it informally in sentences like "I have gotten quite good at archery," although if you want to speak more formally you could say "I have become quite good at archery." <S> Still, who would use the latter when boasting about archery prowess in a bar?
| Gotten is used in such contexts as They've gotten a new boat.
|
How common is "thrice"? Our proofreader, a native speaker of American English, just won't let me use this word. Every single time I try to sneak it onto one of our sites, she replaces it with three times . Now, I do realize that thrice is quirky, but how quirky is it really? Is it awfully archaic? Is there a chance that native speakers won't understand it at all? I know I could just search a corpus or five, but I don't feel like looking at cold stats (or the Wiktionary usage notes , for that matter). Instead, I am asking members of this community for their very personal, highly subjective, extremely biased opinions. <Q> Thrice is somewhat common in America, but is generally considered pretentious. <S> Sometimes it’s used in a quirky sense by regular folks, but as Flotsam related, thrice is used throughout the older translations of the Bible. <S> So many Americans may not use or understand it outside of that context. <A> The only instance I can think of when someone used thrice on TV was when Mr. Burns, who is often portrayed using out-of-date language, uses the word thrice in this passage : <S> All right, Simpson, let’s go over the signals. <S> If I tug the bill of my cap like so, it means the signal is a fake. <S> However, I can take that off by dusting my hands thusly. <S> If I want you to bunt, I will touch my belt buckle <S> not once, not twice, but thrice. <S> If I tug this here. <S> . <S> . . This is intentionally used by the writers because it sounds funny to the viewers, even though they understand it. <S> I’d say that in Canadian English for sure, and in all the American English I've heard on TV and in person, people generally don’t use the word thrice . <S> Oxford Dictionaries Online says that thrice is chiefly formal or literary <S> And Google n-grams shows that twice is far more popular than <S> two times and "three times" is far more popular than thrice . <A> Thrice can be used but should be followed by a word. <S> For example, thrice married , thrice divorced , etc. <S> You should not say something like: "I had to go to the store thrice. <S> " The proper way is three times . <A> In fundamentalist Christian circles, thrice is relatively common. <S> I hear or read the phrase thrice holy in reference to God probably three times a year. <S> I go to church about three times a week. <S> I never hear or read it outside of that context. <A> A New York Times search reveals it is fairly common in the US . <S> I also tried with the Guardian (a UK paper) and with Australian and Indian papers. <A> I use thrice periodically. <S> I've found that in practice, however, some listeners think I've said "twice", as the two rhyme. <A> My gut instinct as a British English speaker is that if you used thrice , it would be assumed that you'd used it for some special rhetorical/poetic effect, or you were being pretentious (or both). <S> It's non-standard and not colloquial. <S> I'll stick my neck out and say that Australians would be more likely to think it pretentious. <A> Thrice was not too obscure to be used in the hit musical comedy and the movie A Funny Thing <S> Happened on the Way to the Forum . <S> You can find the memorable quote featuring thrice here <S> Philia: That's the brute who raped my country, Thrace! <S> Pseudolus: <S> He raped Thrace? <S> Philia: <S> And then he came and did it again! <S> And then again! <S> Pseudolus: <S> He raped Thrace thrice? <S> Pseudolus was played by Zero Mostel (right, in picture; Phil Silvers at left). <S> Picture -- from homevideos.com <S> The OP asked for our very personal, highly subjective, extremely biased opinions and <S> mine is that if I say thrice and the person I am talking to does not immediately think of this quote, then the heck with him.
| I'd hazard a guess that the majority of uses of the word are in a larger expression along the lines of "not once, not twice, but thrice", and rarely by itself. It is fairly common — in my opinion.
|
What is the difference between "onerous" and "arduous"? Is there any difference in the meaning of these words? Which one of them is used the most in everyday conversation? In my vocabulary for both words I've found essentially the same meaning: "difficult to do and needing a lot of effort". <Q> To me the difference lies in their origins. <S> "Onerous" means "burdensome" - not necessarily difficult or physically hard, but unwelcome and required of one. <S> (Maybe unpleasant, or just taking time away from other things) <S> These may overlap in many cases, but to me are quite different. <A> I would say that "onerous" implies more of a mental difficulty, while "arduous" is a physical difficulty. <S> Examples: That contract placed an onerous duty on me because I had to tabulate the reports every day. <S> Moving the furniture upstairs was an arduous labour. <S> However, the distinction is usually fairly transparent in context, so you can generally use either word without loss of meaning. <A> Onerous means "burdensome", related to onus "burden". <S> Arduous means "difficult" and derives from the Latin arduus "high, steep". <S> For example, it would be appropriate to refer to: ...the onerous backpack on our arduous climb... <S> or, in a figurative sense, ...the onerous secret in our arduous relationship... <S> It would make less sense to talk about "the arduous backpack on our onerous climb" or "the arduous secret in our onerous relationship".
| "Arduous" means "requiring effort". So while there is certainly some overlap, the words are not perfect synonyms.
|
Is the question mark misused in affirmative sentences? For example, I found the following sentence written by a native English speaker (UK) so I'm going to assume that he knows how to put it the right way, although I wouldn't use this form. I now have a bit more time to fix bugs etc but I'm open to offers if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me? Is it correct or is the question mark misused here? <Q> In that respect, the question mark conveys the speaker's meaning in a way that could not otherwise be indicated in writing without the use of additional words. <S> So I'd say that this use of the question mark is correct when recording informal speech like this - but formally, it should really be reserved for actual questions. <A> I now have a bit more time to fix bugs <S> etc <S> but I'm open to offers if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me? <S> This sentence/question is different than a statement and different than the " up-talking " that happens when people occasionally (or all the #$! time) raise the pitch of their sentences and phrases. <S> If the person said I now have a bit more time to fix bugs <S> etc <S> but I'm open to offers if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me. <S> they are merely stating that they have time and are open to offers for help. <S> By raising the pitch at then end (spoken) or adding the question mark (written) they are implying a question: Would anyone like to offer to help me? <S> I hear this type of usage commonly. <S> We will proceed with the next item on the agenda, unless there are any questions? <S> no? <S> Ok, moving along... <A> In written speech this is a questionable usage. <S> Nevertheless, when speaking, people frequently end declarative sentences with a rising intonation to invite the listener to consider the sentence as an invitation to agreement or action. <S> One hears this kind of thing especially in the southern United States. <S> "Anyway, I had this Chrysler? <S> It had a four-barrel carburetor? <S> " <S> Here the speaker is making declarations about a car, but making them sound like questions so that the listener will respond (probably nodding or saying "uh-huh") in a way that indicates interest in and understanding of the story being related. <S> If your example sentence were spoken this way, listeners would likely interpret it as a request for help, not merely a statement of a condition. <S> But if you write it, you should leave out the question mark. <S> Addendum <S> Since I wrote this, I've become aware that the practice of ending declarative sentences with a rising intonation actually has a name: <S> uptalk <S> n <S> a manner of speaking in which declarative sentences are uttered with rising intonation at the end, as if they were questions. <A> This is something you see very often in spoken language. <S> As we talk, we are making a syntactic structure. <S> It's common for syntactic structures to change, or be re-analyzed, as we go along. <S> So in this case, "if anyone wants to help maintain this module with me?" is reanalyzed, on the fly, as "Does anyone want to help maintain this module with me?" <S> In careful writing, since readers can go back and check what you said previously, this sort of on the fly reanalysis is discouraged. <A> Just for the sake of anyone reading, I found this thread when I googled about this issue because Microsoft Word grammar checker tried to tell me that I should put a question mark at the end of this sentence: 'If you can do them in advance of this deadline then so much the better.' <S> I completely disagree with such a usage in written English. <A> Steve Melnikoff's is the best analysis, but can be taken further. <S> I think with the 'quick text parsing' that is becoming a part of our language pragmatics given the 'texting'/'information overload' age, punctuation marks in written materials are changing their purpose. <S> As Melnikoff point out, in the example you use the question mark is inviting a response. <S> The reader can visually 'skim' <S> right through e.g., an email, to get at what his interlocutor wants him to respond to. <S> The question mark is in effect basically an abbreviation with respect to what would have been written twenty years ago, when more verbiage would need to be required to have the request not come off in writing as rude. <S> English in the twenty-first century (in a particular context, at any rate). <A> Another example which I don't think quite fits any of the explanations above occurs in social media where the question mark is used at the end of declarative statements intended as accusations or harsh judgements. <S> The context shows the statement to be actually declarative, though it could be considered an interrogative in other contexts. <S> However, the poster doesn't want to come across as socially abrasive or intends to leave room for backing off of the judgement in case there is a backlash of disagreement or reverse judgement. <S> For example: "She is a narcissist?""A guy that overweight shouldn't be going to McDonald's?""Those so-called 'statues' <S> are just toys for overgrown children? <S> " <S> In this case it is a fundamentally disingenuous usage, because the poster clearly has a strong negative opinion about someone or some group, such that they want to express it, but don't feel either confident enough in themselves or the view to post it as a genuine declaration. <S> Another way to put it would be as an unconvincing attempt at avoiding social liability.
| While the sentence is not technically a question, the use of a question mark indicates that the speaker is inviting a response from others.
|
How do I say "what technologies should be *used* in a project"? Hey, I'd need a synonym for used in this phrase, because the meaning is from the "long term" point of view, something like: What technologies should be employed in a project for it to succeed in following 10 years? If I use used it seems like we take advantage of this technology right know; that's not the meaning I need. I'm using this kind of sentence very often in a documentation and I need a substitution for often . Regards. <Q> Examples Originally conceived by IBM in 1997, the EJB 1.0 and 1.1 specifications were adopted by Sun in 1999. <S> Spring Persistence with Hibernate (2010) <S> To get the benefits of ORM for non-J2EE applications, programmers typically adopt an alternative ORM framework, the most popular of which is Hibernate. <S> MySQL stored procedure programming (2006) <S> Unfortunately, users with Rails experience who adopt Grails are in for a few surprises because the tools are really quite different <S> The definitive guide to Grails (2009) <S> Note: nothing wrong with use and employ though. <A> Implemented would give the sense of being used when the technologies need to be used, not before. <A> You should try to make the phrase more active: <S> What technologies should the project use for it to succeed over the next 10 years? <S> I also think that use is a perfectly sensible word to use in the context; short, sweet, simple. <S> If you need an alternative, then employ <S> is probably one of the better options. <A> What technologies should be leveraged …
| What technologies should be adopted ...
|
Does "within an hour" mean before, after, or both? Does within mean before or after? Or does it mean both? For example, Do not drink or eat within an hour of these pills. <Q> do not drink or eat with in an hour of these pills ' <S> In my experience, this is very usual advice - I don't think it was intended this way; it could mean you need to wait for an hour after eating before taking the pills, or it could mean that you have to wait for an hour after taking the pill to eat. <S> I would interpret it as the latter, but it isn't entirely clear. <A> Within is a single word. <S> In the sense of your example, it means something like during , or before the end of : do not drink or eat during the hour before or the hour after you take these pills. <S> Consider also <S> : I want to have been promoted within a year of joining the company. <S> I want to live within five miles of the office. <S> Within the boundary of my lands, I am king. <S> See definition on Merriam-Webster . <S> Edited to point out that it applies to the hour before as well as the hour after. <S> The other answer is better. <A> Example : I am going to reach Tokyo within an hour. <S> specificaly says that it will takeme less than an hour or so to reach tokyo.
| Within' means inside some sort of time frame... so this sentence literally means that you must wait until an hour after eating before taking the pills, and must not eat until an hour after taking the pills.
|
"Put it into the refrigerator" or "Put it in the refrigerator"? Possible Duplicate: When should “into” be used rather than “in to,” and vice versa? I am sorry if the question is silly, but I think I heard both options spoken by native speaker. So, which one is correct? <Q> Incidentally, if you were in the UK, you would say, "Put it in the fridge". :-) <A> I agree with Steve Melnikoff that put something in sounds more natural. <S> Examples for use of put something into that portray <S> that fact are: put something into motion (formerly motionless) put into play put into effect <S> There is a verb put in something , meaning to apply, plant, spend (time/money), introduce, (nautically) enter a harbor or port. <A> For me, "into" implies motion (or perhaps motion in a metaphorical domain). <S> If you are using a verb which already has motion (such as "go" or "put") it is not necessary, and I think is slightly more formal, than "in". <S> There is rarely a difference in meaning, but where the "in" could be paraphrased as "from" or "out of", then "into" is definitely wrong. <S> So "I got the toy in the box" and "I got the toy into the box" are both fine, but "I found the toy into the box" doesn't make sense, and "I read the story into the book" is definitely wrong (unless you mean somehow the technical computer sense of read, where you can "read" something into somewhere, as well as out of somewhere). <A> I think that we use into when we want to emphasize the fact that an object or a person changes their place. <S> For example, we would say He got into the train instead of <S> He got in the train <S> but He is in the train instead of <S> He is into the train <S> But again, this is something I'm trying to remember properly, and I'm not absolutely sure. <A> Both usages are fine as per Wikitionary, based on the implied meaning: in: into Less water gets in your boots this way. <S> into: going inside (of) <S> Mary danced into the house.
| Both are correct, but "in" sounds more natural. Put something into puts the emphasis on the motion, put something in on the target.
|
What is the difference between "ostensibly" and "probably"? Most of the time ostensibly and probably are used interchangeably. What is the difference between these two words? <Q> They mean completely different things. <S> This book ostensibly provides the reader with all the information needed to write good prose. <S> Here the speaker is implying that some other information — the blurb on the book jacket, a review in a newspaper perhaps — has suggested that the book contains the information in question, but that the speaker makes no guarantees on that point and may even be setting up a rebuttal to that contention, following the first sentence with something like " <S> But I found it an utter waste of time." <S> This book probably provides the reader with all the information needed to write good prose. <S> In this sentence the speaker believes there is a good chance that the book in question satisfies the requirements. <S> It can also leave room open for doubt about that contention, but the opinions expressed are the speaker's and not someone else's. <A> You should be wary when words are used interchangably; that often means the speaker(s) do not know the precise meaning of the words. <S> Ostensible as an adjective means "intended for display" or "being such in appearance". <S> As an adverb , it either carries the noun's meaning or signifies "to all outward appearances". <S> Thus, it should be used as a close synonym of "apparently". <S> As Robusto noted, "probably" is a judgment, quantitative or qualitative, and should not be used as a synonym for it. <A> If something is probably true, then it may or may not actually be true. <S> Something is ostensibly true if someone has told you that it is supposed to be the case.
| Ostensibly means someone or something has set an expectation that a situation or condition will be a certain way; probably expresses the likelihood that it will be that way.
|
Should I place a question mark after "Can you (just) imagine"? I mean should I always split the sentence into two ("And can you imagine? He escaped through the window!") or I can just get away with one long sentence without a question mark at all (something like "And can you just imagine - he escaped through the window!"). What punctuation would be correct in such cases? <Q> The dash (or em dash) is used to introduce an abrupt break in thought, a reversal of meaning, or a summary statement following a list. <S> "What did you intend by — <S> but I forget my manners, please do come in. <S> " <S> "There is no way to do what you described <S> — oh, wait <S> , I think I see a way!" <S> "Rats in the basement, silverfish in the bathroom, cockroaches everywhere — <S> there is no end to the vermin <S> you will encounter if you rent that apartment." <A> You can treat them as separate sentences, in which case all the usual rules of sentences apply; in this case, terminate the first with a question mark and start the second with a capital letter. <S> Alternatively you could treat them as clauses, if you regard "Can you imagine" as an emphasis marker. <S> In that case you would join them with a comma, since they are part of one sentence, and don't put a question mark in at all. <S> I'm not sure whether that's a grammatically correct thing to do, but it does often reflect the flow of speech more accurately. <A> As Robusto said, a dash wouldn't work, but I could make a case for either a question mark, a comma, or a colon. <S> Can you imagine? <S> He escaped through the window! <S> Can you imagine: he escaped through the window! <S> Can you imagine, he escaped through the window! <S> The different punctuation marks imply slightly different pauses/inflections. <S> Also, the comma is probably ok for informal use, but I'd avoid it for anything formal, because it could be interpreted as a comma splice. <S> (Not that I can come up with a formal situation where I'd use something like "Can you imagine"...) <A> what about a semi colon for the above? <S> Can you imagine; he escaped through the window! <S> would that work?
| Since your two sentences are related and flow together, splitting them with the question mark instead of the dash feels better to me.
|
"Memorial" as a non-sad word? Can one use the word "memorial" (noun or adjective) without the negative/sad connotation of commemoration of the dead? <Q> cannot enjoy the commemoration for some reason. <S> To invite someone to their own memorial would be very bad taste! <S> Further, if you are commemorating an event, then "memorial" implies (to me) that the event itself was some kind of tragedy. <S> I would definitely use "commemoration" if I wished to avoid the sad connotations. <A> How about memento ? <S> an object or item that serves to remind one of a person, past event, etc. <S> ; keepsake; souvenir. <A> Presupposition: <S> A memorial is a device for preserving memories. <S> Hinging on the above requirement, I would say that, by definition, it does have to be negative. <S> If it's a memory, then it no longer exists. <S> If it's a memory worth preserving, then it's a positive memory. <S> Therefore, since it's a positive memory that no longer exists: it is negative. <S> QED
| I would say that if you are commemorating a person, dog, or any other physical thing, then "memorial" indicates that the thing no longer exists, or—at a minimum—
|
Why the opposite meanings of the word “bollocks”? The phrases the dog’s bollocks , the bee’s bollocks , and golden bollocks are used to mean something or someone excellent, fine, or well thought of. But if one were to say a load of bollocks , or bullock’s bollocks , it would mean something not very good at all. Does anyone know why bollocks has this opposite meaning according to the phrase it is used in? <Q> As the other posters have stated these type of two-faced word usages are very common in vernacular speech. <S> Over the last few decades, more and more have crept in to the common tongue. <S> Usually bringing a traditionally negative word in to a positive usage. <S> Using a word as if it was its own antonym. <S> Presumably it stems from the fact that what is bad often invites temptation and what is tempting must be desirable and what is desirable must be good... <S> wicked <S> - that girl is wicked ; <S> what a wicked idea (traditional negative, modern postive) <S> sick - <S> that band was sick (traditional negative, modern positive) <S> wild - <S> that land is wild ; what a wild ride (traditional negative, modern positive - to thrill seekers) bad - see Michael Jackson (open to debate given) <S> bollocks - what a load of old bollocks <S> ; that was the bollocks [note <S> old vs the as the adjective, one (implied to be) negative old , the other <S> the as a superlative] etc. <A> There were a lot of phrases created in the early part of the last century that were very much playing with language to create a ridiculous phrase meaning something that was good - that' gives us "the bees' knees", "the cat's whiskers" and similar things. <S> " <S> The dogs bollocks" is a modern take on that. <S> If I was to guess at a history I would think it was an anglicisation of "the mutt's nuts" which I would expect to date to a similar time to the other phrases I mentioned. <S> I've never heard either "the bees bollocks" or "golden bollocks" used by anyone, but I guess if they are they are similar to the above. <S> However "it's bollocks" is derogatory in the same way as "it's arse", "it's pants" or anything similar. <S> You can pretty much put anything vaguely taboo after "it's ..." and you have a convenient playground-appropriate derogatory term. <S> Bollocks does well mostly because it's quite funny and very satisfying to say. <S> I guess any confusion would be because you were looking at the word as a token of meaning, rather than the phrase and context, which ends up being most of language. <S> Sometimes these antipathetic contexts might collide- <S> in the late eighties I might have had a conversation with my granny in which she said the Poll Tax was wicked <S> and I said the new Salt'n'Pepa record was wicked and someone reading what we said might not realise we mean't exactly the opposite. <S> Come to think of it, maybe I wouldn't have either. <S> I might well have thought my granny thought the Poll Tax was really excellent, like the new Salt'n'Pepa record. <A> I don't know about the phrases in question, but words that have variant meanings that are complete opposites are not uncommon in English. <S> cleave split or sever(something), esp. <S> along a natural line or grain stick fast to or adhere strongly to (something) <S> fast moving or capable of moving at high speed immobile or hard to move; firmly or securely held <S> I feel such things are simply part of the endlessly entertaining panoply of the language we call English.
| It has probably become popular mostly because there is something inherently funny about the word "bollocks."
|
Use of the superlative when only two items are present When speaking with my mother a couple of days ago, I read to her a message I was sending to my cousin on her behalf ending with: "... the birthday of your youngest." [implying her child] She immediately leapt on this and said that as my cousin only had two children, the use of the superlative was not permitted and the comparative must be used instead: "... the birthday of your younger child." She was adamant that this was a solid grammatical rule that she was taught throughout her education. As a younger Briton, I have relatively little formal grammatical education to older people who were better taught in this regard, so I usually defer to her on grammatical rule knowledge. Is she right? Are superlatives not permitted when the domain of the object is only two? To me it seems bizarre. The minimum or maximum of any set does not only exist when there are different minima and maxima, or indeed something which is neither. <Q> It certainly used to be a rule, but there are grounds for ignoring it. <S> This would be strongest where you were uncertain of the number of children (not the case here). <S> But you can certainly argue that in logic, there is an oldest of 1, 2, or more children. <S> So, your mother is almost certainly correct about what she was taught. <S> Whether that stricture still has to be followed is considerably more debatable. <A> No, she isn't right. <S> The younger of two children is also the youngest. <S> (Of course, both are correct, so if she prefers "younger" in her own letter, that's perfectly reasonable.) <S> Indeed, there's a joke about referring to the only member of some category with a superlative (the joke being that the sole member is both the most X of its type and the least X of its type). <A> Some prescriptive style guides insist that the superlative can only be used when comparing three or more things, and that the comparative must be used when comparing only two things. <S> If you are writing in a very formal situation, you may want to follow this rule. <S> However, in practice people often use the superlative for comparisons between only two items. <S> This use of the superlative is completely acceptable in speech and may be used in writing for most audiences. <A> I had never heard of this rule before reading your question! <S> It's quite fascinating ... <S> To my ears, the superlative sounds awkward when used to pick out one member of a group which is generally understood, or explicitly given, to consist of two members. <S> For example, all of the following sound odd to me: my oldest parent his left nostril is smallest the youngest twin the smartest of the two The oddity of the above suggests that there is something to what your mother says. <S> On a side note, quite a number of languages pattern the same way, so it is clearly not an idiosyncrasy of prescriptive English; rather, it might (might!) <S> be a universal component of the meaning of superlatives. <A> This cropped up in conversation recently when I was discussing my younger son (of two children) getting married. <S> My learned friends all concurred that if you have two children you refer them to 'my elder' and 'my younger'. <S> If you have more than two children you can say 'my eldest child' for no.1 or 'my youngest son' for no.3. <A> Yes, she is definitely correct. <S> If you have two children you refer them to 'my elder' and 'my younger'. <S> If you have more than two children you can say 'my eldest child' for no.1 or 'my youngest son' for no.3. <S> Nowadays it seems only the second language English speakers have a chance to learn English grammar properly and rules of grammar in the native English speaking countries have been forgotten. <S> When you have two plans you would say plan A is better than plan B. <S> If you have three plans, you could say plan C is good, plan B is better (as compared to C only) and plan <S> A is the best (among the three plans). <S> the same goes with young, the younger and the youngest. <S> However, it depends on how English exam boards view it. <S> They can stick to the original rules or they want the world to use them differently, in other words, making them easier.
| I would say that if it is known that there are exactly two members of the relevant group, it is more natural to use a comparative. I agree that your mother is definitely correct.
|
What's the difference between "intervene" and "interfere"? What is the difference between intervene and interfere ? I think some example would really be helpful here. <Q> Well, you can, of course, look up the definitions for intervene and interfere , but if you need more than that... <S> When someone intervenes, they are generally coming in between two parties who are in conflict in some manner. <S> By intervening, they help attempt to resolve the conflict between the two parties. <S> So, for instance, you could have two people arguing, and someone else intervenes to try and stop the argument. <S> They are helping, and it has a positive connotation. <S> On the other hand, when someone interferes, they're just getting in the way. <S> It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with two parties in conflict or even more than one party at all. <S> So, if I'm trying to get my work done, and you interfere, you're stopping me (or at least impeding me) from getting my work done. <S> There's nothing positive about it. <S> It's entirely negative. <A> Intervene has a positive connotation, <S> while interfere has a more negative one. <S> To interfere can mean to restrain , while intervene more leans towards to come between (lat. <S> inter : between, venire : come), to engage. <S> Interfere comes from lat. <S> fere : to do. <S> One could say that interfere means to go between to do something, to restrain, disrupt, disturb with a focus on the doing part, the action that is done, while intervene means to come between to prevent, focusing on the motion part of coming between. <A> Here's what I understand and what I learned, summarized. <S> To Interfere is for someone or for a party to make his way to another person or other party's business or doing, or an act of making an edge for intrusion onto someone or some people's affairs or situation; make a mark over a person or situation. <S> To Intervene is to mediate or go in between parties, with a positive purpose of calming or making a situation better, or arrive at a solution, usually due to conflicts or situation between parties.
| Someone who interferes is getting in the way of someone else doing something.
|
What's the difference between "irritated" and "vexed"? What's the difference between "irritated" and "vexed", or between "to irritate" and "to vex"? <Q> While the other answers correctly point out that there are small distinctions in the literal meaning of these words, the most important difference is that vex is a formal, literary word, whereas irritate is what you would call “unmarked for formality”. <S> This means it could be easily used in very formal English or very informal English. <S> This distinction is important; whereas you wouldn’t likely find the word vex in ordinary everyday conversation, irritate might be used in any context. <A> A mosquito bite irritates; A scorpion bite vexes. <S> If you are vexed you are pretty much controlled by whatever it is that's doing the vexing. <S> It has you, so to speak. <S> Vex can also have a positive meaning, such as "He was vexed by her beauty and could not resist." <A> The difference between irritate and vex is small but definite. <S> To vex implies that you are irritating someone with trivial matters. <S> As my Webster's has it, vex means to make ( <S> someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. <S> with trivial matters : the memory of the conversation still vexed him <S> Take off the "trivial" aspect and you pretty much have the definition for irritate . <S> This is why, for example, in the movie Gladiator <S> it was unintentionally humorous for Joaquin Phoenix's Emperor Commodus to say "I'm vexed, I'm very vexed," by the victories in the arena of Russell Crowe's Maximus. <S> Put that way, it was an admission that as an emperor he was more petty than grand.
| Irritation is relatively mild and is something you find annoying but can handle without a lot of grief.
|
Why is the spelling of "pronounce" and "pronunciation" different? Why is the spelling of pronounce and pronunciation different? If one originally did not know the spelling of pronunciation , one would when hearing it verbally deduce its spelling to be pronounciation , which is the incorrect spelling. Why is the difference in spelling so? Also, are the two words pronounced differently? (I think I am using the American pronunciation for pronunciation ( pro-noun-ciation ), but according to howjsay.com , it's pronounced as pro-nun-ciation . Is this just for British English or universally?) <Q> pro-NOUN-ciation is universally wrong. <S> Even the highly permissive Merriam-Webster dictionary marks it with an obelus (÷). <S> Here is what they say about pronunciations marked with an obelus: <S> The obelus, or division sign, is placed before a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable. <S> This symbol is used sparingly and primarily for variants that have been objected to over a period of time in print by commentators on usage, in schools by teachers, or in correspondence that has come to the Merriam-Webster editorial department. <S> In most cases the objection is based on orthographic or etymological arguments. <S> ( source ) <S> As for why the word pronounce has an O between the two N’s and pronunciation <S> does not, it is unclear, but both words derive from French, <S> pronunciation from pronunciation and pronounce from pronuncier . <A> Trisyllabic laxing is the reason for the pronunciation difference, which led to the spelling difference. <A> English words descended from Latin " nuntiare ('to announce')" are non-uniform. <S> I've <S> bolded the irregularities: <S> pronounce | pronunciation <S> | pronounciation <S> | pronouncement <S> | x announce | annunciation (archaic) | <S> x | announcement <S> |x <S> denounce <S> | denunciation | <S> x <S> | x | x renounce <S> | renunciation | x | x <S> | x X <S> | enunciation | x | <S> x | <S> enunciate <S> It is scarcely more defensible to say that " pronounciation " is wrong than to say that " enunciate " should be replaced by " enounce " or " announcement " by the more venerable " annunciation ". <S> Contra the top answer, pro-NOUN-ciation is a fine pron(o)unciation , as it is common and easily-understood. <S> It may be regretted by sticklers, but this is the way millions of native speakers say it. <S> The spelling " pronounciation ", however, faces intractable stigma (spelling variants are generally tolerated less than pronunciation variants). <S> It is best avoided in formal writing.
| There is probably some variation in the way the different word stress affected how the words were spelled after being borrowed into English.
|
What's the difference between "to confirm" and "to verify"? What's the difference between "to confirm" and "to verify"? <Q> I don't think that these words can be used interchangeably. <S> These words are similar, but are usually used in different ways. <S> To verify something usually means being able to provide convincing evidence that it is true. <S> When something is to be verified, there is usually some doubt as to whether it is actually true. <S> To confirm something usually means providing some additional evidence that it is true. <S> When something is to be confirmed, it is usually already believed to be true. <A> Verify means that you doubt something is 100% true, so you double check. <A> Verification requires external evidence. <S> Confirmation requires a re-issuance of a believed statement. <S> Sometimes, one may trust a third party to obtain and review the evidence required for a verification, which could lead to both word choices being valid. <A> These are synonyms that can mostly be used interchangeably to mean "establish the truth of a thing." <S> Nevertheless, confirm <S> also has the additional meanings of to affirm and to ratify or authorize. <S> Verify can also mean to test something's validity. <A> Pretty much same. <S> It is matter of personal history of how the word has been received. <S> Confirm sounds more official to me.
| Confirm means that the truth is there and you double check.
|
What's the difference between "successive" and "consecutive"? What's the difference between "successive" and "consecutive"? <Q> First note that successive appears as a synonym of consecutive in dictionaries. <S> (see Merriam Webster's entry here ). <S> Now compare these examples that I chose at random and extracted from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) : <S> Consecutive "his unprecedented string of consecutive appearances" "has own the best actor Emmy two consecutive times" "named person of the year for the second consecutive time <S> " "account balance remains overdrawn for seven consecutive days" "the Irish made six consecutive NCAA Tournaments" Successive "on successive laps, Chris passed three cars" <S> "analysts say that successive governments failed to" "dramatic walk-off style in successive victories against the Seattle Mariners" "simultaneous and successive cognitive processes" "who have challenged successive military governments" <S> Here is what I observe in the examples (I hope I was lucky in my random choice of them): <S> In the examples that use consecutive , the fact that the events happened in a row without interruption seems to be something that the author wanted to emphasize. <S> However, in the examples that use successive , the fact that the events occur after each other with no interruption seems to play a secondary role. <S> Notice that you can remove successive from some of these sentences and the meaning <S> is not affected too much. <S> If you remove consecutive , the impact is in general higher. <A> I think there isn't any difference in denotation. <A> I think successive means without interruption, whereas consecutive implies a series with, perhaps, regular spaces between. <S> For example, in history, kings succeed each other without interruption. <S> Often the next king is chosen while the present king is still alive because it would be dangerous to leave a kingdom without a ruler. <S> As to consecutive, "he was elected for the 6th consecutive time in a contest which was held every seven years.ka
| I suspect that "successive" is more apt to be used in a casual nontechnical context, and "consecutive" when the subject involves math or is otherwise technical.
|
Apostrophe in “beginners guide” In the phrase beginners guide to … , where should the apostrophe go? Beginner ’ s Guide to […] Beginners ’ Guide to […] In my particular case, this is the title for a presentation so there are multiple beginners that are being addressed. <Q> Hurling or <S> The Beginner's Guide to Shoe <S> Hurling <S> The use of the apostrophe before s seems more apt in this context. <S> Although: Beginners' Guide to Shoe Hurling is also grammatically correct, but would make your presentation sound impersonal. <A> You can argue cogently for either position: Beginner's Guide - this is a guide for one beginner at a time (and is probably the best choice) <S> Beginners' Guide - <S> this is a guide for all beginners at the same time. <S> However, normally one person is reading (one copy of) a text at a time, and therefore "Beginner's" is the more normal. <S> It is more likely that you will be perceived as not knowing how to handle apostrophes if you use "Beginners'". <A> Either is correct and you'd have to choose based on context: "A beginner's guide to peg solitaire" vs "Beginners' guide to flash-mob culture".
| If your intention is to address each member of the audience directly, I suggest you prefix the phrase with an appropriate article, as in: A Beginner's Guide to Shoe
|
What does "I am married with three kids" mean? Where did this come from? It sounds nasty to me (I am not a native speaker). But it seems correct. Can somebody explain this? <Q> If you're talking about you and your spouse, it's not possible to be "married with " anyone; you can only be "married to " someone. <S> Hence there is no ambiguity in saying "married with three kids", as the "with" cannot be associated with "married". <A> Did you hear it or read it? <S> If you heard it, you may not have correctly heard the comma, which de-nastys to: <S> I am married, with three kids <A> Perhaps it isn't the best grammar. <S> It certainly isn't the clearest way of putting it. <S> However, it references the IRS (USA tax) code, in particular someone who is filing a joint return with a spouse and has other minor dependents. <S> Several examples of this construction can be seen here . <S> As such, any person who fills out a USA tax form is liable to know immediately what it means. <S> This terminology also was used in the name of a hit TV series . <A> I am married with three kids. <S> can safely be resolved to <S> I am married, with three kids. <S> at which point the context & the meaning become completely clear. <S> I don't think the sentence sounds nasty, as nobody would ever want to imply what you are referring to. <A> Great!As a non-native English speaker from another place of the world, sometimes you just don't figure out some of the rules for translation-that should obey the side of the foreigner language and not your own. <S> This case is a good example. <S> In Spanish you say: " <S> Estoy casado con Tania". <S> The wrong translation is: "I'm married with Tania". <S> The OK translation is: "I'm married to Tania". <S> In the question there's obviously a mistake which has its origin in a wrong translation. <S> Clearly, the punctuation helps to give a satisfying connotation, but the problem isn't there. <S> "I'm married to three children" is what "Estoy casado con 3 niños" means in Spanish and is totally wrong, mainly because the word con means with most of the time. <S> In this case, the translation should become not word by word but understanding the meaning of the phrase. <S> Much of the time the Spanish speaking people fall into this kind of mistakes out of the logic that Spanish language has implicitly, but to learn English as well as other idioms, you most open your mind to break those language barriers. <S> "I'm married with three children" is " <S> Estoy casado con 3 niños", nothing wrong, but <S> "I'm married to three children" is the nasty meaning you were seeing. <S> In case of a translation, the fix for it would be to add the comma. <S> Simple. <S> Anyway, this has to do with a wrong conception of the verbal form and how it is used. <S> My two cents, I'm new here and love idioms. <S> I'm always learning something new and this is an excellent place for doing that. <A> Without seeing/hearing it in context, this statement appears to be a completely neutral statement of fact - no implications, nasty or otherwise. <S> It's possible that we're missing some important detail. <S> You may need to provide more information about the context in which this phrase was used if we are to spot any hidden malice.
| It means the speaker is married, and has three children (generally living with them as dependents).
|
What is the difference between "horrify" and "terrify"? When would I use one, versus using the other? <Q> According to the online dictionary (thefreedictionary.com), they can be used as synonyms, but it leads one to believe that horrify would be more related with something [intensely] shocking, whereas terrify would be more related with fright or intense fear. <S> Something that would horrify you would definitely scare you, but probably more along the lines of being overly grotesque — think of films like "Halloween", "Nightmare on Elm Street", "Friday the 13th", "Saw", etc. <S> They scare you, but make use of a lot of gore (blood, body parts being removed, etc.); thus, the "horror" film category. <S> I would say something along the lines of "6th Sense" or "Signs" would be terrifying; not really a lot of gore, but the thought of coming face to face with a ghost or an alien would most likely scare you [fill you with terror] to the point where you couldn't move. <A> I could quite easily continue to be terrified by something that terrified me yesterday, whereas I think that if I was horrified by something yesterday, today I'm more likely just disgusted. <S> As an interesting aside, note that horrify:horrific <> terrify:terrific . <A> Even though Mary Shelley's monster terrorized both its creator, Dr Frankenstein, and the surrounding village, it is in the genre of Gothic horror. <S> I think this is because the reader is horrified at Dr. Frankenstein's obsession with working with dead bodies and creating life from death. <S> This work makes you feel horror (revulsion) rather than terror (fear). <A> Horror is something that, on an elemental level, makes you feel absolute revulsion and rejection. <S> I am horrified when I read about mothers who murdered their infants by microwaving them. <S> My gut just clenches and turns on itself with the thought of what that child went through before it died. <S> Terror is something that invokes an instinctual 'fight or flight' response - someone sneaking up behind you and scaring you, the sensation of centipedes running over your skin - it makes your heart race and your adrenaline rush. <A> My professor of Shakespeare taught that terror makes you flee (people will run away from a terrorist bombing) while horror draws you in (people are transfixed by horror movies and deadly car wrecks). <S> Terror = run; horror = stop and stare.
| To add to Will's answer, I think there is an element of shock and surprise in 'horrify' which there isn't in 'terrify'.
|
What is the pronunciation of the possessive words that already end in s? Possible Duplicate: When did it become correct to add an ‘s’ to a singular possessive already ending in ‘s’? Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare apostrophe? My name is Greg — this is Greg 's post. If my name ended with an 's', I am aware of the proper apostrophe usage (James → James'), but how should this be pronounced? Phonetically, am I Jameses best friend or James best friend? <Q> The pronunciation of the suffix "s" added for a possessive can have three forms : [s],[z] or [iz]. <S> The rules for pronunciation are <S> the same as for the plural. <S> You have: [s] Nick's Pope's Stuart's (voiceless consonant before s) <S> [z] Laura's Greg's Tom's (voiced consonant or vowel before s) <S> [iz] Travis's , Buzz's , princess's, coach's (when the singular words end up in "s","z <S> " or fricatives such as "sh", "ch","ge") Source: <S> The pronunciation of English, Charles Kreidler Note: Only the singular words add the possessive "s". <S> The absence of possessive "s" after a plural is for the ease of pronunciation, as exemplified below. <S> If a man with two mistresses wanted to speak of things he'd given to both of them, I'd advise him to drop the 's, rather than try to pronounce mistresses's with a straight face! <S> Okay, some hearers might then think he only had one mistress. <S> But that might even be an advantage - if one of the mistressess overheard him talking about the gift[s], for example. <S> Take James's , where quite a few people drop that last s in writing. <S> But very few people would fail to pronounce it - especially not parents of James! <S> Unless maybe if they're talking about James's essay , for example. <S> Even then I would think it slightly odd to drop the s because it's not that hard to say. <S> YMMD, of course. <S> However, if the possessive is not added, so we have only James' , the word is pronounced (in careful speech) <S> exactly as if it were by itself. <S> In other words, the possessive doesn't make a difference. <S> (the above answer was merged from the ones provided by FumbleFingers and Bogdan Lataianu) <A> James' [z] best friend sounds better. <S> If this is the right form, then according to this thread , [z] would apply: <S> In the suffix -(e)s , indicative of the plural of a noun, the possessive case of a noun, or the 3rd. <S> person singular past tense of a verb, the -s is read: voiceless, [s] , when it comes after a voiceless consonant ... <S> cats, tracks, boots, walks, etc. <S> and voiced, [z] , when it comes after a voiced consonant or a vowel. <S> dogs, cars, skies, keys, days, etc. <A> I am not an English major, but I'm quite literate, and literal as well. <S> My son's name is James. <S> I am far from ordinary, and have never been, so this comes as no surprise... <S> "very few people would fail to pronounce it — especially not parents of James!" <S> I do not pronounce possession with regard to my son's name ending in an 'iz'. <S> Someone, somewhere, recognized that there wasn't to be an s after the apostrophe, because there's already one s there, and that if your son's name is James, putting an iz on the end of it is like nails on a chalk board.
| The possessive s is dropped from writing in many contexts, but there's no universal agreement about exactly which.
|
What does the phrase "good for you" mean? What does this phrase mean? And in what cases is it appropriate to use it? <Q> Two phrases: <S> "X is good for you. <S> " This just means something is healthy for you, beneficial for you, etc. <S> "Good for you!" <S> This can be used in seriousness, such as Bruno said. <S> It can either mean "Congratulations!" <S> and "That's great!", or as a word of praise. <S> The phrase can also be used sarcastically, especially if delivered with an overly enthusiastic tone. <S> In this case, it carries the connotation of, "Wow, that's great. <S> Do you want a pat on the back or something?" <A> Definition from Cambridge Dictionaries Online : <S> Good for you! <S> (Australian also Good on you!) <S> used to show approval for someone's success or good luck. <S> You passed your exam - good for you! <S> Two additional examples that I extracted from the COCA : 1. <S> I don't think you would want to know either. <S> Good for you for not knowing. <S> 2. <S> He's going to make lots and lots of money! <S> Good for you, congratulations! <A> "Good for you" generally has an abrasive expression in itself. <S> When someone boasts too much about one's qualities which are of least inclination for the other person, then he would say "Good for you". <A> Good for you is usually used to express approval toward a person, but in some contexts it has a different meaning. <S> I'm taking my driving test next month. <S> Good for you! <S> I have a new car. <S> Good for you. <S> Eating spinaches is good for you.
| The meaning of the more generic phrase good for is "having a advantageous effect on".
|
When would you say "woods", and when would you say "forest"? Is there any difference here at all? <Q> To add more nuance (and confirm what's already been said) to the difference, I find (in AmE): you can say 'a forest' (in general), or 'the forest' (a particular one), and 'the woods' (the one that you're walking through), but it would seem strange to refer to an collection of trees as 'a woods' (because of number agreement) or 'a wood' (because that would refer to a particular piece of lumber. <S> But a small collection of trees is not necessarily 'the woods'. <S> Something smaller (without specifying actual size) would be called ' a stand of trees '. <S> (i.e. if you can go into the collection and not see the end of the trees, then you're not in a stand of trees) 'forest' has a slightly more official, formal feel to it than 'woods'. <A> It normally comes down to scale. <S> I wouldn't consider the half-acre of trees behind my house a forest, but I frequently describe it as "the woods out back". <S> On the flip side, while I would typically describe, let's say a national park as a forest <S> , I might also say that someone lost there is "lost in the woods" <A> These are almost completely synonymous, but I'd say a forest is a more defined (and probably larger) set of trees than woods . <S> As in, if it has a name, it's almost certainly a forest. <S> If it's just a clump of trees that may or may not end after ten feet, it's woods ; <S> if, however, you know that it stretches for five miles in each direction, then it's a forest . <A> Originally, 'forest' meant a royal hunting ground, which is why they are usually larger than 'woods'; woods can be just a few trees, whereas a forest is usually much larger and denser, both in trees and vegetation. <S> Also in some places such as the UK, woods can be plural because each 'wood' may be in some way separated or distinct. <A> Forestry is coniferous trees planted as a crop to be harvested. <S> It doesn't matter how small or large the stand of trees is, it's still forestry. <S> I suspect that has influenced my usage, so that to me, a forest may be coniferous or deciduous, but my initial image would be coniferous. <S> By contrast, a woodland is always deciduous, established, broadleaf trees, widely spaced but with little undergrowth, easy to walk through. <S> I wouldn't usually say a wood . <S> I do go for a walk in the woods . <S> These too are always deciduous in my usage, but I wouldn't be confused by another person using these words for coniferous trees. <S> Perhaps all this is influenced by the fact that there are very few natural stands of conifers in Ireland. <S> When I was in Colorado, the pine forests hugging the hills felt quite dark and oppressive, and the lack of any broadleaf other than scrub oak began to get to me.
| 'forests' are bigger than 'woods'.
|
What's the difference between "rock" and "stone"? What's the difference between "rock" and "stone"? <Q> Above, a Google Image result for "Rock", below, for "Stone" Note that a boulder is probably bigger than a rock 1 . <S> Below, a boulder <S> Oh, also note that rocks and boulders are made from stone. <S> (This answer is mildly tongue in cheek ) <S> 1 Notable exception: Uluru <S> /Ayre's Rock . <A> Generally, usage has made the two words completely interchangeable. <S> However, I would use stone to refer to the stuff from which rocks are made. <S> His house is made of stone. <S> is probably better than His house is made of rock. <S> But He built his house out of stones. <S> is as acceptable as <S> He built his house out of rocks. <A> I'm not sure that I would ever refer to "a rock". <S> To me, "rock" is a substance - I recognise "a rock" but think of it as a principally American word. <S> I do talk about "a stone" as well as "stone" - "stone" is the substance which has been, or may be, used for building.
| A rock is bigger, possibly immovable, you couldn't throw it with one hand, at a pinch you might be able to with two.
|
When using online dictionaries to verify word meanings, do different geographical regions turn to different dictionaries? Does anyone have a good map of which online dictionary will most likely apply to a given English speaking community? <Q> I'd say the Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive British English dictionary. <S> Using Gomez's technique, it seems that the Macquarie Dictionary is the one preferred in Australia. <A> Here's a pseudo-scientific, fascinating look at dictionary use by region using Google Trends. <S> For clarity, each phrase was crafted to return a dictionary as the first hit in (American, Western Washington) Google. <S> ( A second graph, featuring different dictionaries ) Especially interesting are the usage statistics for the Philippines and India, though the former seems heavily skewed by Tagalog search results. <S> As a bonus, adding the term "Google dictionary" has some interesting results. <S> And if we add Dictionary.com, suddenly things become amazingly skewed. <A> Hopefully The languages vary tremendously in both spelling and meaning, in some areas (such as cookery and food) more than others. <S> The language is relatively common and certainly in the modern age with the perfusion of international television, we understand many of the differences orally due to exposure. <S> This does not mean we see the spellings everyday, or have a firm grasp of the usage differences, particularly when obscure. <S> Using a dictionary tailored for another region than your own is unwise at best. <S> The languages are not the same, though are mutually corruptive.
| Merriam Webster's might be the definitive American English dictionary.
|
How are bracket ellipsis [...] used in quotations? I see this type of syntax often, but I do not know how, when or where they should be used. "It is the case that [...] the inconvenience is altogether imaginary." Is it okay to use if I need to insert a quotation into an essay, but the quote is long and I want to omit the irrelevant parts? Am I allowed to use the syntax multiple times per quotation ? <Q> Square brackets are used in quotes to mark information that was not in the original quote. <S> This applies equally to added words and omitted words. <S> Compare <S> I wonder... who did that? <S> and I wonder [...] <S> who did that? <S> In the first, the speaker is pondering something; the question is somewhat rhetorical. <S> In the second, the question is literal. <S> Edit: yes, you can use this multiple times in a quotation. <S> Just be careful not to leave out so much that the quote becomes incomprehensible, or worse, changes meaning. <A> The Chicago Manual of Style <S> (16th ed.) <S> discusses square brackets with ellipses in 13.56. <S> It indicates that in some languages (especially French [11.35]), ellipses are used more commonly than in English, and bracketed ellipses are therefore more necessary in such languages. <S> CMS seems to default to non-bracketed ellipses for English-language works, but notes that in a particular work where confusion might result between ellipses or suspension points in a work being quoted repeatedly, and an author's own ellipses, bracketed ellipses may be used, "but only after explaining such a decision in a note, a preface, or elsewhere." <A> I have checked sources and discovered my belief about square-bracketed ellipses is wrong! <S> :-( <S> Square brackets are only used with ellipses to distinguish editorial ellipses from quoted text where the author uses ellipses, i.e. in an article/chapter where no quoted author uses ellipses square brackets should not be used. <S> If a paragraph is missed out, or several lines of verse, the ellipsis should be on a line by itself. <S> Butcher, Copy-editing, 3rd edn,p. <S> 274 <S> New Hart's Rules, OUP (2005), pp. <S> 159--61 (slightly different) <A> The University of Houston–Victoria website explains that when omitting part of a quote in which the original author used ellipses, the writer is to use ellipses within square brackets. <S> (MLA style) <S> Ellipses in Work that Includes EllipsisIf the original work includes ellipses, include your ellipses in brackets [. . .] <S> to distinguish between yours and the author’s. <S> Original: I had an experience I can't prove, I can't even explain it, but <S> everything . . <S> . <S> tells me that it was real. <S> I was part ofsomething wonderful, something that changed me forever; a vision of the Universe that tells us undeniably how tiny, andinsignificant, and how rare and precious we all are. <S> Parts Omitted: “I had an experience I can't prove, I can't even explain it, but everything . . . <S> tells me that it was real. <S> I waspart of something wonderful, [. . .] <S> a vision of the Universe that tells us undeniably how tiny, and insignificant, and how rareand precious we all are” (Contact 231). <S> Website: https://www.uhv.edu/university-college/student-success-center/resources/e-p/ellipsis-use-in-mla-style/ <A> The three dots, ellipsis (plural, ellipses), indicate missing text. <S> In square brackets they indicate missing paragraphs. <S> Chris, freelance editor
| Square brackets, containing text, can be used in a quotation to help the sense of the extract, or an explanation, i.e. any useful text that is not part of the original quotation.
|
How to pronounce family names? Does anyone know a tool to look up names like Rumbaugh ?Sometimes I hear something like "rumba" or even "rambo". Is there a dictionary where I could look up the correct pronunciation? <Q> One major issue with family names is that they can be pronounced however the family decides. <S> Some pronounce the names as they were in the original language, some Anglicize the pronunciation, some Anglicize the spelling then adjust the pronunciation to fit, etc. <S> A good example of this is Stephen Colbert. <S> He pronounces his last name koʊlˈbɛər while his father and brother use ˈkoʊlbərt . <S> Because of this flexibility, no reference will be able to tell you exactly how to pronounce any one person's name. <S> The best they could do would be to provide an array of common ones. <A> Within the limits described by the other poster (Dusty), these websites do this job pretty well: Forvo <S> (If the word does not exist, you can submit it and someone will pronounce it eventually.) <S> Ingolo <S> Here is Rumbaugh from Forvo. <S> You may also try the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary (hardcover). <A> PronounceNames.com which calls itself a "Dictionary of Name Pronunciation" has a good list and also takes requests (though its unclear how much time it would take to post a answer/suggestion) <A> Family names are proper nouns. <S> A service like that however would be interesting.
| According to English rules, proper nouns can be pronounced any way the speaker chooses to.
|
Would you use the word "swum" these days? Would you use the word "swum" these days? I mean, grammatically, it is the past participle of the verb "to swim", but it seems to me that no one uses it anymore. If it's the case, how would You describe the fact that You have already performed an act of swimming today? With "swum" it would be like this: "I've already swum today" <Q> I would see that word for swim race or competition: <S> I have already swum (the 500m swim race) today as opposed to the more common I have already been swimming today or: <S> I have already gone swimming today <S> (you generally "go swimming", not just "swim") <A> I've swam <S> is more common than <S> I've swum in casual usage. <S> In formal usage and printed material, <S> I've swum is still much more common. <S> Are there any trained linguistics willing to weigh in on the matter? <A> The difference, not directly pointed out thus far, is that swam stands on its own. <S> Swum needs a helping verb such as have. <S> It is a difference in the KIND of past tense. <S> Popularity is not, in the short run, a measure of correctness. <S> Over time, language, being a fluid thing may change its rules
| A quick, unscientific survey of Google and Google NGram suggests: swum is still widely considered as being the correct past participle of swim .
|
Is there any rule for the placement of space after and before parentheses? I often get stuck when forming or formatting a sentence with one or more parentheses. For example, I wrote an answer on another Stack Exchange site, in which I wrote: ...whereas, my phone(xperia x10 mini) comes with several widgets... which, afterwards, I thought should be: ...whereas, my phone (xperia x10 mini) comes with several widgets... But in some cases I feel the former way is correct, like: ... phones which have a camera include IPhone(5MP), Nokia N8(12MP), Nokia X6(3MP).... Is there any rule for the placement of space after and before parentheses? <Q> The one rule remains readability . <S> No space before a parenthesis is usually used with functions: f(x) <S> Since your technical description of camera isn't a "function", I would still go with: ... <S> phones which have camera include IPhone (5MP), Nokia N8 (12MP), Nokia X6 (3MP) That being said, if you have a consistent convention throughout your document with no space before parenthesis, you could go with it. <S> But as you illustrate in your question, there are instances where a space is needed. <A> Ordinarily a parenthesis ( pl : parentheses) introduces a term or clause that modifies whatever precedes it. <S> It would be preceded by a space and followed by whatever would otherwise follow that term in the absence of the parenthetical remark ( e.g. , a space, comma, or period). <S> In mathematics, science, marketing <S> (there's a strange set of bedfellows!), and in certain abbreviations, a parenthesis may be part of a term. <S> As such it serves purely as a character rather than having the functional role of introducing a modifier. <S> It would be as incorrect to insert anything before the parenthesis- qua -character as it would be to put arbitrary spaces within any word. <S> Thus, preceding a parenthesis (or opening bracket of any kind, such as "[" or "{") by a space provides a clear and well-understood mechanism to distinguish these two uses. <S> For example, we would read "IPhone(5MP)" as being the full name of a particular kind of IPhone, whereas "IPhone (5MP)" would refer to something whose name is "IPhone" which happened to have the "5MP" property. <S> That is a subtle distinction in this case, but perhaps it's strong enough to permit a reasoned choice concerning the usage that best conveys the intended thought. <A> Do not put a space after the opening or before the closing parenthesis. <S> In other words, there shouldn't be any space between the parentheses and what they enclose, but there should be spaces around the parenthetical clause. <S> If you're writing in a language other than English, e.g. a mathematical equation or a programming language, naturally you need to use the rules of that language instead. <A> If I saw your last example while editing your piece, I would add spaces. <S> That is, at best, an unconventional way to use parentheses. <A> Like the first answer, f(x) -> <S> no space before opening parenthesis Treat the closing parenthesis as ending a word = <S> > <S> suffix a space if it's followed by another word and not a punctuation marker (full-stop, comma, [semi-]colon, etc.). <A> A space after and before the word in parenthesis. <S> Exception, when there's a punctuation after the parenthesis (,. <S> ;:). <S> You only use it with no space to the previous word when is a math function, x(4+2) + <S> y(2*2). <A> I agree that a space is required in your example. <S> Grouping of the product name and its parenthesized resolution is achieved with the use of commas.
| When writing in English (not a programming language or math), the rule is: put a space before the opening parenthesis, and either a space or a punctuation mark after the closing parenthesis.
|
Does "whereabouts" function as a singular or plural noun? His whereabouts is unknown vs His whereabouts are unknown Which is correct, or is this simply a matter of preference? <Q> Wiktionary marks <S> whereabouts as plurale tantum . <S> Merriam-Webster says that it's a "noun plural but singular or plural in construction". <S> The Collins English Dictionary says that it is "functioning as singular or plural", and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says that it is "used with a singular or plural verb". <S> The Corpus of Contemporary American English has 23 cites for "whereabouts are unknown", but only 3 cites for "whereabouts is unknown". <S> Finally, Google returns 1.1M results for "whereabouts are unknown" vs 191k results for "whereabouts is unknown". <S> So, neither of the forms is unheard of, but "whereabouts are unknown" is preferred by a rather significant margin. <A> Since @RegDwight has already provided an answer with strict supporting background information, let me answer this question from a conversational perspective. <S> I would think of a person's whereabouts as places where he has been . <S> Note my emphasis on places . <S> That's plural. <S> So, His whereabouts are unknown. <S> The context here would be that we do not know the places <S> he has been going to. <A> The Associated Press 2011 <S> "His whereabouts is a mystery." <S> While I believe it to sound and appear incorrect, the AP is the horse's mouth. <A> Considered from the standpoint of sense alone, the singular seems more correct to me, since the meaning of the word is something like “ location .” <S> The New York Times stylebook <S> has long required that “ whereabouts ” be treated as singular . <S> But one’s ear sometimes disagrees. <S> And Bryan A. Garner notes in his Dictionary of Modern American Usage that the plural verb is 10 times as common as the singular in printed sources. <S> So I guess you could conclude that the plural verb is preferred by most writers .
| Stylebook records "whereabouts" to take a singular verb.
|
What word best describes a small store that sells only glasses (spectacles)? What word would or combination of words would best describe a small store, in which only glasses (spectacles) are sold? Here are some of my guesses, but I think they are all wrong: Eye ware Glass Shop Glasses Shop Glass Store Glasses Store Optics Store (What's your option?) I need it for two cases: one is for a sign on that store, the other one is for this sentence: "Two years earlier she had worked in a (small) _ __ _ __ ." It is very possible that there are different words (or combination of words) for these two different cases. Please, remember that only glasses are being sold in that store/shop. <Q> How about "Optician's?" <A> I would not suggest the use of "glass" or "glasses"; it would not be specific enough to identify the store as somewhere eyeglasses are sold. <S> There are stores that sell collector's edition glasses (as in those that you drink from), and so there could be some confusion involved. <S> I would also not suggest "optics" as there are other types of optics out there as well - lenses and such for cameras, for example. <S> "Opticians" (with or without the apostrophe) would imply that the store also provides eye exams, at least to me. <S> If that is the case - that there is an optometrist on site - then this would be a good choice, regardless of whether it is in the UK or here in the US. <S> I think the K.I.S.S. approach would be best - "eyeglass store". <S> This it to the point and does not leave room for doubt as to what is sold there. <S> It isn't fancy or elegant, but it is about as accurate as you can get. <A> In the U.S., you should call it an "optical shop" (1.27 million google hits), which I believe is the most common term in American English for it. <S> "Optical store" only gets 1/5 of the hits, although as nohat points out, this is what both LensCrafters and J.C. Penney call their optical shops. <S> I think they're trying to make their locations sound a little fancier. <S> In Britain, as many people have pointed out, it's an "optician's". <A>
| For what it's worth, both LensCrafters and JC Penney Optical call their retail locations "optical stores".
|
New Zealand pronunciation of "women" vs "woman" I have read in a number of places that the NZ pronunciation of "women" must be rather peculiar. Quoting from just one such place : For some years I've noted the tendency of Kiwis to pronounce "woman" and "women" identically (as "woman"). To which an Australian replies: It appears there is a vowel shift going on in New Zealand (NZ) English [...] [T]he vowel in "women" which in Australian English is the same as the vowel in "hit", is often, in NZ, reduced to a schwa [...]. It makes the plural sound like our singular. I don't think the NZ pronunciation of the singular is the same as the NZ plural A New Zealander begs to differ: I've noticed this trend over the last few years also. To me as a kiwi it doesn't sound anything like a mispronounced plural -- it just sounds as if the speaker is using the one word for both singular and plural. [...] I see it as part of a much larger tendency to confuse singular and plurals. [Several examples follow.] Who's right? Who's wrong? Wikipedia has this : In New Zealand English the short i of KIT is a central vowel not phonologically distinct from schwa /ə/, the vowel in unstressed "the". It thus contrasts sharply with the [i] vowel heard in Australia. Recent acoustic studies featuring both Australian and New Zealand voices show that the accents were more similar before the Second World War and that the KIT vowel has undergone rapid centralisation in New Zealand English. Because of this difference in pronunciation, some New Zealanders claim that Australians say "feesh and cheeps" for fish and chips while some Australians counter that New Zealanders say "fush and chups". So, there appears to be a vowel shift going on; but I'm not sure if there might be some truth to the people-just-stop-caring-about-certain-plurals argument as well. I hope we have enough New Zealanders on board to shed some light on this. Can you provide a guide to how to pronounce "women" and "woman" in NZ English? (I've done some searching for audio files or YouTube videos, but haven't found anything yet.) Would you say that it's just the vowel shift, "a much larger tendency to confuse singular and plurals", or both? How recent is this trend? (E.g., if you are a native speaker of NZ English, is your pronunciation of "women" different from that of your parents/grandparents?) <Q> The most obvious giveaway of a New Zealand accent (as opposed to Australian) is pronouncing the "i" in "fish" further back, so <S> it's almost a "u" ... <S> for example, "fush and chups", which is not done anywhere else in the world. <S> (in IPA, <S> the ɪ moves almost halfway backwards to ʊ <S> , so fish is pronounced fʊʃ instead of fɪʃ). <S> For the same reason a New Zealander might also move the first ɪ in women backwards to ʊ, pronouncing it wʊmɪn instead of wɪmɪn, thus barely distinguishable from the way they pronounce woman (wʊmən). <S> Australians and especially South Africans would notice this most, because they move their vowels the other way, saying "feesh" for "fish". <S> The theory that New Zealanders have lost interest in distinguishing between single and plural is ridiculous. <S> Why would they only be doing this with one particular word? <S> The phonetic explanation is vastly simpler and thus, according to Occam's razor, I'm sticking with it! <A> I am a New Zealander. <S> The vast majority of New Zealanders pronounce "women" and "woman" differently. <S> For a New Zealander, both vowels in "women" are schwas, but the first vowel in "woman" is a short U sound (the same sound as "good"). <S> For a New Zealander to pronounce the two identically is due to poor education, or confusion over which form is required. <S> For example, it may be unclear whether to speak of "Women's Lib" or "Woman's Lib". <S> It's absolutely NOT a pronunciation issue. <S> Note that there's not just a single NZ accent. <S> There are differences between urban and rural speak, and between educated and uneducated. <S> There are additional variations in some areas of the South Island; for example, many people from the Deep South have a rhotic accent - very rare elsewhere in New Zealand. <A> I'm living down south now in Dunedin, and I notice people here pronouncing women as woman ALL the time. <S> I have asked several people how to spell the plural of woman , and they spell it woman , as such i'm inclined to believe that a lot of people simply do not realise that there is a difference. <S> Perhaps this is bred out of laziness? <S> Women does require a lot more effort to say. <S> On the other hand, or Island as the case may be, i used to live in Wellington, and there i don't really remember anyone having the woman/women problem... <S> Incidentally, in Dunedin I have heard a lot of people (men and women) referring to women as females , but never to men as males . <S> It was even a newspaper headline: <S> Man rapes female... <S> Female what i'd like to know... <S> Ugh. <A> To take out a specific clause in your quotes: [...] <S> I see it as part of a much larger tendency to confuse singular and plurals. <S> [...] <S> This seems to a common phenomenon internationally, using singular nouns in place of their plural equivalents. <S> There are a few origins that spring to mind. <S> Firstly, integration with speakers of languages that do not have separate plural words, Chinese for instance, (I note that many Maori words do not have separate forms). <S> Secondly, in modern western youth culture, deliberate dumbing down to stand out, when used in that way it has a similar effect to the Patwa absence of tense in words. <S> Having said that, I believe the NZ use is a pronunciation issue. <A> I lived some time in the UK where there is a definite difference between woman and "wimmin", but back in NZ I was shocked to hear so many people pronouncing both words identically <S> (I hadn't noticed before I went to the UK). <S> There are still Kiwis who pronounce them differently ( <S> e.g. ex news anchor Judy Bailey) <S> but the majority, vast majority among the young, cannot tell the difference between woman and women except by the context and not at all if the context is ambiguous.
| I've heard of the theories about vowel shifts and schwas but am now convinced that while these may have been the original reason, linguistic laziness has resulted in the simple explanation that New Zealanders pronounce the singular and the plural the same way and that this is spreading geographically and socially.
|
Where does the phrase "Scare the Dickens out of..." originate from? Where does the phrase "Scare the Dickens out of..." originate from? And does it refer to Charles Dickens? <Q> This is one of several phrases using dickens as a euphemism for devil such as what the dickens, where the dickens, the dickens you are, etc. <S> Since its use can be traced back to Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor , it has nothing to do with Charles Dickens. <S> Though, according to Michael Quinion at WWW : it does seem to have been borrowed from the English surname, most likely sometime in the sixteenth century or before. <S> (The surname itself probably derives from Dickin or Dickon, familiar diminutive forms of Dick.) <S> However, when looking for this clip from the play: I found this footnote with an alternate theory: <A> <A> ONE explanation is that it is a euphemism for the Devil or Old Nick. <S> This certainly fits with: ' <S> I cannot tell what the dickens his name is' (Merry Wives of Windsor III, ii). <S> Another explanation is that it relates to one Dickins or Dickson, a maker of wooden bowls, who appears to have had a penchant for losing money, for example: 'I was constrained to take half the money they cost mee, gaining by them as Dickins did by his dishes. <S> Who buying them five for twopence solde six for a peny.' <S> (1579, R Galis). <S> Alternatively, Middleton (1599): 'No more is to be got by that than William Dickins got by his wooden dishes'. <S> There are numerous other similar references. <S> Anyway, it lets Charles off the hook.
| According to Etymonline , it is an exclamation, 1590s, apparently a substitute for devil; probably altered from Dickon, nickname for Richard and source of the surnames Dickens and Dickenson, but exact derivation and meaning are unknown.
|
Is there a rule in British English about how to pronounce "either"? There are two common pronunciations of "either": British /ˈaɪðər/ and American /ˈiːðər/. If Americans are more or less consistent in this regard, then the Brits seem to be freely using both. In fact, from what I can tell, "either this or that" is more often in the first form, whereas "me either" is in the second. But I may be wrong. Is there any kind of an informal rule in the modern British English with regard to this? <Q> Usage of /i:/ <S> ("EE-thur") <S> and /ai/ ("EYE-thur") in Great Britain and in Canada seems to be mixed. <S> However, there's also a long history of /ai/ occurring among a few Americans, including Benjamin Franklin and James Fenimore Cooper in earlier times, and Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Barrack Obama more recently. <S> For many years, /ai/ was associated in the United States with British usage and, by extension, with certain elites who tried to imitate British usage. <S> It seems to have become more widespread in recent decades, however. <S> While some Americans have adopted /ai/, perhaps because they feel that it sounds sophisticated, other Americans regard it as pretentious. <S> Spelling, by the way, has nothing to do with the difference. <S> In English, the spelling <S> ei usually represents the "long a" pronunciation (IPA /ei/), as in eight, feign , or rein . <S> In such words, it is derived from the Middle English /ai/ diphthong, which normally developed into the "long a" sound. <S> In a smaller set of words, such as receive , ei represents the "long e" sound /i:/. <S> It's rare for ei to represent the "long i" sound /ai/ in words that have been in English more than two or three hundred years; <S> most words spelled with ei and pronounced with "long i" are recent borrowings, such as Poltergeist (from German), or other words that only recently developed a standard spelling, such as heist (originally a variant of hoist ). <A> I think the variation in British usage is almost all between users, not between examples of use. <S> It's mostly a regional and class distinction: I grew up saying /ˈaɪðə/, and we looked down on people who said /ˈiːðə/. <A> If you listen to Ira Gershwin's lyrics, you realize that this argument has been going on for quite some time in America as well. <S> You say "either" <S> and I say "either" <S> You say "neither" I say "neither" <S> "Either" "either <S> ", "neither" "neither" Let's call the whole thing off <S> The song points up for comic effect the differences between two lovers, who come from different social strata. <S> Although few Americans would say "potahto" or "tomahto" these days, there still remains a divide in the pronunciation of either , sometimes within the same speaker. <S> Many Americans, even ones who use what you call the British pronunciation most of the time, will say "eether" in constructions like "an 'either/or' proposition". <S> I find myself using the "ee" pronunciation most of the time, but switching to the other for emphasis: "Either you help me with this project right now or I won't have time to help you with yours. <S> " <S> There are other words which are similarly split with regard to pronunciation to the extent that there is no "correct" way to say them. <S> Envelope comes to mind. <S> Many Americans pronounce the first syllable of that word to rhyme with on . <A> According to The Complete Atlas Of The British Isles , "eether" is more common in the north of England and "eye-ther" in the south of England, with the Midlands and London using both. <S> The atlas also mentioned a THIRD way of pronouncing the word, "ay-ther", in parts of the north of England, which I suppose is now extinct. <A> I'm British <S> and I use either pronunciation. <S> I can't think of any particular rule that I use either. <S> I would consider either equally valid. <S> I wouldn't say "me either" though - that is certainly an American term. <A> I'm in Canada. <S> Typically I pronounce it "ee-ther. <S> " I do notice a lot of American television dialogue uses "eye-ther," and American English has influenced Canadian English pronunciations since the radio and television age. <S> I never say "me either", although it doesn't really make less sense than "me neither", when properly it should be "nor I."
| I don't think you can make any hard and fast rules; it just depends on who you are and what you grew up with. In the United States, the predominant usage has always been /i:/. I say "me neither" (as in 'neether').
|
What is the difference between "probably" and "possibly"? Recently I saw the movie "Pursuit of Happyness", which is actually quite good, and I noticed the actor (Will Smith) asking the difference between probably and possibly to his son. So I would like to have people's opinion on this question as I am still yet to find an answer myself. <Q> Probably chances of happening are high (or at least not minuscule) <S> Possibly chances of happening are not zero <A> These terms actually have fairly precise definitions, although they're sometimes used with a bit of liberty. <S> Let P = <S> probability of event occurring <S> Probably = <S> > 0.5 <S> < P < 1 <S> Possibly = <S> > <S> 0.0 <S> < P << 1 <S> It is evident that in some cases, there is overlap between the two terms. <A> To say that something is probably the case is to say that that case is probable . <S> To say that something is possibly the case is to say that it is possible . <S> The two are quite distinct. <S> If something is probable, then it is likely to happen. <S> The chances are not only more than zero; they're better than 50/50 (or at least, the chances are higher that it'll happen than that it won't — since in comparing probabilities, you could have multiple items which have chances better than 50/50 but have one of them which is more probable than the others). <S> Probably indicates that the laws of probability say that it's more likely to happen than not to happen. <S> On the other hand, if something is possible, then it can happen. <S> Whether it will or not is irrelevant. <S> The chances are better than zero. <S> It doesn't say anything about how probable it is. <S> It could be that the chances are .000000001% or that they're 100%. <S> By saying that something is possible, you're not really saying anything about probability. <S> You're just saying <S> that <S> it <S> could — at least theoretically — happen. <A> Probably implies that the probability of an event is higher than that of the alternatives. <S> In the most common case with 2 alternatives, probably means something is more likely to happen than not. <S> With 5 alternatives, probability of the event is >20%. <S> Possibly implies a non-zero probability, usually a low one. <S> Conversational usage may not fit neatly into these definitions, as the intent is often mild exaggeration or irony. <A> Usage of Probably: <S> Probably, you should be able to do it. <S> = <S> Mostly, you should be able to do it. <S> Usage of Possibly: <S> Possibly, you should be able to do it. <S> [= If there is a chance (some factor implied), you should be able to do it.] <S> Possibly, you should be able to do it. <S> [= If it is possible, you should be able to do it.] <A> I think the difference between probably and possibly is somewhat related to <S> may and can . <S> E.g. Probably enough to make you laugh = may or may not be enough, not very sure about it, <S> neither does it matter very much Possibly enough to make you sick = <S> can be enough; warns of the ability (e.g. of a virus) to make you sick, and it's important to know <A> Wow... <S> after reading the mumbo jumbo... hahaha <S> I can't remember where I got those words. <S> Again, spanish helped me. <S> Probably = <S> Based on prudent reason - That can be proved - Said when there's good reasons to believe it will happen or will be verifiable. <S> Possible = <S> That can be or happen - that can be executed - available media to do something <S> Possible implies that exist the possibility <S> , let's say 1%. <S> Probably implies that based on probability the chances to happen are good, let´s say above 50%. <S> Remember that Probable, probability, are math terms in statistics. <S> Possibility is not used because it works even against all odds. <S> Just having the minimal chance, something is possible. <S> But is probably not going to work, because the chances are too low.
| So, if you say possibly , then you're saying that something could be the case, whereas if you're saying probably , you're saying that not only can it be the case but that the chances are higher that it will happen than that it won't.
|
Are there any examples of cross-language redundancy (e.g. "kielbasa sausage")? I am amused by expressions that combine the same word in two different languages, for example: Kielbasa sausage: kielbasa is Polish for sausage. Chorizo sausage: chorizo is Spanish for sausage. Queso cheese: queso is Spanish for cheese. Carne asada steak: carne asada is Spanish for grilled meat , therefore you could just say grilled steak instead. This phenomenon is not limited to English. In Spanish you often find not only redundancy but also contradiction: bluyín : transliteration of blue jeans. A pair of blue jeans is called un bluyín . bluyín azul : blue blue jeans . bluyín negro : black blue jeans (black jeans). bluyín blanco : white blue jeans (white jeans). bistec : transliteration of beef steak. bistec de res : beef beef steak . bistec de cerdo : pork beef steak (pork chop). and my favorite, bistec de pollo : chicken beef steak . Do you have any other examples that include at least one English word? <Q> The most famous example is "The La Brea Tar Pits," which of course means "The The Tar Tar Pits." <A> Such redundancy is rather common in place names, especially when the English usage takes the name from another language and adds its own word for the feature ("river", "hill", "mountain", etc.) <S> See this list or this long list of tautological place names , including, e.g. Paraguay River ("Great River River") River Avon / River Tyne ("River River") <S> Dal Lake / Lake Chad / Lake Tahoe ("Lake Lake") <S> Bredon Hill ("Hill Hill Hill") <S> Summit Peak / Pinnacle Peak (several places with these names) <S> Torpenhow Hill (which is fictional, though Torpenhow exists, and while not exactly meaning "Hill Hill Hill", does mean "Head-peak hillock" or "rising-peak hill" or similar) <S> Faroe Island ("Sheep island island") <S> La Brea Tar Pits ("The Tar Tar Pits") <S> Jiayuguan Pass ("Jiayu Pass Pass") Milky Way Galaxy ("Milky Way Milky Way" — this is actually a fault with the word "Galaxy"!) <S> Timor Leste / East Timor ("East East", but <S> this is actually the eastern half of the easternmost island there). <S> (I've only picked some representative examples; it's a very long list.) <S> So it would be more interesting to look for examples that aren't place names. <A> My favorites are when the waiter asks if I want the French dip "with au jus" or asks if I'd be interested in the soup du jour "daily special"! <A> Since Torpenhow Hill has been mostly debunked , my favorite is the Hungarian "bacon szalonna": szalonna is Hungarian for bacon . <S> (It's used for American-style thin-sliced streaky bacon, as opposed to the traditional mostly-fat szalonna .) <A> book of the Bible <S> Does this count? <S> How about <S> déjà vu all over again <A> One in Thai: เสื้อเชิ้ต (seua chert) - "shirt shirt". <A> What about "my PIN number"? <S> Does this count? <A> <A> Sahara Desert means--you guessed it, Desert Desert. <S> I think it's common to just call it The Sahara though.
| ‘Koi carp’ (carp carp — 鯉【koi】 is Japanese for carp)
|
How to handle a name that includes an exclamation point (or other punctuation)? Certain brands, such as Yahoo! , insist that the exclamation is part of their name. In writing about such a brand or company, is the inclusion of the vanity punctuation right, wrong, or optional? I would like my writing to be correct; however, of more concern with the average reader, I wouldn't want my writing to seem to be pandering. <Q> The best way to deal with the vanity punctuation is as The Register do. <S> Note "Related stories." <S> Edit (as requested) <S> a sample of headlines from online newspaper <S> The Register: Yahoo! <S> wonks! <S> brace! <S> for! <S> lay-offs! <S> Yahoo! <S> buys! <S> TV-sharing! <S> startup! <S> IntoNow! <S> Yahoo! <S> Buzz! <S> Given! <S> Mercy! <S> Bullet! Yahoo! <S> to! <S> offload! <S> Delicious! <S> as! <S> early! <S> as! <S> next! <S> week! <S> Yahoo! <S> revenues! <S> dip! <S> 4! <S> per! cent! <S> You get the idea. <S> Yahooexclamationmark's PR boss may feel a bit ambivalent. <A> It seems optional, considering that even business article talk about Yahoo, while introducing some facts at the end about "Yahoo!". <S> But "Yahoo" is also natural since: <S> you won't find any punctuation in the host names: www.yahoo.com , not <S> www.yahoo!.com <S> at least, it won't wreak havoc in your word processor spell checker ;) See Ignoring Punctuation in Names if you still have to use the ' ! '. <A> Some sites, will use Yahoo! <S> while talking about the company, but others do not. <S> For example, check this CNN Money page that refers to the company as Yahoo! <S> Inc. <A> Check court documents to see what Yahoo prefers and use that. <A> Certainly you should use the name as the company prefers it, but there's nothing to stop you mocking it gently. <S> If I am writing to somebody at one of those 'cool' companies that disdain capital letters and spaces, I make a point of addressing the envelope to 'johnrsmith, coolconsultancy': similar use of exclamation marks seems only fair to Yahoo! <S> Incidentally, there is a village in Devon called Westward Ho! <S> ; the punctuation is undoubtedly part of the name there.
| If your article is about the public corporation, you should use consistently one convention, preferably the one using the exact name of the company: "Yahoo!". From a legal standpoint, you want to use the the official trademark name that the company uses in naming itself.
|
Does "not uncommon" mean "common"? When somebody uses the phrase "not uncommon", do they mean "common" because of the double negative? I was recently informed that "not uncommon" could imply that something was anything but uncommon (e.g. rare), whereas I thought that rare would be a subset of uncommon and that saying it was not uncommon must mean it is common. <Q> First, I think a little more context may be needed to appropriately answer your question since it seems whoever you've been talking to has what I would consider to be a non-standard usage of it. <S> That being said, here's my best cut. <S> In standard usage, the phrase "not uncommon" typically means something to the effect of "more frequent than uncommon". <S> That is, it occurs too frequently to be considered "uncommon", but not necessarily so frequently as to be labeled "common". <S> However, in certain contexts where things are partitioned using discrete, well defined terms "uncommon", "rare", <S> etc. <S> it would be conceivable that they would mean "anything other than uncommon". <S> The one example that jumps out at me is RPG games like World of Warcraft where item quality is labeled using terms like "rare", "uncommon", "common", etc. <S> In a case like this, saying that something is "not uncommon" would potentially allow for something labeled as "rare" as well as something labeled as "common" <A> "not uncommon" is not necessarily the same as common. <S> Compare the following examples: 1-0 is a common final score in soccer (it happens all the time) <S> 8-7 is an uncommon final score in soccer (it rarely happens) <S> 5-0 is not an uncommon final score in soccer <S> (it doesn't happen all the time, but it's not rare either). <A> "Not unkind" I would see as much colder than kind, but not actively unkind. <A> Not really. <S> It means just what it says it is. <S> It's an attempt at understatement. <S> To baldly say something is common seems to some people too forthright. <S> And, to be fair, there may be a wide gap between what is uncommon and what is common. <S> If the subject is sunny days in Seattle, you may say they are uncommon. <S> But Seattle averages about one day in six with sunshine. <S> So you could say, with some legitimacy, that they are not uncommon since they are experienced with some regularity. <S> Still, you wouldn't really say they were common. <S> Nevertheless, such constructions are anathema to some champions of clear writing. <S> I remember Eric Blair (George Orwell) mocking them in one of his essays on the English language, positing a sentence like (I'm paraphrasing here) <S> "The not unbrown dog trotted not unslowly along the not unrough road, finally making a not unsmall leap over the not unhigh fence." <S> Or something like that. <S> I was an undergrad at the time, so memory dims. <S> I wish I could remember the name of the essay. <A> Describing something by negating its opposite is a way of countering expectations. <S> As in: "You might expect this never happens, but it is not uncommon." <S> Or: " Not bad... for a girl. " <A> This is an example of a common (and ancient) figure of speech called litotes . <S> Sometimes it conveys no extra meaning (and gets ridiculed as an affectation) but in many cases it does have a distinct meaning.
| To my mind, it is a shaded meaning, not quite common, but not rare.
|
Difference between "should not" and "should avoid" Is there a difference between should not and should avoid or more generally between not and avoid e.g You should not be drinking.You should avoid drinking. <Q> There doesn't appear to be much difference between the two. <S> It all depends on the intonation used. <S> Nevertheless, You should avoid drinking. <S> sounds cautionary. <S> You should not be drinking. <S> sounds obligatory. <A> AFAIK Should Not may be seen as a command or something that is expected to be followed, because there is a reason to it.ex: One should not play with fire. <S> In theory, should is used when there is a reason/history to the verb/object of the sentence. <S> So the difference between not and avoid becomes a matter of expression. <A> In the context of a technical manual, there may be a significant difference: one implying an absolute rule, the other providing guidance. <S> For example: one should not use the camcorder underwater. <S> one should avoid using the camcorder is a dusty environment. <A> You should not be drinking <S> sounds like an admonition in the present tense. <S> You are drinking now, and you should not be. <S> You should avoid drinking <S> sounds like general advice, not time-specific. <S> A piece of friendly advice: you should not be drinking [right now], and you should avoid drinking [in general].
| Should avoid is USED more like an advice.
|
Is Yiddish a creole language? And if not, what is it? A "creole" language is formed by the merging of two parent languages, usually through an earlier rudimentary mixture of the two. Does this make Yiddish a creole language? Was English itself a creole language in the century or so after the Norman Conquest? My question is really about what constitutes a creole language: what are its hallmarks and most distinguishing features, and do creole languages ever evolve to become "proper" languages (whatever that may mean) in their own right? <Q> Grammatically, Yiddish is almost entirely Germanic - very close to an older form of High German. <S> In vocabulary, it is mostly Germanic, but with a large admixture of Hebrew words and (depending on the dialect) also significant borrowings from other languages, such as Polish and Russian. <S> As such, it is not what most scholars describe as a creole: that is a language whose grammar has arisen spontaneously, generally when a cohort of children grow up among people who communicate in a pidgin (a contact language with little or no consistent grammar). <S> It appears that given such an environment, small children will mould it into a language with its own grammar, generally bearing little resemblance to that of the language(s) from which the words come. <S> (This is somewhat controversial, as is the claim that creoles round the world tend to have rather similar grammars). <S> So with that definition, Yiddish is not a creole: it is a distinct Germanic language, quite close to German, but which has a large admixture of Hebrew and other words. <A> It's just a pidgin language that has native speakers. <S> A pidgin language is usually a limited, easy-to-learn language used for communications between two different language groups. <S> Normally it has much simpler vocabulary and grammar. <S> The hallmark of a pidgin language is that nobody speaks it as their primary language... <S> it serves as a lingua franca (shared language) between two linguistic communities. <S> Pidgins are not necessarily anyone's primary language. <S> These days people often use basic English as a pidgin even when neither of them is really an English speaker (for example, a Tagalog-speaking sailor might use basic/pidgin English to communicate with an Arabic-speaking merchant when in port, or a Russian tourist in Japan might use basic English to communicate with her hosts). <S> Sometimes pidgins are used so much that they become primary languages, and kids grow up speaking only the pidgin language. <S> At that point the language is considered a creole language. <S> The classic example of this is Haitian Creole, which started out as a simplified version of French used by African language speakers in Haiti, and soon became the primary language kids learned. <S> Another major example is Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. <S> Yiddish is none of the above, really. <S> It is mostly an in-group dialect that became a full fledged language when it got its first army ( Joke! ) <S> It was not intended to be used as a lingua franca, although sometimes it served this purpose when Jews from different linguistic communities (e.g. Germany and Poland) used it as a common language. <A> Yiddish is typically referred to as a Creoloid, much like Afrikaans, Michif, and even African American Vernacular English. <S> That is, they share a lot of common traits with Creoles and Creole Genesis. <S> Labeling something a Creole or not is debatable even amongst scholars as many have conflicting views on what makes something a creole. <S> Try reading either of these for some info on it and judge for yourself. <S> Jacobs, Neil G. (2005). <S> Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. <S> Cambridge University Press. <S> (Scott: PJ 5116.J33 2004); Prince, Ellen (2001). <S> Yiddish as a contact language. <S> In Norval Smith and Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Creolization and contact <A> It contains about 85% German vocabulary, about 10% Hebrew and Aramaic words and about 5% Romance or Slavic words, depending where it was spoken. <S> Scholars contend that there were/are 4 major dialects - but with overlaps. <S> What many don't know is that a "stage Yiddish" was created by Abraham Goldfadn (father of the Yiddish Theatre) that blended the various dialects, so that there would be linguistic consistency in performances. <S> Those whose exposure to Yiddish was mostly through Yiddish theatre and recorded song, have naturally but erroneously came to believe that this "stage Yiddish" was "true" Yiddish, but it was a construct, blending all the various dialects. <A> I found an interesting information about this language (I also have a personal interest in the language as both my grandparents still speak it) here: <S> http://www.sefarad.org/hosted/english/eblul/yiddish.html . <S> Yiddish, which is written in Hebrew characters, is a composite language stemming from Judeo-German, that is to say the languages used by the Jews who settled in the Rhine Valley in the Middle Ages. <S> Their vernacular language, based on the local Germanic dialect, has been enriched by numerous contributions from Hebrew and from the Romance languages. <S> I always perceived it as a mixture of German and Hebrew. <S> However it's not a creole language in a conceptual sense b/c <S> it was conceived as the language in its own right, in process employing elements of Hebrew and German, as opposed composed from two. <A> Was English itself a creole language in the century or so after the Norman Conquest? <S> In the first century after the Norman Conquest, people would have spoken either Anglo-Saxon (Old English) or Old Norman. <S> The latter was used as the language of state. <S> From what little I understand, these languages were kept separate and Old English, as the language of a subjugated underclass, was in danger of dying out. <S> From these two languages came Anglo Norman and eventually Middle English. <S> So far as I know it wouldn't be accurate to say that English was a creole language in the sense of being a subset language used for communications between speakers of Old English and Old Norman.
| Yiddish is called a FUSION language by linguists,(as is English) derived from old High German, beginning around the year 1000in the Rhine Valley. A creole language is not necessarily a combination of two languages.
|
Is there a word or phrase for the feeling you get after looking at a word for too long? Sometimes after looking at a word for a while, I become convinced that it can't possibly be spelled correctly. Even after looking it up, sounding it out, and realizing that there's simply no other way to spell the word, it still looks wrong. Is there a shorthand way to describe this feeling so that people will know what I mean without the long explanation? <Q> Eureka! <S> Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds. <S> I also found a languagehat discussion on this topic. <A> Based on this NGram... <S> ... <S> I'm tempted to suggest semantic satiation <S> is a 'failed coinage'. <S> Personally I think it's misleading to imply the phenomenon is restricted to the issue of semantics in the first place. <S> In my experience it's not so much that the word 'loses its meaning'. <S> It's more a matter of saying that almost any word tends to become 'unusual' if you concentrate on it too long, even while you remain perfectly well aware of what the word actually means . <S> So given that Leon Jakobovits James's 1962 coinage doesn't exactly seem to have taken off (many of the later usages being simply references to his anyway) <S> , I think it would be better to call it lexical fatigue (or saturation , as used in olfactory/auditory/visual contexts). <S> This at least has the benefit of making it clear that it's caused by form of the word itself, not <S> the meaning (which may not even be particularly involved). <A> The article on semantic satiation led me to the French term jamais vu , which I think I like better for a couple reasons. <S> It seems to apply better to the written form as described in the original question, and also I find it more fun to say. <A> Based on Martha's accepted answer, I offer: Orthographic Incredulity <A> This is a fantastic question. <S> I have often experienced that feeling. <S> I doubt that there is a succinct word or phrase to describe it. <S> I suggest you coin your own word and use it all over the place until it finds its way into a dictionary. <S> In general, when you say or look at a word too many times /too long the word loses the affiliation it has with its meaning. <S> It starts to be nothing more than a group of noises coming out of your voice-box or a collection of alphabets arranged on a page. <S> I had someone once describe the feeling to me as word-dissolution because to him the word simply dissolved. <S> The brain has already understood and processed the word. <S> Now it knows everything there is to know about the word, and has moved on. <A> This is probably a self-induced form of aphasia or dysphasia. <A> "Orthographic cognitive dissonance" might work. <S> The conflicting ideas held simultaneously being that the word you're looking at is spelled correctly and that it's spelled incorrectly. <A> I looked at the Wikipedia link that was in @Martha's post <S> and it happened to list many names for this phenomenon besides the most popular one, "semantic satiation": "cortical inhibition" "reactive inhibition" "verbal transformation" "refractory phase and mental fatigue" <S> The link also describes essays and dissertations in which these terms are used. <A> What do you think of "lexical overexposure"? <S> I'm pretty sure that no such word already exists in English. <S> You'll probably have to coin a phrase. " <S> Lexical [something]" to be sure. :) <A> Note: < <S> Semantic Satiation <S> > is a different concept from what you're saying. <S> It's saying that you use a word simply because you are used to using it, without any other purpose and without any reference to its meaning—words like <timestamp <S> > (thinking of "stamp"'s meaning when saying it? <S> likely no), <general>, <convention>, <convene>, <registry>, <register>, <working example>, <S> <due>, <duly <S> >. <S> But what you're saying is that there are words that are written in a way that simply looks out-of-place, at least to the parsing system of the beholder. <S> This might be words like: <thorough> (<through> may look proper) <S> <trial> (<trail> may look proper) <S> <corporeality> (<corporality> may look proper) <weird <S> > <S> (<wired> may look proper) <S> <ministerial> <heist> <naive> <S> (<naïve may look proper) <reincarnate> (<reïncarnate> may look proper) <S> <adjourned <S> > <diaeresis> <Nietzsche <S> > <S> <doceng> [ § ] <S> <Lloyd <S> > <S> Re: <S> Is there a shorthand way to describe this feeling so that people will know what I mean without the long explanation? <S> .By <S> a phrase, <have a weiosr situation <S> >: <S> Just then, I had a weiosr situation with the word <weiosr>.
| Ok, so it's not a single word, but it's what I was trying to think of: Semantic Satiation : You can refer to such words as <weiosr> (which itself looks out-of-place to the untrained eye).
|
Do you "watch" a movie or "see" a movie? Which of the following verbs is most commonly used with movie ? Or are they both used, but the connotations are different? I watched a good movie yesterday. I saw a good movie yesterday. <Q> In the cases where 'watch' is used to mean doing so at a theater, it is often accompanied with a construction like "go and", e.g. "We're going to go and watch X." <S> In the absence of other context, this implies the sentence, "We're going to go to the theater and watch X" as opposed to "We're going to go to Bill's house and watch X." <S> This is just my experience of course. <S> Also, the distinction doesn't seem to apply to past tense. <S> I mostly hear 'seen' used in this context but sometimes hear "watch" <S> Have you seen X? <S> Did you watch X? <S> The first one is much more common in my experience. <S> Either way, the primary distinction between watching a movie in a home environment and watching it at a theater is probably constructions involving the use of the verb "go". <A> To "go see something" applies to more than just movies. <S> One can go see a play, an art exhibition, or what's happening somewhere. <S> It's the act of going out somewhere and looking at something. <S> Saying "Let's go see a movie" means that that you will go to the movie theater and watch a movie. <S> When you are actually sitting in the movie theater, you are watching the movie. <A> I have two theories on the use of watch and see: To ' watch ' is the deliberate act of seeing. <S> Like the difference between: I saw the sun set (happened to see) and I watched the sun set <S> (deliberately saw the action of the sun setting) <S> I also think it has got to do with the object of the verb 'see' or to 'watch'. <S> You 'watch' an action, something moving - while you 'see' a thing or a static object. <S> Like <S> Did you see the stuff displayed in the museum? <S> v/s. <S> You should watch the way he batted. <S> Well, just from my experience of language and words :) <A> 'See' is used when one tells of the intention. <S> Eg. <S> 1.I will go to the movies to see the much talked about film. <S> 2. <S> I will be going out to see a movie soon. <S> 3. <S> We went to see a movie together last weekend. <S> On the other hand, 'watched' is used when actually the film is rolling or rolled and it's being appreciated or was appreciated respectively. <S> Eg. <S> 1. <S> Please I am watching a movie at the hall. <S> 2. <S> We watched a movie last night.
| Generally, 'see' has the connotation of having gone to the movie theater and watched the movie there whereas 'watch' tends to mean to watch it in a home environment on DVD or TV.
|
Need a word that has the opposite meaning of "nominal"? I'm looking for a word that has the opposite meaning of the word nominal in the sense of in name only . Here's an example (fill in the blank). Brian was in charge of scheduling in his [ ] role as Project Manager. He was often expected to carry out Project Management duties, even though his business card identified him as a programmer. De facto sort of works, but I feel like the connotation of (in my example) having the role by tradition or default doesn't fit what I am trying to say. I am essentially looking for a term that means we don't call it that, but in practice it really is . <Q> I think "We don't call it that, but in practice it really is" is a pretty good definition for de facto . <S> actual; especially: being such in effect though not formally recognized <A> Actual? <S> Effective? <S> In this case I'd simply put: <S> Brian was in charge of scheduling in his role as project manager. <S> He was often expected to carry out project management duties, even though his business card identified him as a programmer. <S> You can't be a Project Manager if you're not a Project Manager, but you can be a project manager if you just manage a project. <S> In the former, you're stating a wishy-washy claim to a title, but in the latter you're simply relating a part of your job. <A> I think a minor rephrasing makes de facto the best choice: <S> Brian was in charge of scheduling in his role as de facto Project Manager. <S> He was often expected to carry out Project Management duties, even though his business card identified him as a programmer. <A> It's a long phrase but you can also use "in everything but name" Brian was in charge of scheduling, being the Project Manager in everything but name. <S> He was often expected to carry out Project Management duties, even though his business card identified him as a programmer. <A> Merriam-Webster lists the following antonyms (and near antonyms) of nominal : material, actual, real, true. <A> Tacit . <S> Oxford Living Dictionaries has this definition: <S> tacit ADJECTIVE Understood or implied without being stated. <A> You might try "real-life" there. <S> It would emphasize the shirt-sleeves, day-to-day aspect of genuine or actual . <A> I would use something along the lines of "practical" or "practiced." <S> "Assumed" might work better in this case though. <A> Other possible alternatives are supposed, putative, notional, theoretical and ostensible. <A> The most fitting antonym to nominal (or any other word for that matter) usually emerges from contextual usage. <S> If you are allergic to Latin, you may try 'factual' or 'substantive.' <S> However, make sure your ultimate choice blends with your contetual usage. <A> It depends on what point you are trying to make. <S> Is this a positive bragging point or indicating he was put upon to do this extra task?If <S> it's for bragging rights, try: <S> Though Brian’s business card identified him as a programmer, his role was often expanded to include Project Manager duties, as one was being in charge of scheduling. <S> If it was a burden, try:Brian’s business card identified him as a programmer, but he was often expected to carry out some project manager duties. <S> He was put in charge of doing the scheduling. <S> For more bland, try:Brian was often expected to carry out Project Management duties, like being in charge of scheduling, but his business card identified him as a programmer. <S> Also, as nominal means supposed, so-called, token, insignificant, assumed, considered, expected, try looking up opposites of these in a thesaurus. <S> I just used the 1 in my word processer.
| From the information you have provided, de facto seems the most apt.
|
How and when to use "wont" I stumbled upon this word lately, as in he was wont to come early I'm wondering what feeling it has for native speakers. For example, can I use in a meeting, or in a written report? <Q> I am a native speaker (American) and I rarely see this word used other than in literature or poetry. <S> Perhaps native speakers from other countries can weigh in, but I would not use it in a meeting or written report. <S> The most common usage I have seen, which is considered either formal or humorous (according to the Dictionary app on my Mac), is in a sentence such as the following: <S> Reginald added just a few drops of milk to his tea, as was his wont. <A> <A> "xyz, as is his wont" remains a pretty typical/common form these days
| In Australia it has a ring of formality, but you do hear it from time to time, though perhaps a touch idiomatically - '..., as he is wont' and the like probably occur a good ten times as frequently as 'He is wont to...'.
|
What is meant by "steep learning curve"? What should I understand from "steep learning curve"? When a computer program (for example a translation program) has a steep learning curve, does it mean that it is not good at learning or it's hard for it to learn? <Q> In informal usage, a "steep learning curve" means something that is difficult (and takes much effort) to learn. <S> It seems that people are thinking of something like climbing a steep curve (mountain) — it's difficult and takes effort. <S> As it is technically used, however, a learning curve is not anything to be climbed, and is simply a graph plotting learning versus time. <S> Thus, a steep learning curve would look like this (excuse the poor drawing): One natural interpretation of such a curve, which was the predominant early usage (according to Wikipedia) and still exists in some technical circles, is that the thing being learnt is easy — a great amount of learning happens in a small amount of time. <S> This is the opposite of the popular usage. <S> Now there is also apparently an interpretation of the same curve in the negative sense — probably something about a large amount of learning existing, or that one never stops learning and keeps learning, but I'm not sure I understand how that's negative. <S> Summary <A> Steep learning curve means there's a lot of facts to pick up right at the beginning . <A> This phrase has a scientific basis <S> ( Wikipedia has information on its origin and scientific usage), but is most commonly used to indicate that something is difficult to learn. <S> It refers to a person’s rate of progress in learning a new skill as it might be plotted on a graph. <S> In this case it sounds like the computer program itself is difficult for beginners to use effectively, not that it is not good at learning. <S> I have never heard the phrase used that way, though I suppose it could apply to a program that uses artificial intelligence.
| The popular meaning of "steep learning curve" is "difficult to learn"; the technical meaning is "quick to learn".
|
"Many people" vs. "much people" — which one should be used? There's so many people in here! There's so much people here! Which one should be used, and why? <Q> If you can count it and it doesn't designate a category, use many . <S> I have many friends. <S> I have much to offer. <S> There are many ways to get it wrong. <S> It doesn't make much sense. <A> Many is used in enumerated quantities. <S> If it can be counted in individual items, use many . <S> If the quantity cannot be counted, use much . <S> "There are so many people in here!" <S> "There is so much <S> I still need to learn!" <A> Simple rule of thumb: if the following word is plural use many, otherwise much <S> "I don't have much time" <S> "I don't have many books" <S> "how much money do you have?" <S> "how many cars can you see?"
| If you cannot count it or it designates a category, use much .
|
Using 'to swallow' to indicate having an emotionally hard time accepting a truth Can 'to swallow' be used to indicate that you have a hard time accepting a truth? Neither a hard time in the sense of being able to understand it nor to accept that it is true, but rather in the emotional sense. Example: I will show this to you now, but you better sit down. It's pretty sad and will be hard to swallow . I know that I'm mostly transforming this from German, where the direct translation is used in this meaning. However, I am under the impression that I have heard it used in English as well. I can not find it on Merriam-Webster or Macmillan , though. Did I just make it up? If this usage is not valid, can you suggest alternative verbs for dealing with the emotional side of something sad/scary/moving? <Q> I find your tales of college dorm life hard to swallow. <S> The death of my friend was a hard pill to swallow. <A> Hard to swallow is acceptable and is commonly used in [British] English. <S> I use it frequently, and I hear it used frequently. <S> Yes, it means hard to believe or accept, but equally it can mean hard to come to terms with, which fits the emotional angle that you are interested in. <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hard+to+swallow <S> (Not very) <S> interestingly, it's also the third album by Vanilla Ice ! <A> I'd recommend the phrase "a bitter pill to swallow" if you are presenting something that the other person won't necessarily have difficulty in believing, but will find to be a very unpleasant revelation: <S> I'd known for a while that our relationship was struggling, but this proof of infidelity is still a bitter pill to swallow.
| Something that is hard to swallow, figuratively speaking, means something that is difficult either to believe or to accept.
|
"All is not lost" vs "Not all is lost" I guess I've been in mathematics for far too long, and I tend to use the phrase "Not all is lost" as the negative of "All is lost". To me the phrase "All is not lost" suggests that nothing is lost. It doesn't send the message I'm trying to give which is that "at least one thing is not lost". What's your interpretation of the two phrases? <Q> "All is not lost" does not suggest that nothing is lost. <S> It is said to counter the statement or belief that everything is lost, despite appearances to the contrary. <S> It expresses exactly the meaning you say you want to convey, i.e., "at least one thing is not lost." <S> "Not all is lost" is simply another, more emphatic way of saying the other. <S> It emphasizes the negative and is a stronger counter to any contrary assertions that have been made. <S> That's the meat of the matter; now to the seasoning: No. 1 can also seem more optimistic, and may be used to suggest that victory is in fact possible. <S> Similarly, No. 2 may sometimes be used in a bitter, pessimistic way to point up how little is left. <S> It may mean that everything of importance has been lost, but there may still exist a consolation prize, meager though it may be. <S> "Our house burned to the ground, but at least the dog house remained untouched," one might say ruefully. <S> "You see? <S> Not all is lost." <A> I'm with Robusto on this; <S> "All is not lost" is the idiom used specifically to counter "All is lost". <S> "All is lost" -> <S> The situation is hopeless, we're doomed, there is nothing that can save us. <S> "All is not lost" -> <S> The situation can be salvaged somehow, we can make it through this, there's still hope. <S> It's all gone <S> , I can't find any of it!" <S> "Not all is lost; look, here's your paddleball, and here's your chair." <A> The usual sentence is "All is not lost", as in "there is still hope". <S> "Not all is lost" is either: a dramatization ("All is lost! <S> Not.") used for instance in journalism for big headline (" Not all is 'Lost' in education; ABC show delivers many teachable moments ") <S> used in the sense of "Not all" "is lost" (which is what you want to convey here), as in "not all is lost in the translation": there is still "something". <A> Hint: For purposes here, lose the idiom. <S> As an adjective, "all," is "being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: All the windows are open. <S> Deal all the cards; Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole: all Christendom. <S> "All aspirin are not alike" (old Excedrin commercial), wherein conveys that no 2 aspirin are alike. <S> "Not all aspirin are alike," conveys the meaning that "among all aspirin, some may be alike but some are certainly not. <S> " <S> Endless appeal to idiomatic usage and common parlance will never resolve this. <A> I suppose the easiest way to specify your precise meaning would be to say either "Not everything is lost" or "Nothing is lost". <S> But it lacks the poetry and simplicity of Milton's original. <A> Speaking as a programmer, this is something that has bothered me for a great deal of time as well. <S> "All x is not y " would suggest that not a single <S> x can be considered y , but indeed more often than not the speaker actually intends to convey that although some x are y , not all of them are. <S> Popular usage of "all is not" can be considered a strangely persistent idiomatic mistake, and is at best archaic. <S> I don't ever hear phrases like "all is not lost" or "everything is not what it seems" outside of kitschy fiction and bad screenwriting.
| "Not all is lost" (if I ever heard it used) would be the counter to "I've lost everything!
|
Is "litter" correct on waste bins? I threw some rubbish in a litter bin the other day, when it occurred to me that the receptacle couldn't be a litter bin, because litter is only unwanted things strewn across the road. Anything in a litter bin couldn't be litter, by reason of it's being in the litter bin. Am I right, wrong, or just absurdly pedantic? <Q> Litter can also refer to a collection of trash. <S> See definition 4b on m-w.com . <A> A litter bin is a bin in which you can place what would otherwise become litter. <S> As such, your objection that the stuff in it is not litter because it is in the bin <S> is at best pedantic <S> ; I'd suggest it is at least mildly absurd to be that pedantic over it. <A> Am I right, wrong, or just absurdly pedantic? <S> I'm sure there are other possibilities than the three you list, Brian. <S> But there is nothing wrong with "litter bin" as a term for a trash receptacle. <S> The idea is that this is a place where conscientious people put litter (which presumably they gather up). <S> Once inside the bin, however, one ought to call it trash. <A> Er, I agree. <S> It is a rubbish / trash / waste / garbage bin - it may contain erstwhile litter but its contents are the aforementioned synonyms for unwanted detritus. <S> The sign on the bin is not an exhortation for how we want people to behave, but a label for what the receptacle CONTAINS.
| "Litter" connotes miscellaneous, discarded items laying about and which, once picked up and placed in the bin - become mere rubbish.
|
What's the difference between the words "plate" and "dish"? I'm confused about the words dish and plate . Could someone please explain the difference? <Q> A plate is a specific type of dish . <S> A plate tends to refer specifically to a flat dish that is suitable for holding food that does not have a high liquid content. <S> The other common type of dish is a bowl . <S> A bowl will be similar to a hollow sphere cut in half and is useful for serving soups and other foods with high liquid content which would run off of a plate. <S> A large plate intended for serving food may be referred to as a platter . <A> @aaronasterling gives a good explanation of what they mean as pieces of crockery. <S> They can also both mean — drat <S> , I can’t find a good synonym now! <S> — let’s say, menu items you might order at a restaurant: <S> My favourite dish at the Murray Avenue Grill is their spinach salad with candied pecans. <S> or: The Ketchery has the best seafood plate in town. <S> These arose in obvious metonymy from the crockery usage, but have developed specific connotations. <S> Dish in this sense is much more general, and used (afaik) across most or all of the English-speaking world. <S> Plate is less usual, and more associated (I think) with North American usage, and with fancier restaurant subcultures. <A> DISH : 1. <S> An open, generally shallow concave container for holding, cooking, or serving food. <S> 2. <S> The food served or contained in a dish: a dish of ice cream. <S> PLATES : <S> 1.A plate is a specific type of dish.2.a shallow, usually circular dish, often of earthenware or porcelain, from which food is eaten.3.the contents of such a dish; plateful.4.an entire course of a meal served on such a dish: I had the vegetable plate for lunch. <A> Like many other words in the English language, there is a confusion from time to time about the real, or exact, meaning of terms. <S> Here's what I think: "Dish" is more of the generic term, as in "dish washer", "set of dishes", "main dish", etc. <S> ; however, while talking about dishes, cups are cups, saucers are saucers, bowls of any kind are always bowls, serving platters are always platters; however, in the group of dishes, there are "plates" which are noticeably larger than dishes and generally accommodate several kinds of food but are never used for serving food. <S> One, I suppose, could call anything rather flat as a "dish" and never be wrong, which is not the case for "plate".
| A dish is generally something that food is eaten or served from.
|
What's the word Copyright and `(C)' mean? In the lines: Copyright (C) 1994 Tom Copyright (C) 1995, 1996 Cruise Copyright (C) 1997, 1998 Louis Here, what's the original meaning of "Copyright"? And why the mark "(C)"? And, what is indeed granted by the Copyright string? For example: Copyright (C) 1994 Tom Does this mean that Tom has the right of copy , e.g. copy something mentioned to everyone in the world in the year of 1994? And after the year 1994 he won't have the copy right anymore? What's the difference between the following? Copyright (C) 2000–2010 Lily Ponder Copyright 2000–2010 Lily Ponder And, Can I write something like Copyright (C) 2000-3000 Lily Ponder to protect the copyright forever? <Q> Wikipedia describes it in some detail : <S> The copyright owner is given two sets of rights: an exclusive, positive right to copy and exploit the copyrighted work, or license others to do so, and a negative right to prevent anyone else from doing so without consent, with the possibility of legal remedies if they do. <S> Basically, any work someone produces (e.g. a book, a song, some software, etc) may not be copied by anyone else without the author's permission. <S> The year in which the work is produced, as noted in the copyright declaration, is important, because copyright only lasts for a certain number of years, which varies by jurisdiction. <S> Hence lots of old books are now available on the internet for free, because their copyright has expired. <S> "©" (often written as "(C)") is just an abbreviation for "copyright". <S> See also the article on the copyright symbol . <A> To expand on Steve's answer: <S> ©2001 means the countdown to the end of copyright starts in 2001. <S> ©2001-2010 means the countdown to the end of copyright starts in 2010 (at least for some of the content) <S> Websites use the latter because their content and construction generally changes frequently. <S> Things are added and removed on a regular basis, so the copyright on the new content/coding/images is being refreshed. <A> These are copyright notices. <S> They simply provide notice that the copyright is claimed to have originated at a particular time <S> and it is claimed the copyright belongs to a particular person. <S> These notices have no affect on the actual legal copyright anymore (at least in the vast majority of countries). <S> Copyrights inhere as soon as a creative work is placed in a fixed form in every major country. <S> The (C) mark simply indicates that copyright is claimed. <S> It was required in all but sound recordings in many countries prior to around 1990. <S> Its use is continued largely because there is no reason to stop it. <S> Multiple years or a range of years indicates that some content acquired copyright in each of the years included. <S> Again, this has no effect on the legal copyright status anymore. <S> The only possible exception would be countries that have laws that penalize copyright holders for affirmatively misleading others about the copyright status of their work. <S> So you can screw it up and suffer, but you cannot add anything to your legal rights. <S> If you want information on the legal scope of copyright, check our the copyright office's FAQ . <S> It's US-centric, but other countries are mostly the same because most of the rules are harmonized by International agreement.
| Copyright are exclusive statutory rights to exercise control over copying and other exploitation of the works for a specific period of time.
|
What is the origin of the phrase "beyond the pale"? What's the origin of the phrase 'beyond the pale'? <Q> Pole is from the same source, as are impale , paling and palisade . <S> This meaning has been around in English since the fourteenth century and by the end of that century <S> pale had taken on various figurative senses — a defence, a safeguard, a barrier, an enclosure, or a limit beyond which it was not permissible to go. <S> The idea of an enclosed area still exists in some English dialects. <S> [...] The earliest figurative sense that’s linked to the idiom was of a sphere of activity or interest, a branch of study or a body of knowledge, which comes from the same idea of an enclosed or contained area; we use field in much the same way. <S> This turned up first in 1483 in one of the earliest printed books in English, The Golden Legende , a translation by William Caxton of a French work. <S> The Phrase Finder adds that the first printed reference of the phrase "beyond the pale" (rather than just the word pale in its figurative sense) comes "from 1657 in John Harington's lyric poem The History of Polindor and Flostella ." <S> In that work, the character Ortheris withdraws with his beloved to a country lodge for 'quiet, calm and ease', but later venture further - 'Both Dove-like roved forth beyond the pale to planted Myrtle-walk'. <S> Such recklessness rarely meets with a good end in 17th century verse and before long they are attacked by armed men with 'many a dire killing thrust'. <S> The message is clearly, 'if there is a pale, you should stay inside it', which conveys exactly the meaning of the phrase as it is used today. <A> When the Normans invaded Ireland in the twelfth century, they were not as successful as they hoped: <S> the English possessions were gradually reduced to an area round Dublin. <S> This was originally protected by a palisade (or Pale), and (in English eyes at least) Ireland was divided unto the civilised part within the Pale and the barbarian part "Beyond the Pale", which became a common phrase for the Elizabethans, if not earlier. <A> Pale in this idiom comes from Latin pālus 'stake'; it means a fencepost, and by ordinary extension it also means the fence itselt, and the area it contains or delimits. <S> So beyond the pale just means "outside the boundaries". <S> Normally, of course, the "boundaries" are metaphors for human activities, rather than referring to a physically bounded location. <A> Etymonline.com says of pale (n.) : <S> early 14c., "fence of pointed stakes," from L. palus "stake," related to pangere "to fix or fasten" (see pact ). <S> Figurative sense of "limit, boundary, restriction" is from c.1400. <S> Barely surviving in beyond the pale and similar phrases. <A> I have always heard that it refers to the Pale of Settlement , but that name likewise came from pale meaning "stick".
| From World Wide Words : Pale is an old name for a pointed piece of wood driven into the ground and — by an obvious extension — to a barrier made of such stakes, a palisade or fence. Meaning "the part of Ireland under English rule" is from 1540s.
|
Where does the phrase "holy crap on a cracker" come from? Where does the phrase "holy crap on a cracker" come from? <Q> Probably not the answer you're looking for but possibly still relevant/interesting. <S> If we can believe Wiktionary, it says: Emphatic form of holy crap. <S> Going with that... <S> Using <S> holy as an expletive <S> was answered here . <S> The word crap according to dictionary.com: Sense of "rubbish, nonsense" also first recorded 1898 <S> And finally, cracker is quite an old English word (1400s?). <S> So I'd suspect sometime in the early 1900s, as crap started to pick up momentum as the new shi*, one or more creative souls shouted it in excitement and it thereafter spread. <S> ;) <A> The only result in Google Books is 2006's Brothers and Sons: An Epic Comedy Adventure by Dana Myrick: "Holy crap on a cracker! <S> That paint job would cost three or four thousand dollars in the city,” exclaimed John loudly. <S> When John saw the expression on James's face, he knew he had said too much. <S> “But, of course, they rip people off in the city, and you're not like that, are you Gator?" said John. <S> In Google Groups there's an older result from Jul 13, 2001 in by John in rec.music.phish : <S> Holy crap on a cracker!! <S> I wish I could go! <S> There's a dozen "crap on a cracker" results, the oldest is apparently from 1992's Usher's Passing by Robert R. McCammon <S> but there's no preview to confirm. <S> The next is 1996's The Basement by Bari Wood: <S> "I'd say it was crap on a cracker, Reed. <S> But what did happen to those bees?" <S> The oldest "Holy * on a cracker" from Google Groups is "Holy hell on a cracker!" <S> from Oct 12 2000 in <S> alt.roundtable . <S> The related "Jesus Christ on a cracker" can be found in 1993's Save me, Joe Louis by Madison Smartt Bell: <S> "Jesus Christ on a cracker," Macrae said. <S> " <S> You about killed me there." <S> Finally, as a bonus, here's what holy crap on a cracker looks like. <A> This is pure speculation, but I would guess it came from the expression "Christ on a cracker!", which I've heard many times in my life. <A> Instinctively, it makes me think of something horrible being served or given in an otherwise palatable package. <S> Perhaps something that should have been good (the cracker) is then totally spoiled by something unforeseen or unwanted (the holy crap). <A> "Crap on a cracker" is a name for the dish "chipped beef on toast", which was commonly served to people in the armed services, and much disliked. <S> Also called "shit on a shingle".
| This could refer symbolically to Christian communion, where the wafer is said to literally become "the body of Christ".
|
The place where the railroad crosses the road What do you call those places where a railroad crosses an automobile road?: Of course, I've heard what they are called in English, but I suspect that they are referred to differently depending on whether the speaker is from UK, USA, Canada or Australia. So, please, specify in your answer what type of English you mean. I also heard that these places can be referred to differently even within one country because of some subtle differences pertaining to those places. I don't really know what those differences are. It may be the width of the automobile road, or the difference in height between the level of the railroad and the automobile road, or, perhaps, the presence/absence of that red-white thing that goes down and up every time when the train passes. Also, what do you call that very red-white thing itself? Especially, how would you describe its motions in this kind of sentence: "At the (place), when the (thing) finally (lowered), it was obvious I would be late for the party" What words you would substitute for those used in parentheses above? <Q> The red and white things are barriers . <S> They lower or come down to block the road. <S> So your example sentence becomes: <S> "At the level crossing , when the barriers finally came down , it was obvious I would be late for the party." <S> British level crossings which have automated barriers also have red and yellow lights near the crossing. <S> The red lights start flashing a few seconds before the barriers come down, and stop flashing after the barriers have gone up. <A> I can't think of many terms for this... <S> all I can think of is a crossing or railroad crossing <S> ( Merriam Webster ). <S> As for the "red-white" thing I would call it a gate or railway/railroad crossing gate - very descriptive terms, but that is what I would use. <S> As for your sentence I would say "At the railroad crossing , when the gates finally lowered, it was obvious I would be late for the party". <S> Check out the " Rail crossing warning signs " from Wisconsin <S> , there might be other resources from other parts of the English speaking world? <S> AFAIK, barrier is more common in British English for the "gates" talked about above. <S> Australian English i have heard of booms - but about these two I'm not the one who should be asked ;-) <A> In the US, these kinds of railroad crossing are often referred to as "grade-level crossings" or just "grade crossings" - "grade" means that the railroad and car road are at the same height (no overpass or underpass). <A> People in Western Canada refer to them as "Railroad Crossings", so: <S> "At the railroad crossing , when the gate finally came down , it was obvious I would be late for the party." <A> How do you call those places where a railroad crosses an automobile road? <S> : <S> Of course, I've heard how they are called in English, but I suspect that they are called differently depending on whether the speaker is from UK, USA, Canada or Australia. <S> So, please, specify in your answer <S> what type of English you mean. <S> Not just where the speaker is from. <S> It also depends on which form of English you learn and, which form you use. <S> First of all, you don't need to use the word automobile with the word road . <S> It is not necessary. <S> Also, the word is not necessary anyway, because it is obsolete and not normally used in the UK. <S> To answer your first question, those places are called level crossings. <S> The word railroad does not exist in British English. <S> Nobody uses it in the UK. <S> See these: For level crossing: http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/level-crossing <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/level-crossing?q=level+crossing <S> For the word railway: <S> http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/railway <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/railway?q=railway <S> I also heard that these places can be called differently even within one country because of some subtle differences pertaining to those places. <S> I don't really know what those differences are. <S> It may be the width of the automobile road, or the difference in height between the level of the railroad and the automobile road, or, perhaps, the presence/absence of that red-white thing that goes down and up every time when the train passes. <S> Also, how do you call that very red-white thing itself? <S> Especially, how would you describe its motions in this kind of sentence: <S> "At the (place), when the (thing) finally (lowered), it was obvious <S> I would be late for the party" What words you would substitute for those used in parentheses above? <S> That “red-white thing” is usually called a barrier . <S> Considering that there are usually two of them, the plural form barriers is usually used. <S> Sometimes they are called gates . <S> For your sentence, in the UK that can be: At the level crossing <S> , when the barriers finally came down, it was obvious <S> I would be late for the party.
| In the UK, this is referred to as a level crossing , the name implying that the road and rails are on the same level, as opposed to one going over the other via a bridge or tunnel. The word railway is the normal British word.
|
What's the difference between 'cutlery', 'silverware' and 'crockery'? What's the difference between 'cutlery', 'silverware' and 'crockery'? Are there any differences between them? <Q> Cutlery has two definitions: 1. <S> cutting/edged implements used for serving or eating food; 2. eating utensils in general. <S> Without further context, an American is likely to assume the first definition (knives), while a Brit is more likely to go for the generic meaning. <S> Silverware also means eating utensils, especially silver-colored ones, though nowadays, most silverware is not actually made of silver. <S> An American synonym that does not imply anything about the silver content (or lack thereof) is flatware . <S> In American English, crockery is used for certain earthenware cooking pots, but given enough context, an American would probably understand crockery used according to the British definition. <A> I've always heard, and used, the terms thus: <S> Cutlery only describes knives. <S> Crockery isn't really used in the US, to my knowledge. <S> I know this word from my reading of books by British authors, but I don't know that I've ever heard it in the US. <S> My understanding is that crockery would only mean plates, bowls and cups used at the table. <A> I polled my friends for what they call 'knives forks and spoons as a group'. <S> Respondants were mostly US, with a few international. <S> This was the result: <S> Silverware is the favorite term, followed by utensils, cutlery then flatware. <S> No one mentioned crockery as it doesn't reference the members of the silverware family.
| Crockery is completely different: in British English usage, it means the things on the dinner table that are usually made of china or porcelain -- plates, bowls, saucers, cups, serving bowls, etc. Silverware (or simply "silver" here in the South), means eating utensils, regardless of their material (it's perfectly acceptable to refer to "plastic silverware," like what you would get with a to-go order from a restaurant).
|
Which one is the most general: "ox", "bull", "bison" or "buffalo"? Which one is the most general: "ox", "bull", "bison" or "buffalo"? I've looked it up in Wikipedia, but it seems that the authors of articles in Wikipedia are trying to avoid using general terms and would rather use special scientific terms derived from Latin, which makes definitions very accurate and that's, of course, the way how any article in encyclopedia should be. But here I am more concerned about general terms and their usage, not precise definitions. So, which one of those four words seems more inclusive to you? (I know "cattle" would probably "swallow" them all :) ) <Q> Bison, ox, and buffalo are all specific, different species. <S> Confusingly, bison are sometimes called buffalo, although my impression is that this is becoming less common. <S> Bulls are adult males, most commonly cattle, though potentially from any of these species (and even some very different species---sea lion males, for instance, are also called bulls). <S> Apparently ox is also used to refer to a castrated male from any of these species (again, mostly commonly cattle). <S> If you want a term that includes all of these, you probably want "bovine". <A> In the U.S., "buffalo" and "bison" are used interchangeably for the species Bison bison (latin name). <S> See also the discussion at the start of the wikipedia article . <S> ADDED: <S> I tried some googling to isolate American uses of "buffalo" versus "bison": "great plains" <S> buffalo -- 4.5 million results "great plains" bison -- 1.5 million results <S> If you replace "great plains" with the name of an American state in the region (Kansas, Nebraska, ...) in the above searches, the ratio becomes more like 10 to 1 in favor of "buffalo". <S> I would guess that there are a significant fraction of Americans who aren't sure what a "bison" is, but these same people would have no trouble identifying a "buffalo" (meaning what biologists would call an "American bison"). <A> To my knowledge, they are all separate species within the Bovini genus. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovini <S> None of the words you mention can be used at all for any of the others. <S> "Cattle" can be, or Bovines .
| I would say (as an American English speaker) that "buffalo" is by far the more common term in everyday speech, though one could certainly argue that "bison" is the more technically correct term.
|
Meaning of the phrase "come out in the wash" One of our senior technical architects uses this phrase: it will come out in the wash We generally take that to mean "let's do the detailed/mundane stuff later — and concentrate on the key stuff now". Is this right? What's the actual meaning and correct usage of this phrase? <Q> It means that problems or difficulties will be resolved in due course. <S> AFAIK, it was first used by Cervantes in Don Quixote: "At least," said Sancho, "your grace was able to put your lance into its proper perspective, aiming at my head but landing on my shoulder, thanks to God and my ability at leaping aside - but never mind, it will all come out in the wash" [The quote varies based on the translation] <S> edit @1006a was kind enough to furnish the original Spanish in a comment: Pero vaya, que todo saldrá en la colada <S> [But go on, it will all work out in the wash] <A> Come out in the wash" refers to having a stain come out in the wash. <S> "Fig. <S> to work out all right. <S> (Alludes to a clothing stain that can be removed by washing.) <S> Don't worry about that problem. <S> It'll all come out in the wash. <S> This trouble will go away. <S> It'll come out in the wash." <S> (the Free Dictionary) <A> My understanding of "it will all come out in the wash" is that the truth will always prevail. <S> For whatever reason, in the good old days, people put coins, trinkets, and other (perhaps embarrassing) items in the pockets of their clothes prior to being washed. <S> Upon washing the clothes (either by hand or by machine), these items usually fall out and are "exposed" for good or bad. <S> Like Buddha once said, three things cannot be hidden——the sun, the moon and the truth. <A> It seems we all use the term with different intentions. <S> Rather than the small stuff will go away <S> , I thought it to mean the stain(problem) will be rinsed (shared or diluted) with all of the other stains and the final color (outcome) will be shared equally. <S> "My friend leaves early on weekdays. <S> Yes <S> but she also comes in on Saturday. <S> It will all come out in the wash.". <S> Meaning don't be too detailed everyday about the work sometimes I have more stains on a given day than you and vice versa. <S> But at the end of the week our stains mix and clear away in the wash, making us all equal the next week.
| It means that everything will come out. "
|
Are there any differences between "oval" and "ellipse"? Are there any differences between "oval" and "ellipse"? <Q> I believe they can be used interchangeably in common English, but have specific (and different) meanings when used in mathematics. <S> The online Cambridge dictionary contains the following definitions: <S> Oval shaped like a circle that is flattened either at one place or at two opposite places, so that it is like either an egg or an ellipse <S> Ellipse <S> an oval; a flattened circle <S> However, in geometry there is a difference. <S> According to the Wikipedia page on ovals : In geometry, an oval or ovoid is any curve resembling an egg or an ellipse, but not an ellipse. <S> In addition, from the Math Forum once the size of an ellipse has been fixed then its exact shape is mathematically determined. <S> In other words, the line forming the perimeter can be drawn in only ONE way. <S> This is distinct from an oval where the perimeter has only to be a concave curve, and there are many possibilities. <S> Simply, an ellipse IS an oval, but an oval may or may not be an ellipse. <S> Doctor Sarah, The Math Forum <A> This is adapted from my answer to another question . <S> In my experience, "ellipse" usually has a precise, geometric meaning, while "oval" is a more vague and general term. <S> Most dictionaries I've checked agree with this, but a few dictionaries say that the two words can be used interchangeably. <S> The New Oxford American Dictionary defines "oval" as "having a rounded and slightly elongated outline or shape, like that of an egg". <S> It defines "ellipse" as "a regular oval shape, traced by a point moving in a plane so that the sum of its distances from two other points (the foci) is constant". <S> Various other online sources agree: dictionary.reference.com agrees: ellipse versus <S> oval <S> Mathworld agrees: oval <S> thefreedictionary.com agrees: oval versus ellipse <S> mathforum.org agrees: "Simply, an ellipse IS an oval, but an oval may or may not be an ellipse." <S> answers.com agrees: "An ellipse always has two axes of reflection; an oval has one or more." <S> I've found a relatively few sources which define "ellipse" and "oval" to mean the same thing. <S> I've found no sources at all which say that "ellipse" is more general than "oval". <A> From what I can tell (looking at my kids' Montessori curriculum), an ellipse is a kind of oval.
| An ellipse does not have a "pointier" end (is not like an egg), whereas an oval can be pointier at one end, or not.
|
What does "to come undone" actually mean? I've heard this phrase several times but was given several contradictory interpretations. Please provide an exact meaning of the phase. <Q> In the literal sense, this refers to something becoming untied, unwrapped, unfastened, etc. <S> For example: Be careful with that gift. <S> If it comes undone, they'll be able to see what is inside. <S> In the figurative sense, it means that something has either not gone as planned, or has failed in some way. <S> E.g. a plan can come undone meaning it hasn't worked as expected. <S> A person can come undone meaning that they have lost their composure or self-control. <S> Andy came undone when Ann left him for Steve. <A> In modern English, it is the counterpart of "do up", meaning to fasten (by whatever method - tie, glue, knot, zip, velcro). <S> It is nearly always used literally, but when it is used of a person, it normally means that their clothing has become unfastened. <S> In older English, it could be used in a more abstract sense, so "I am undone <S> " could mean something like "my life (or my wealth, or my reputation) is ruined". <S> Modern readers often find the phrase amusing, because its modern meaning is so closely related to clothing. <A> If a plan or a scheme or a plot comes undone, it does the same thing. <S> This is a figurative sense that parallels the literal sense. <A> Reinforcing what Colin said, "undone" means ruined. <S> Two cites: <S> And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. <S> Then said I, Woe is me! <S> for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. <S> -- <S> Isaiah (KJV) <S> 6:4-5 <S> and She's come undone <S> She didn't know what she was headed for <S> And when I found what she was headed for <S> It was too late -- <S> The Guess <S> Who, "Undun", 1969 <A> It's hard to explain in clear words, but the concept is clear, undo someone/thing, fall apart someone/thing. <S> To come undone is like saying something is finally fading away. <S> I think the concept would be something like "to unbecome", but fall apart is very clear.
| If a strap or a knot or some other kind of binding comes undone, it opens by accident and no longer binds anything.
|
"Hooker", "whore", "prostitute", when to use which? "Hooker", "whore", and "prostitute" all mean whore ; what are the differences between them? <Q> They all can mean women who sleep with men for money. <S> Prostitute is the most technical term. <S> Hooker seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term is reserved for a position in rugby. <S> Whore sounds much more violent to me. <S> If one were seeking a woman to pay to sleep with him, he probably wouldn't say "I'm looking for a whore tonight," but use hooker or prostitute . <S> E.g., "She is such a whore." <S> Going back to a previous example, "I'm looking for a whore tonight" implies more to me that he is looking for someone who is easy to sleep with, not for a prostitute. <S> Not to say you can't use the others in an insult. <S> From "Baby Got Back," by Sir Mix-A-Lot, we also have the opening dialogue: <S> They only talk to her, because, she looks like a total prostitute , 'kay? <S> But in this case the lady quoted is just saying that she looks like a prostitute, not that she is one, necessarily. <S> If she said "She is such a prostitute ," that would mean that is her profession, not that she sleeps with a lot of men for free. <A> Claudiu pretty much covered it, but there's one thing more to discuss. <S> "Whore" has an unsavory meaning, to be sure, but it's lately been used in a milder sense, to describe someone who will do just about anything to get something he or she wants. <S> In this case it is coupled with another noun. <S> Examples: <S> attention whore : <S> Someone who will do anything to get attention loot whore : in MMORPG games, someone who will do anything to get gear <S> rep whore : on StackExchange sites, someone who will do anything to gain reputation <S> This is still a derogatory term, but it can also be used among friends in a somewhat affectionate sense. <S> But the meaning can vary depending on how it is said: "Jill is such an attention whore" can mean you think she's obnoxious or funny, depending on how much you like Jill. <A> If you're after the politically correct term, it's "Sex worker". <A> The reason "hooker" is in common use in America (and not elsewhere), is because it is named after a U.S. Civil War general, Joseph Hooker (who let such women follow his troops around, contributing to lax discipline that led to defeat in battle). <A> Interesting discussion with excellent answers. <S> There is at least one more dimension: the "Latinization" of English. <S> Online Etymological Dictionary (emphasis modified) <S> whore (n.) 1530s spelling alteration (see wh-) of Middle English hore, from Old English hore "prostitute, harlot," from Proto-Germanic *horaz (fem. <S> *horon-) "one who desires" (cognates: <S> Old Norse hora "adulteress," Danish hore, Swedish hora, Dutch hoer, Old High German huora <S> "whore;" in Gothic only in the masc. <S> hors "adulterer, fornicator," also as a verb, horinon "commit adultery"), from PIE <S> *ka- "to like, desire," a base that has produced words in other languages for "lover" <S> ( cognates: <S> Latin carus " <S> dear;" Old Irish cara "friend;" Old Persian kama "desire;" Sanskrit Kama, name of the Hindu god of love, kamah "love, desire," the first element in Kama Sutra). <S> Compare with prostitute (v.) 1520s, "to offer to indiscriminate sexual intercourse (usually in exchange for money)," from Latin prostitutus, <S> past participle of prostituere "to expose to prostitution, expose publicly," from pro- "before" (see pro-) <S> + statuere "cause to stand, establish," from PIE root *sta- "to stand." <S> The development of the two words are unusually dissimilar considering the similarities of their modern English meanings. <S> English is technically a Germanic language , but modern English contains many more words from Latin and Romance languages than from Germanic or Anglo-Saxon sources. <S> One pie chart on Wikipedia claims that 58% of the English lexicon is Latin or Romance and only 26% is Germanic. <S> Many things have contributed to Latin's strong influence in modern English. <S> Some of the best analysis of Latin's influence comes from writers who are fiercely opposed to the Latinization. <S> When looking at the modern usage of "whore" and "prostitute", the general rule that most people feel that Latin words are more formal, proper, or acceptable in "polite society. <S> " <S> The other answers support this idea: whore is much more insulting than prostitute. <S> The full etymological entries are packed with interesting facts about both words, so if you find this interesting, I recommend clicking the above links. <S> Conclusion: both words exist in English because of the Latinization of English and people's need for a word that is not so crude that it is unacceptable in some situations. <A> Prostitute : <S> The long technical term a person who has sex for money. <S> Hooker : <S> A slang term for a prostitute. <S> Whore : <S> A Derogative term for a prostitute or loose woman.
| Calling someone a whore can be used to insult them, implying they sleep with many people (though for men the term would be man-whore ).
|
When and why did the letter "u" begin being called [ju]? We pronounce the name of the twenty-first letter of the alphabet homophonically with the word you . Was this what the letter was always called (ever since the analogous letter in Latin), or did it at some point shift from being called [u] to [ j u]? <Q> According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "U" was not always pronounced with the initial /j/ <S> : <S> which took place in ordinary words. <S> The completion of the change is indicated by the use of the letter (u or v ) to represent the personal pronoun you in such passages as Shakes. <S> L.L.L. v. i. 60 and Dekker and Webster Westward Hoe ii. <S> i. <S> (Compare IOU.) <S> In Scotland the name /u/ was locally in use as late as the 19th century. <S> The change in pronunciation of u is the result of changes in pronunciation over time: <S> The Middle English ū from French or Latin, on the other hand, has become the diphthong /juː/ , /jʊə/ , written u , ue , or u-e , as in huge , mute , future , cure , with reduction to /uː/ , /ʊə/ after s <S> (= /ʃ/ <S> , /ʒ/ ), j , and r , <S> as in sure , jury , brute , rule , optionally after l , as in lute , lure , and more widely in American usage. <S> The the sound of U changed, and as a result the name of the letter itself followed this change in the 16th century. <S> That is, U to represent the long u of French or Latin became /ju/, and because the name of the letter was related to this sound, the name changed as well. <A> Well, first of all, "U" and "V" weren't really distinguished as separate letters until the 17th or 18th century. <S> So the name of the letter may not be any older than that. <S> If it is, though, I'd think it's related to the Great Vowel Shift. <S> Same way as the name of the letter "A" must have originally been "Ah" and then turned into "Ei" (matching what we think of as the "long vowel"), the same would presumably have happened with "Oo" turning into "yu" in both pronunciation of words containing this vowel, and in the name of the vowel itself. <A> Some sounds aren't used in different languages. <S> In Dutch it is pronounced [u]; it's a 'pure' sound, which isn't used in any English word I know. <S> In German, however, it is pronounced as [ou] similar to "you", without the y. <S> As Alex points out, the pronunciation of the letter "A" must have evolved. <S> But again, in Dutch, we pronounce it as [ah]. <S> When exactly it was decided that it would be pronounced as such, I do not know.
| The name of the letter down to the 16th century was u , pronounced like the long u of French or Latin origin, and consequently undergoing the same change to /juː/
|
Loops vs Laps for runner? When I read some events map, I found loops used wildly. But some equipment watches like Timex used laps . What's the difference, how can I use them correctly? Please also give some sample if possible. <Q> In contrast, a lap is the description of physically running around that loop more than once. <S> From the online Cambridge dictionary for lap: a complete journeyaround a race track that is repeatedseveral times during a competition <S> The definition of loop has no reference to "looping" around a race track, but it does state, as an example: <S> Turn left where the road loops roundthe farm buildings. <S> This implies that loop could be used to describe the curved path something takes, which at a stretch suggests it could be used in place of lap, but it certainly doesn't seem like intended usage. <A> Here in the UK, Laps is the recognised term; I've only ever heard Loops used by Americans. <S> As for correct, I'd argue that either is correct, While one or the other might be more commonly used in different cultures, the meaning is clear from both. <A> Laps is used for any very well-defined "course" like a track or in a swimming pool, but loop is used for something that is a bit more ambiguous or out of immediate sight, like a cross country or driving course.
| It appears to be the case that a loop is the word you would use to describe all or a section of a course or track which repeats upon itself (i.e. in a loop).
|
What does "boy" mean here? Recently, in a magazine, I read the following line: It's been an eventful year and boy, has it flown past! My question is, what does the word "boy" mean here? Is it an idiom? What is its usage? <Q> In this particular sentence, it's just emphasizing how quickly the year has flown by. <S> You hear it pretty frequently in the "Oh Boy!" <S> which used earnestly usually indicates excitement about something (or when used sarcastically, expresses dread). <S> wow , <S> golly <S> or gee whiz <S> are similar expressions you might hear in these contexts as well. <S> crikey fills the same function but is limited to UK/Australian English. <A> It's used to express surprise. <S> Other examples: Boy, was I wrong. <S> Boy, was it fun. <S> Boy, was it hard. <S> The above sentence conveys that you were surprised to see it was hard when you expected not to be. <A> A less common usage is "man." <S> "Man, this is great." <S> It is a way of addressing no one in particular.
| Boy in this usage is an interjection that is an exclamation of surprise, wonder, contempt, etc.
|
What's the best way to find the subject in a sentence? What's the best way to find the subject in a sentence? How do you define a subject?I am especially curious about such cases, in which the subject seems to be represented by more than one word: The majority of people didn't mind the new policy. A great number of students went on strike yesterday. Addition: and such cases where the passive voice is used: The man was bit by a dog. Children were frightened by the wolf. Also, please, consider such cases with ergative verbs: I broke my chair. The chair broke. The chair was broken by me. <Q> This is actually a difficult question, and to some degree the answer depends on the theoretical framework you are using. <S> As Dusty says, whether you consider the bare N or the whole NP (i.e. with or without complements and modifiers) as the subject is a matter of choice, and once you have passives then the syntactic subject may not be the semantic subject. <S> In the 80's some grammarians decided that 'subject' wasn't a useful concept, and generalised it to the concept of a syntactic pivot . <S> The point of which is not (just ;-)) to air my knowledge, but to point out that finding a definition which will cope with every edge case is hard. <A> A simplistic explanation: the subject is the noun acting in a sentence, the predicate is the action/verb and the object being acted upon. <S> For example: [ Subject ] [ Predicate ] <S> [ Subject ] [[ Verb ] [ Object ]] <S> [ The majority of people ] [[ didn't mind ] [ the new policy ]] <S> If you want to dig deeper, the rules of sentence construction are more complicated with many variations and caveats. <S> I like marenostrum's practical suggestion of asking a who or what question, but it can be misinterpreted: What was was it that people didn't mind? <S> The new policy. <S> What did a great number of students do yesterday? <S> They went on strike. <A> Subjects are noun phrases, and usually have more than one word in them, but they can be just one word, if there are no modifiers. <S> Subject is a grammatical concept restricted to languages with nominative-accusative systems, like most Indo-European languages. <S> Languages like Basque, Georgian, Quiché, or Pitjantjatjara, which have absolutive-ergative systems, do not support a meaningful concept of Subject. <S> Virtually all tensed English clauses (including all simple sentences), require a Subject constituent. <S> Besides its position before the verb phrase, the grammatical properties of a Subject include: number agreement with the verb phrase <S> The ladies are arriving ~ <S> The lady is arriving inversion with auxiliary in questions <S> The old man in the trenchcoa t is coming = <S> > <S> Is the old man in the trenchcoat coming? <S> pronominalization in tag questions <S> Those guys are the ones, aren't they ? <S> upstairs control of A-Equi deletion, plus downstairs deletion by Equi Bill wanted to see the painting = <S> Bill wanted (for Bill ) to see the painting. <S> promotion by Subject-Raising (often obligatory) <S> * <S> For there to be beer in the fridge tends = <S> > <S> There tends to be beer in the fridge. <S> movement and optional deletion by Passive Acme Construction erected this building in 1936 = <S> > <S> This building was erected in 1936. <S> contraction with auxiliary (especially pronouns) <S> The old woman has/is gone now = <S> > <S> The old woman 's gone now <S> In addition, there are semantic criteria governed by predicates. <S> Most predicates will only accept certain types of noun phrase as subjects, and lots of tests can be fashioned with different verbs. <A> A practical way might be asking the sentence the question <S> who . <S> or what . <S> ( See RegDwight's comment, and "Edit 1" below ) <S> The answer is the subject . <S> With your examples: The majority of people didn't mind the new policy. <S> Who didn't mind the new policy? <S> the majority of people <S> A great number of students went on strike yesterday. <S> Who did go on strike yesterday? <S> a great number of students Edit 1 : <S> I am omitting the question what . <S> In fact I was not fine with it while writing it. <S> I wrote it in case of the subject be neuter <S> but that was a mistake. <S> So we should ask who not taking into account the answer may be a "it". <S> Such as: The clever white mouse ate the cheese. <S> Who did eat the cheese? <S> The clever white mouse. <S> Obviosly, the question what leads us to the object if asked against the subject: What did the white clever mouse eat? <S> The cheese. <A> In general, the subject is known as the doer or agent or be-er in an active sentence whereas it can be a recipient or the receiver of action in a passive sentence. <S> Normally subjects come at the beginning of simple sentences or clauses. <S> e.g. The dog bit me. <S> (active) <S> I was bit by the dog. <S> (passive) <S> In the case above, the dog is the subject of first sentence (in active voice) and I is the subject of second sentence (in passive). <S> To be clear, the subject is the noun/pronoun/noun phrase that stands before the predicate. <S> (Predicate is the phrase containing verb and object/complement which describes something about the subject.) <A> A verb needs a who/what-indication. <S> In statements the who/what-indication stands on the left-hand side of the verb.
| A simple sentence or a clause usually takes the form of subject + predicate .
|
What do you call a person who collects recipes, ingredients or other cooking related materials? What do you call a person who collects recipes, ingredients or other cooking related materials? Is there a name for classifications like this (like taxonomy etc.)? <Q> While several terms loosely fit the criteria (such as a culinarian ), a culinophile or reagenteur speaks more to my tastes (if you don't mind portmanteaux ). <S> As for what one might call the group, taxonomy or classification are appropriate when ascribing the term to a family derived from a particular set of criteria. <S> Plenty of additional terms are available in online Thesauri, if you're curious. <A> "Foodie" (although that suggests someone interested in preparing and eating the food too). <A> (though the second is too close to “someone who loves food in great quantity” for me to be completely confortable with it). <A> How about the term "culinary collector"? <S> It seems to be both precise and general enough, while remaining straightforward and unpretentious. <S> Additional subheadings could be inserted, such as those for literature (cookbooks, articles, essays and recipes); equipment (antique, specialty or regional); videos (cooking shows, travelogues, even historic/cultural documentaries).
| I would say food enthusiast , or maybe food lover
|
How is an "assault" different from "battery" in everyday English? In legal parlance, the word "assault" historically means an attempted battery (battery being defined as below) or an intentional frightening of another person. No contact is necessary. On the other hand, battery is when the unwanted contact actually takes place. Does everyday usage of these words tacitly acknowledge this difference? <Q> Battery is less commonly used outside the law, however, in the UK at least, the verb to batter is still commonly used: <S> In the playground: <S> Cough up <S> or I'll batter you. <S> = <S> Please give me your dinner money, or I'll be inclined to commit battery <S> In the pub: <S> Q: How did the game go? <S> A: I absolutely battered him! <S> = <S> I won by quite a margin! <A> In the U.S. at least, the word battery is so rarely used outside the legal phrase assault and battery that a listener would be pretty much guaranteed to assume it meant an electrical battery unless it was specifically disambiguated by context. <S> So I think perhaps the question is misguided, as I can't say with any certainty that there is in fact an "everyday usage" of both words. <S> Assault on its own, however, does tend to be used as shorthand for sexual assault , whereas "battery" is wholly separate from that connotation. <A> Maybe Genesis didn't make it to the US? <S> Being in the lyrics (and title) of "Robbery, Assault and Battery <S> " makes battery <S> a pretty common word. <S> I agree that context is important. <S> I've always thought of assault as being a single instance with battery being much more serious, i.e. a punch thrown after an argument would be an example of assault , but someone black and blue after repeated assaults would have been subject to battery . <A> In legal terms, you can have a battery without assault, and an assault without battery. <S> I'm not sure I would characterize "assault" as an attempted battery; an assault can be committed without any subjective intention to harm, as in pointing a gun at another. <S> A battery can be committed without an assault as in the case where an individual is struck from behind. <S> The key to (legal) assault is apprehension at an imminently pending act of harm towards oneself. <S> Take away the apprehension and the act is no longer an assault though it may ripen into a battery.
| In everyday usage, I'd say that assault is commonly used, and means 'to attack', which is slightly different to the legal meaning which is the threat of an attack (battery), combined with the a demonstration of the means to attack.
|
Which is the correct way to refer to the letter "Z" — "Zee" or "Zed"? So I am giving a presentation to an American audience tomorrow, and I have rather cluelessly labeled some components on a Powerpoint slide using the alphabet. When I talk about "component Z", I want to say the right thing. It's too late in the night now to re-label with numbers. I grew up calling it "Zed", but noticed many Americans prefer "Zee"; I want to be correct, not herd-minded. <Q> The letter 'Z' is called: 'Zed' (/zɛd/) in British English and Commonwealth English (i.e., UK, Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, etc.) <S> Note that this is also close to its name in several non-English languages: " <S> zeta in Italian and in Spanish, zäta in Swedish, zet in Dutch, Polish, German, Romanian and Czech, zæt in Danish, zett in Norwegian, zède in French, and zê in Portuguese" (all names ultimately derived from the Greek letter zeta ). <S> 'Izzard' (/ˈɪzərd/) in Scottish English. <S> Now for which you should use in your case: <S> The US almost exclusively uses 'Zee'. <S> This is how it's taught to children in schools, and the name they're familiar with. <S> If you use 'Zed' in your presentation, you call attention (a little) to your non-US-ness. <S> Whether this is good or bad is for you to decide. <S> On the other hand, if you use 'Zee' and the audience consists of a large number of non-Americans (which is possible at a university) or people who otherwise expect you to say 'Zed', some observant ones may notice that you chose to change your normal pronunciation. :-) <S> From experience, it is my impression that most Americans are either aware of the alternative pronunciation 'Zed' or (more likely) <S> can understand what you mean from context. <S> So the probability of actual confusion is small, I feel, though the probability of distraction may be high enough for you to choose 'Zee'. <A> Neither is any more 'correct' than the other. <S> It's the equivalent of debating which of color/colour is the correct spelling. <S> As you're giving a presentation, I would worry most about just ensuring that you're clear and consistent. <S> Given an American audience, I would assume the following: <S> They will almost certainly use 'Zee' themselves. <S> For the most part, the only Americans who use 'Zed' are those who've had significant exposure to a foreign presence or those that want to appear that they have. <S> Assuming they're even slightly educated or culturally exposed, they will completely understand you when you say Component Zed , particularly if you're speaking with a British accent to 'prime them for it' so to speak. <S> In fact, you could also go with something less standard like Component Zulu (from the NATO phonetic alphabet) as long as you did it in context and consistently. <S> Based on this, I would recommend going with whatever you're most comfortable with (presumably 'Zed'). <S> My worry would be that if you try to adapt on the fly to 'Zee' that you'll slip up at some point and start interleaving them which would be much less clear than simply referring to them as 'Zed' throughout. <S> Good luck! <A> If you are used to calling it "zed" then I recommend that you use that in your presentation. <S> Remembering to call it "zee" is an unnecessary distraction that might even make you feel slightly uncomfortable, and you will no doubt be understood whatever you decide. <A> Sounds like you know the answer - if you're in the US, say Zee , if you're in the UK, say Zed . <S> For other English-speaking countries, I don't know, though I'd hazard a guess that AUS/NZ say <S> Zed , and Canada Zee . <A> @ShreevatsaR is correct. <S> In England <S> and what is still, imo impoliticly referred to as the 'Commonwealth', <S> the former being the birthplace and ancestral home of English, it is 'zed'.
| 'Zee' (/ziː/) in American English and Newfoundland English (parts of Canada)
|
Does "freak somebody out" mean "make somebody angry"? This is an excerpt from the Longman Dictionary Of Contemporary English . freak out phrasal verb informal to become very anxious, upset, or afraid, or make someone very anxious, upset, or afraid People just freaked out when they heard the news. freak somebody out The whole idea freaked me out. I'm curious whether freak out has the meaning of "make somebody angry"? <Q> They can get angry as a consequence, but that is not the direct meaning. <S> You really freaked me out when you told me the tests showed you had cancer. <S> I'm glad it turned out to be a false positive. <S> You really freaked me out when you lied to me about the test showing I had cancer. <S> Did you think that was funny <S> , you jerk? <S> Both first sentences use "freaked out" to express consternation. <S> But the consequences are different in each. <A> The confusion can come by the fact that upset could be synonym with angry in some case. <S> But in this context, upset takes the meaning of distressed . <S> Freaking out is more expressing some kind of irrational fear or distress, to the point of not acting like one usually do. <A> to "freak someone out" does not directly imply that you make someone angry. <S> This idiom usually means to scare them, cause them to be frightened, stressed, or anxious. <S> There is an explanation here: http://www.theenglishstudent.com/1/post/2013/10/scared-try-using-these-three-idioms.html <A> When used in the sense "I freaked her out", I can only see it having the "distressed" meaning only. <S> But "She freaked out on me" does have a sense of being angry. <S> It still carries the "upset" meaning in the definition, but the line between upset and angry here feels thinner. <S> It doesn't mean "acted in an unusual way" although that is true. <S> I think there's some connotation of "was showing anger. <S> " <S> (My perception might be swayed by blue/black vs. gold/white dress-color debates going on social media.)
| To "freak somebody out" is to startle or upset or scare them.
|
"give me five" and "slap me five", any difference? What's the meaning of "slap me five"? Any difference between "slap me five" and "give me five"? There is a book called Slap Me Five . <Q> The difference is only one of expression and context, not meaning. <S> "Slap" me five is a funkier way of saying "give me five" or "give me some skin" or any of several ways of asking for a hand slap/slide. <A> OK. <S> You all must be too young! " <S> Slap me five" was a term used in the 60s and 70s, when one person put their hand out in front of them and the other person slapped their hand. <S> It was a gesture, like a greeting. <S> A "cool" way of saying "hello." <S> Probably more common in urban or inner city settings. <A> Slap me five, 'gimmie five, and give me some skin were all synonymous greetings akin to a handshake, but with the palm up by the initiator.
| "Slap me Five" and "Give me Five" meant the same thing.
|
Is "Many thanks" a proper usage? I saw emails from English people with Many Thanks as a signing off phrase. Is that proper usage? Or is it a phrase created by continental English speakers due to the influence of their native language? ( Vielen Dank in German and muchas gracias in Spanish translate to "many thanks".) I have seen several other cases where one constructs imprecise sentences due to the influence of native language. This is evident especially in India. <Q> Yes, many thanks is perfectly proper, grammatical, standard English. <A> As Martha says, many thanks is perfectly idiomatic. <S> However, it is indeed an oddly isolated idiom: most other constructions which try to treat thanks as a plural noun <S> are ungrammatical (eg <S> *lots of thanks ), and there’s <S> certainly no such thing as <S> *a thank . <S> In the sense of “feelings of gratitude” it can be used either as a mass noun ( thanks is due to God for this harvest… ), or a plural ( thanks are due to God… ). <S> In the sense of “expressions of gratitude”, it can be used as either of these, or also as a singular: a special thanks is due to the chairman… <S> [Sources for this: roughly counting hits for phrasings like thanks is , thanks are in Google and COHA .] <S> How did it get this way? <S> The entries for thanks in the OED tell a tangled tale, but as far as I can make out, thank was originally an acceptable singular noun (their last citation is 1642, <S> Is this the thanke which you returne to God? ), but the plural form thanks gradually predominated, and apparently lost its plural-ness to some extent. <S> This bit is confusing: the OED describes <S> thanks here as “†Formerly sometimes construed as singular”, and their citations where it’s unambiguously singular stop after Shakespeare (1594, <S> Thanks to men Of Noble minds, is honourable meede. ), but all the later citations they give are completely ambiguous about its number (1805, <S> I return it to you with my sincere thanks. ), like most modern usage. <S> There are no citations where it’s unambiguously treated as plural. <S> Their earliest citation for the phrase <S> Many thanks <S> is 1803, Many thanks for your letter. <S> So this seems to arise some while after thanks was generally construed as plural! <S> I’d love to know more of the background here… <A> It is heard several times every morning on BBC Radio 4's Today programme: it is the standard closing that they use after interviewing somebody. <A> It all depends on your perspective. <S> You can break it down far enough so that there's no way it's proper <S> : What is a "thank?" <S> Can such a thing be pluralized? <S> Taken on its own, "many thanks" is a sentence fragment, and thus not truly proper. <S> In common use, though, I'd say it's a standard closing for a communication, like "With kind regards, Joe Blow" and is entirely acceptable (though I admit that I don't care for using things like "many thanks" without also including the sender's name as a signature). <S> It's vernacular, which is to say it's how the language is used, regardless of how proper it is grammatically speaking. <A> I use it all the time. <S> I consider it shorthand for both "thank you very much" and "thank you in advance" and hence works at the end of almost any e-mail.
| It is appropriate to use wherever "thanks" (as opposed to "thank you") would be acceptable.
|
When should you use "Title Case"? Are there any guidelines for when you should capitalize titles/headings or not? Should you always do this in English? I am referring to A Capitalized Heading vs A capitalized heading <Q> The title of a book, play, movie, etc. should be capitalized as in your first example. <S> Exceptions would be where the author, for artistic or other reasons, has specifically eschewed capitalization. <S> A heading or subheading, as in a section of an article, is different. <A> This is really a question of style. <S> A title is a title, but some titles are more important than others. <S> For example, in a book the chapter titles are often title-case. <S> If this is a document for your work, check for a style guide recommended by your workplace. <S> If you are submitting it to a publisher such as a magazine, ask them. <S> If there are no guidelines in place, I'd suggest deciding how important the headings are (as important as chapter titles in a novel?) and pick a consistent pattern. <A> If there is a style guide your organization subscribes to, look in that. <S> Otherwise, do what you think is right. <S> Examples of style guides: <S> MLA APA AP
| In most cases the preference is to capitalize as in your second example--the editors I know and work with pretty uniformly object to anything but an initial capital letter in heads and subheads.
|
Why is "X on steroids" good? As someone who follows tech, I have heard over and over that a product is "X on steroids." Now, outside of a few ailments and allergies that are treated with steroids, it is pretty well accepted that steroids have a negative connotation. Why the dichotomy? <Q> Steroids have a negative connotation with respect to sportsmanship precisely because they make you stronger or faster. <S> "X on steroids" comparisons are taking the sense of improvement into an arena where the sportsmanship aspect is irrelevant, so the negative connotation gets left behind. <A> "X on steroids" has no negative connotations, unless X is a negative to begin with. <S> ("Leona was like the devil on steroids.") <S> The construction is an intensifier, and just means that something is so good it has an unfair advantage. <S> It is bigger, better, faster, stronger ... <S> whatever qualities one would expect in X's domain, but with an additional multiplier. <S> Compare it to the use of "uber": <S> Ron is an uber-programmer at my company. <S> It's just one more way of hyping a thing. <A> First, steroids aren't "that" bad, in popular opinion. <S> Medically, steroids are used to treatment ailments like arthritis. <S> Chemically, steroids are very common, e.g. choloesterol ( <S> though that isn't an anabolic steroid). <S> Possession or sale of anabolic steroids without a presecription in the U.S. is illegal, but a lot of people don't really care. <S> Probably the most unpopular use of steroids is in sports. <S> The topic is a light enough one to be the subject of jokes. <S> Second, steroids are effective , or at least perceived so. <S> If I'm thinking about purchasing product X, but someone tells me, "Y is X on steroids", their telling me how effective it is. <S> Usually, legality/ethics doesn't really even relate to whatever the product is. <S> I don't know of any illegal/unethical lawnmowers. <S> So it's an apt analogy and not outside the bounds of good taste. <A> However, it seems to me to retain something of a negative connotation in that it's an over-exaggerated or artificial improvement. <S> So if something is described as "X on steroids" it may be improved a bit too much or made a bit too large. <A> As other answers point out, it's the 'beefing up' aspect of steroids that's being alluded to. <S> The negative connotations for competitive sport and long-term health are irrelevant to this usage, and it's perhaps a bit 'anal' to even think of them in what is after all just an idiomatic coinage. <S> Even if there are no meaningfully positive connotations, you can get this kind of coinage. <S> Mostly we think the expression Fuck <S> Off is entirely negative (well, mostly it is ). <S> But to those familiar with the usage, a fuck-off car is in fact highly desirable.
| Steroids in a certain context do improve performance or theoretically make someone bigger/more masculine, so the use of "X on steroids" is meant to convey the positive meaning you indicate.
|
What does 'gotcha' mean? What does 'gotcha' mean? When would you use it? <Q> Gotcha actually has several meanings. <S> All of them can be derived from the phrase of which this is a phonetic spelling, namely "[I have] got you". <S> Literally, from the sense of got = " <S> caught, obtained", it means "I've caught you". <S> As in, you were falling, and I caught you, or you were running, and I grabbed you. <S> It's a short step from the benign type of caught to the red-handed type of caught . <S> Again, it's a short step from I-caught-you-doing-something-you-oughtn't to Surprise! <S> I tricked you! <S> This sense of gotcha is used when someone falls for a practical joke, for example. <S> A somewhat-natural progression from the "I tricked you" meaning is gotcha used as a noun: this is a feature of a system (e.g. a programming language) which trips you up or catches you off-guard. <S> And finally, from the figurative sense of got = "understood", <S> gotcha can be used to mean "Aha, I see now" or "I understand". <A> Following from Jasper Loy's statement. <S> It is short for <S> "Got you!" , itself having the subject implied <S> "I have got you." . <S> It regularly means, at least in the UK, <S> "I understand [what you mean]" . <S> A: <S> You turn left, then right, gostraight on <S> and it is on your left. <S> B: <S> Gotcha! <S> and A <S> : They'll never know who did it... <S> <manic laughter> B: <S> Gotcha! <S> You little tyke! <A> It is short for got you . <S> We use it when we have caught somebody doing something or when we have tricked somebody. <S> In fact, there was a comedy show called Gotcha! <A> Gotcha 'Got you' like caught you doing something you should be doing. <S> In programming a variable of step not considered that causes an error. <A> It can also mean literally "I have got you. <S> " If I catch someone before they fall, I could say "Gotcha!"
| Thus, gotcha is often used when you witness someone doing something naughty.
|
Version control messages: what tense? In software engineering we use version control systems. Every time we check in modifications we usually leave a message with a summary of change. The question for me has always been: what is the most appropriate and practical tense and form for these messages? Examples: Changed the function argument type to int Function argument type changed to int Function argument type is changed to int Function argument type has been changed to int Function argument type is now int By "practical" I mean, because most messages are in the same form, they should be succinct, to the point, technical/formal. Best candidate in this regard is probably (2). Sometimes it is tempting to use (5) but you end up flooding your message log with "now", which is not nice. (4) is too long although looks (to me) appropriate in many cases. And finally, (1) and (3) feel wrong somehow, although (1) especially is a widely used one in programming, as far as I can tell. Any thoughts, suggestions? Edit: some other forms found by some googling: Change the function argument type to int Changing ... Changes ... <Q> Since presumably (1) you're checking in something that you did, and (2) the change has already happened (otherwise you'd have nothing to check in), I'd go with the simple past: Changed function argument type to int. <S> I wouldn't suggest using a continuous present or future tense such as "changing", because then the log becomes unclear about what was changed when. <S> (Akin to the problem of distances in driving directions: <S> when it says "left turn — 5 miles", does that mean the left turn is 5 miles ahead, or do I make a left turn now and then go 5 miles until the next step?) <A> I think it is up to preference. <S> Personally, I like using imperative: "Change the function argument to int. <S> " This especially makes sense if you are using a task management system with task numbers: "Task ID#: <S> 5719 Change the function argument to int." <S> (Or defect numbers, or what have you.) <S> From context you can infer that the task has been completed regardless of verb tense. <S> To indicate partially completed tasks, you can add qualifications such as "Change the function argument to int (partial)" or "Change the function argument to int - 50% complete" or whatever makes sense in your situation. <S> But definitely check with your colleagues on accepted conventions, unless you're the boss and can tell them what to do. :) <A> I think we should differentiate between centralized version control systems, wherein commits are only linear, and decentralized ones. <S> Assuming a decentralized VCS with a non-linear history To someone reading a log of comments, each commit begs the question: "What do I change by using this commit?". <S> This is especially true in a scenario wherein <S> one is cherry-picking a changeset from one branch into another. <S> Also, consider if one fetches commits from a remote repository and wants to inspect them first. <S> With this audience in mind, the imperative mood in present tense makes most sense. <S> E.g.: <S> [Use this commit to] Refactor the User model. <S> Since this is normally the only context in which I am reading VCS comments, I prefer this style of writing them. <S> The past tense just seems superfluous to me. <S> Of course each revision has already occurred (in the past), or it would not have been committed yet! <S> The temporal context is unnecessary. <S> Assuming a centralized VCS with a linear history <S> In this situation I can see the logic in using the simple past tense, as changes are made completely linearly. <S> However, I think the tense of commit messages becomes a stylistic concern (since the past tense is still assumed). <S> I believe that the current tense, imperative mood scans better (no superfluous "d"s or "ed"s in verbs), but that may simply be a personal preference. <S> Anyway, I do agree with CJM: I think that consistency is more important than grammar or style points. <A> In my experience, it doesn't matter how you phrase it, as long as you remain consistent. <S> Clearly, you are recording what actions have happened, so past tense is appropriate. <S> Speak to your colleagues, and agree on a common approach. <A> In revision comments, as in any programming comments, the "why" if often more important than the "what," so please permit me to reformulate a bit. <S> If you focus on the action, you might have: fixed bug 1234 <S> fixing bug 1234 <S> But I suggest you focus on the result: <S> fixes bug 1234 fix for bug 1234 <S> As @Alex said in a comment, you first have to decide what you're trying to say. <S> If you're trying to describe the change (thinking of the change as a noun, an entity that the version control system can tell you about) <S> then you want a phrase that characterizes the change itself. <S> For example, if the change was motivated by dissatisfaction that the system limits the user to a single "fooblatz" then the comment might be "allow use of multiple fooblatzes," not "changed data structure to reflect revised fooblatz cardinality."
| The simple past is the least wordy tense — no helping verbs, no "now"— and is generally the easiest to understand. If you're checking in a change on behalf of a team, I could also see using: Function argument type changed to int.
|
Meaning of "I'll make due" When someone says "I'll make due" what does it mean? <Q> The idiom is actually “to make do ”, and it means to work with what you have, to continue somehow despite an impediment or non-ideal circumstance. <S> It uses <S> do in the sense of “suffice”, as in “That’ll do”. <A> A further note regarding the usage of make due (an eggcorn in the question's original wording) and the intended expression make do ... <S> A Google Ngram shows that of the two expressions, make do is currently about 15 times more common than make due , but was rarely used until about 1930. <S> I think it's not too far of a stretch to suggest that the Great Depression may have had something to do with its increased popularity. <S> Usage of make do seems to have plateaued in the late '30s as economies started to recover, but it surged again from about 1940 (coinciding with World War II), and continued to gain in popularity right up to the 1980s (perhaps coinciding with thrift going out of fashion?). <S> It's yet to be seen whether the recent "re-issuing" of the term following the Global Financial Crisis (see this answer ) will transform the plateau from the 1980s into a renewed surge of popularity... <A> Some supplementary information in addition to Jon Purdy's answer : <S> In British English (as opposed to American English) due is pronounced like few or queue <S> so it's never confused with do . <S> [This British Library page] <S> ( http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item106365.html] provides an example of both historic and contemporary usage: <S> Make Do and Mend was a pamphlet issued by the British Ministry of Information in the midst of WWII. <S> It was intended to provide housewives with useful tips on how to be both frugal and stylish in times of harsh rationing. <S> With its thrifty design ideas and advice on reusing old clothing, the pamphlet was an indispensable guide for households. <S> Readers were advised to create pretty ‘decorative patches’ to cover holes in warn garments; unpick old jumpers to re-knit chic alternatives; turn men’s clothes into women’s; as well as darn, alter and protect against the ‘moth menace’. <S> An updated version of the book was recently released to coincide with the economic recession, offering similar frugal advice for 21st century families.
| To "make do" is a useful expression in tough times such as war or recession.
|
What word means what many people think 'ironic' means? 'Ironic' is often used to mean an unusual coincidence rather than its true meaning which is closer to sarcastic. That being said, is there a word that would be a good replacement for what many people seem to think it means? <Q> I'd say something about the matter, but I think I'll let <S> George Carlin say it instead because he's more eloquent: <S> Irony deals with opposites; it has nothing to do with coincidence. <S> If two baseball players from the same hometown, on different teams, receive the same uniform number, it is not ironic. <S> It is a coincidence. <S> If Barry Bonds attains lifetime statistics identical to his father's, it will not be ironic. <S> It will be a coincidence. <S> For instance: If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, <S> he is the victim of an accident. <S> If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. <S> But if the truck was delivering insulin, ah! <S> Then he is the victim of an irony. <S> If a Kurd, after surviving a bloody battle with Saddam Hussein's army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large. <S> Darryl Stingley, the pro football player, was paralyzed after a brutal hit by Jack Tatum. <S> Now Darryl Stingley's son plays football, and if the son should become paralyzed while playing, it will not be ironic. <S> It will be coincidental. <S> If Darryl Stingley's son paralyzes someone else, that will be closer to ironic. <S> If he paralyzes Jack Tatum's son that will be precisely ironic. <A> Ironically, the word you're looking for is ironic , which according to Webster's means happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this Sarcasm is "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt," but it is not precisely the same thing. <A> If you mean the sense Alanis Morissette intended, then "unfortunate"? <A> Depending on the misuse, "coincidence", "apposite", or "unfortunate".
| Irony is "a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was to be expected; a result opposite to and in mockery of the appropriate result."
|
"The program is functional, fast, and finds a solution..." This triple appears wrong to me: The demonstrations show that program A is functional, fast, and finds a solution that program B misses. Because functional and fast are adjectives and both depend on is , while finds a solution does not. Of course, I could say, The demonstrations show that program A is functional, fast, and capable of finding a solution that program B misses. But, I feel, this is clumsy and conveys a slightly different meaning. Yet another solution would be The demonstrations show that program A functions , is fast, and finds a solution that program B misses. But I am not sure if functions can/should be used like this. Finally, there is The demonstrations show that program A is functional and fast and finds a solution that program B misses. Which is also not very nice. I am not a native speaker. Any suggestions would be appreciated. EDIT: I also thought of The demonstrations show that program A is both functional and fast and finds a solution that program B misses. <Q> I think the completely-parallel construction would be <S> The demonstrations show that Program A is functional, is fast, and finds a solution that Program B misses. <S> However, I don't think that flows any better than the original. <S> Of the variations you list, my second choice would be the one that puts another and between "functional" and "fast": <S> The demonstrations show that Program A is functional and fast, and finds a solution that Program B misses. <S> The capable of finding version is grammatical, but you're right, it means something slightly different than finds . <S> I wouldn't suggest the functions variation, because I think it's even worse in terms of parallelism than the original. <S> Edit: on re-reading, I think the double- and version needs another word: <S> The demonstrations show that Program A is functional and fast, and it finds a solution that Program B misses. <A> Here is another wording that fixes the problem and (I think) sounds less awkward than "functional and fast and finds...": <A> You can also split it in two sentences: <S> The demonstrations show that program A is functional and fast. <S> [Moreover,] They [also] show that program <S> A finds a solution that program B misses. <A> The issue is really not with the adjective order. <S> Both "fast" and "functional" are adjectives of opinion and can be placed in either order. <S> The issue is in the illiteration of the words. <S> You're using fast, functional, and finds practically next to eachother. <S> That's what is making the sentence sound strange. <S> Try using synonym, I would suggestusing "comes up with a solution" rather than just "finds""practical" instead of "functional"And so on.
| The demonstrations show that Program A is not only functional and fast, but also finds a solution that Program B misses.
|
Where does the period go when using parentheses? Where should the period go when using parentheses? For example: In sentence one, I use this example (which has a parenthesis at the end.) Should the period be inside, or outside of the parentheses? What about if the entire sentence is a parenthetical (as below)? (Where does the terminal punctuation go here?) Is there a hard and fast rule? <Q> The best rule of thumb for punctuating in and around parenthetical remarks is that the sentence should be valid if you remove the parentheses and everything inside them. <S> Here I have an example (with a parenthetical remark). <S> Here is the same example (with the same remark, even.) <S> Removing the entire parenthetical remark from the first sentence still leaves me with a valid structure, while removing it from the second leaves me lacking any terminal punctuation; thus the first is correct. <S> References: <S> The Punctuation Guide <S> Study.com <S> Grammar Girl <A> I enjoy breakfast (sometimes). <S> If the entire sentence is parenthetical, then you put the punctuation inside the parenthesis. <S> I enjoy breakfast. <S> (I enjoy lunch more.) <A> Place the period logically when parentheses are involved. <S> In the first example, the period goes outside because the single sentence ends after the parentheses. <S> In the second example, it goes inside because it belongs to the second sentence. <S> I like apples (and bananas). <S> He likes apples. <S> (I like bananas.) <A> Well, I prefer using the British logic for placing periods even though I'm not only American, but I live in Texas. <S> Since I don't want to portray myself as an ignorant person, I think a lot of textual decency. <S> While I place my periods outside the quotation marks, I'm left feeling haunted by the idea that an American might think I'm the ignorant one since I'm putting periods after closing quotes when the text being quoted is part of the structure of the sentence itself, not a dialogue in a story nor a quotation of a complete sentence. <A> Another "hard and fast" rule for placing the period, if you may: For a complete sentence, leave the period within the parentheses; for a phrase or clause in a sentence, leave the period without . <A> I have an example sentence (which ends with parenthesis). <S> is correct, since you are writing the description of the word 'sentence' in the parenthesis and your sentence actually ends after that description. <S> It is like, <S> The cops caught a thief (the one who stole your wallet).
| If only part of the sentence is parenthetical, then you put the final punctuation outside of the parenthesis:
|
Omission of definite article with musical instruments What is the rule for omitting/including the definite article in the following sentences: I used to play piano. I used to play the piano. I would pick the first sentence, but I've heard people say the second sentence even when they are not referring to a specific piano.Which one is correct? <Q> They're pretty much equivalent. <S> That said, omitting the article has a slight feeling of playing with a group or orchestra, wherein the instrument is a synecdoche referring to the position the person occupied within the group. <S> I used to play the flute. <S> I used to play flute in the Civic Orchestra. <S> Omitting the article also can carry the feeling of playing an instrument in the general sense. <S> I play woodwinds. <S> In this case it would sound strange to use the article because you are speaking of a class of instruments. <A> I remember when I first moved from the UK to the US, I was quite taken aback by the “I play piano” usage, without the article. <S> So I’m pretty sure that this usage is very uncommon in the UK (at least among classical music circles). <S> In US usage, Robusto’s answer, that the article-less usage is more common in reference to playing with a particular group, fits my experience (classical groups, north-east US) pretty well. <A> Articles are creatures more of usage and discourse than of grammar. <S> The human speech communities involved (UK vs US; musicians, cooks, scientists, etc.) have certain patterns and expectations for use in the domains they control. <S> The surrounding text (conversation or writing) also guides usage. <S> As an American, I accept using or omitting the article before an instrument; they are nearly interchangeable for me. <S> I like the idea above that the article-less usage stresses playing with a group and the article usage stresses the position within the group. <S> As an ESL teacher, I have generally taught that omitting the article highlights the action or activity, almost as if practicing-violin were a single intransitive concept, like swimming. <S> Using the article gives a subtle shift in focus to the instrument. <S> The following is a sentence I would be likely to produce; I would accept any version of this (article-wise) that I might hear:"When <S> he was little he played violin, but he switched to the cello when he got to middle school." <A> I heard somewhere that if the instrument is big and can hardly or even can't be carried (like cello, piano, drum set, harp, grand-piano, organ, etc.) <S> the definite article is needed. <S> I am not sure if that's correct, though. <A> I play piano?? <S> This is I understand an American usage and is unacceptable in British or Australian English. <S> I play strings <S> I play drums <S> This is the usual option to omit the (indefinite) article - it means you play instruments in this category but doesn't mean you play all stringed instruments (or whatever), but that you play some (and the implication is a few). <S> The drums is a bit of a special case plural representing a singular set of drums or a number of different percussion instruments. <S> If you play a number of different percussion instruments in an orchestra you would normally play drums and other percussion instruments and refer to percussion. <S> The drum set in a band (which also includes non-drum percussion components - big hat, cymbals, etc.) is actually a stand in for the whole percussion section in a full orchestra, so the "role" usage I suggest below prevails. <S> I play percussion <S> I play woodwind <S> I play brass <S> These are actually an adjective with an implicit "instruments" omitted, so it looks like a mass noun and doesn't have plural -s, but otherwise acts like the "strings" case above. <S> I'm intrigued by the @brilliant idea that it has to do with being portable. <S> I think the indefinite usage has more to do with playing a particular role in an ensemble or orchestra where there are multiple instruments playing the X part (implicitly plural even if singular in form), rather than a unique role (so definite singular). <S> Thus it is appropriate to say I play X (meaning the role and the part as well as the instrument). <S> These is confirmed by it being easier to omit the article when the "in the orchestra" or similar is explicitly or implicitly present. <S> I can say I play cello <S> I play trombone <S> I play guitar <S> I play banjo <S> I can't say I play piano?? <S> I play mandolin?? <S> I play harp?? <S> The mandolin is portable. <S> But there are not often multiple of any of these in a typical modern band, ensemble or orchestra. <S> Piano and harp fit both theories. <A> I actually play the mandolin in a group and it is a small light instrument that can be very easily carried in a small case, more easily than a guitar so this argument is not good enough. <S> I agree that "I play mandolin" <S> seems to be a modern way of saying "I play the part devoted to the mandolin in this group". <A> "I shoulde'v learned to play the guitar, I shoulde'v learned to play them drums" - Dire Straits. <S> I would definitely go for " the piano ". <S> In fact the first sentence sounds strange. <A> Difficult to give basic rules. <S> One idiomatic use with the definite article is I'm learning to play the piano. <S> Longman DCE.
| "I play the mandolin" is the best way to specify which instrument I play and the normal classical English usage.
|
“Oojakapiv”: what does this word mean? A lot of people in my family use this word, not regularly, but enough for me to ask what it means. I know it’s not a “real word”, but how come people from different sides of my family use it? It must mean something. The way the word is used is for a word that doesn’t mean anything, like gobbeldygook . <Q> Something like: dingbat, thingamabob or thingy . <S> From 1925 E. FRASER & J. GIBBONS Soldier & Sailor Words 215 Oojah (also Ooja-ka-pivi), a substitute expression for anything the name of which a speaker cannot momentarily think of , e.g. ‘Pass me that h-m, h-m, oojah-ka-pivi, will you?’ <S> 1931 <S> J. VAN DRUTEN London Wall II. <S> ii. <S> 73 <S> There's a whole lot in the Oojah Capivvy now. <S> 1962 Sunday Times 4 <S> Feb. 31/6 <S> This was the catch-phrase in a music-hall song in use during the first world war... <S> I remember the line and the tune: ‘You cannot eat it, or see it, or hear it, you just ask for Ujah-ka-piv.’ <S> 1966 <S> ‘L. LANE’ ABZ of Scouse <S> 78 Whur's ther ojah-capiff?, where is the hammer, spanner or whatever it might be? <S> 1992 <S> Hobart Mercury 8 Aug. <S> , There are several of Ms Bosanky's turns of phrase that are pure Downunder. <S> For instance, ‘hoojah-kapippy’..or a ‘whatsitsname’ euphemism. <A> World Wide Words discusses this briefly: they suggest that ooja , oojah capivvy and variants originated in British Army argot around the time of WWI: <S> ‘Pass the oojah.’ <S> says the one-armed man who is playing billiards. <S> What is the oojah? <S> The oojah is any object in Heaven or earth; it is the thing which has no name or the name of which you have temporarily forgotten. <S> — Washington Post, Oct 1917 <S> [ Edit: the OED confirms this quotation as their oldest citation for the usage, and suggests an etymology: “Perhaps [from] Urdu and Indo-Persian † ḥujjat kāfī fīhi , lit. <S> ‘the argument is sufficient’, <S> there’s no more to be said about it.”] <S> A form more familiar to some readers <S> (it certainly was to me) may be oojah-cum-spiff , which is used rather differently: <S> it’s an adjective meaning roughly “all right”, “in good order”, similar to e.g. tickety-boo . <S> This turns up several times in P.G. Wodehouse’s books (the Jeeves novels, and iirc the Blandings ones too): <S> “Yes, I think we may say everything’s more or less oojah-cum-spiff. <S> With one exception, Jeeves…” <S> [ Edit: OED suggests that the spelling of this version is influenced by the then-popular use of the Latin pronoun cum .] <A> Dad was a WW2 Vet, so he may or may not have picked up the expression during his years in the army. <S> It is synonymous with Thingamajig, Whatchamacallit etc. <S> Sometimes, though it was shortened to Oojah. <S> Here in New York no one has ever understood this wonderful expressive term. <S> To me it has such a lovely flow. <A> It would appear to be quite country wide rather than Local as both my wife , from London, England, and myself from Lancashire both remember our parents using oojacappivvy & oohjahmaflip. <S> they were all born about 1904-1916 <S> so the grandparents probably adopted the saying in WW1. <S> But having been used by 3 generations I have never heard our children or grandchildren use either term. <S> I wonder if they just use an asterisk when texting & cant remember the name of something! <S> oojamaflip, OED <S> Like thingamabob or whatchamacallit, oojamaflip (also spelled whojamaflip, hoojamaflip, etc.) <S> is a word used to refer to something a person doesn’t know the name of, or doesn’t wish to specify precisely. <S> The earliest evidence OED‘s researchers have found for the word so far is from 1969, in a pair of advertisements for a product whose precise nature is (appropriately) unclear <S> Oxford Dictionaries , origin of oojah says: "Early 20th century, of unknown origin" <A> I'm from Sydney, Australia, and part of a many-generations-of-Aussies family. <S> My grandfather, also a proud Aussie, used to call a toffee apple a 'hoojah-kapivvy-on-a-stick'. <S> I never heard him use the term 'oojah' or 'hoojah' for anything else, but it seems the meaning was similar from the context <S> - something like 'that thingamabob on a stick'. <S> The pronounced 'h' was clear when he said it. <S> I can't recall him writing it down <S> so my spelling is how I interpreted how he voiced the expression. <S> A previous answer said that a WW2 vet may have picked up the expression in the army; my grandfather was in the Australian forces in WW2 so may have picked up the expression there as well. <S> In any case, it may be more than local or countrywide in the British Isles; it definitely infiltrated some of the Commonwealth at least. <S> I'm in my forties now and can't find many Aussies familiar with the expression; those who are, are generally older than myself. <A> I have a feeling it may have originated from a corruption of Indian words brought over by the troops when they returned to uk. <S> In the same way doolalay ( meaning daft) came over. <S> Or a cup of char for tea.
| When I lived in Leeds Yorkshire UK, 'Oojah--kapivvy' was definitely part of our family vernacular and was particularly used by my Father.
|
Difference between "each" and "every" What is the difference between the following two sentences? Each apple is red. Every apple is red. <Q> Strictly speaking, the two sentences mean the same thing. <S> However, the sentence "Each apple is red" is slightly unusual, and the more natural way to express this would be "Every apple is red", or "All apples are red." <S> The reason is that the word each is generally used in situations where we consider the apples individually or sequentially, <S> whereas every and all are used for generalizations. <S> So we might say: We spray-painted each apple red. <S> Here each is appropriate because every apple was painted individually. <S> However, most people wouldn't say the following: [?] <S> Each apple turned red by October. <S> This isn't technically wrong, but it sounds unnatural. <S> Much more usual would be to say one of the following: <S> Every apple turned red by October. <S> All the apples turned red by October. <A> Perhaps this question has already been answered, but here's my two cents: <S> Every is also used for the individual, although the focus is shifted to the group. <S> Consider the following quote from Dictionary.com: <S> Of two or more members composing an aggregate, each directs attention to the separate members in turn: <S> Each child (of those considered and enumerated) received a large apple. <S> Every emphasizes inclusiveness or universality: <S> Every child (of all in existence) likes to play. <S> However, a couple of years ago I came across a somewhat novel usage, or perhaps archaic usage, of each: the poetic each. <S> Simply put, this is a full synonym or every, as in the following excerpt: <S> The Holy Spirit is working in your heart; <S> This is the day to give the Lord each part. <S> — "The Lord is Calling" by Greg and Heather Murray <S> The sense of each in the quote above is obvious. <S> It does not mean to give the Lord one piece of your heart at a time; it means to surrender your entire heart. <S> Now, technically, this usage is not usually considered; it may even be considered incorrect by textbook English standards. <S> I simply want to point out its existence. <A> Each is used for single person. <S> Every is used for a group.
| Each, every are alike in having a distributive meaning. Each is used for the individual person or item, and the focus is on the individual, not the group.
|
Meaning and connotations of "ignorance" I'm interested in the more intricate meanings of the term "ignorance". In my experience, it is being used primarily to express someone's state of not knowing. Somebody can be ignorant and innocent of it at the same time. In German, the same word exists ( "Ignoranz" ), but with a different approach: It describes someone's conscious decision to ignore the facts - usually that's a facet of arrogance (or, less often, stupidity). It's more a description of attitude than state . Not knowing is only the result of it. In any case, you cannot be innocent of "Ignoranz" . Does the same subtext exist in English? If not, what would be a better match for the German word? <Q> <A> Partially. <S> The word ignorance , (and the adjective ignorant ) purely imply a lack of knowledge, understanding, awareness, education, or unenlightened. <S> The latter use, as an insult to show contempt for a person is more common these days, often as an alternative for bigoted . <S> When people "choose to ignore the facts", that fits with the subtext you mention, though when I say that, the person in question usually does not believe the facts to be true. <S> So it is not a case for them of arguing that "black is white", they believe in the opinion they hold; but others do not and think they should not. <S> Usually the division in this form lies in the definition of what is "politically correct" . <S> If someone knew that they were wrong, but doggedly refused to change their opinion, we would say they were stubborn , <S> bullheaded , pigheaded or obstinate . <S> The word pigheaded in particular is used for the bigoted form of ignorant , as it is common to refer to bigoted people as pigs - usually preceded by some negative adjective, e.g. sexist pig . <A> English can actually make the distinction OP refers to simply by using different inflections... <S> Your ignorance of a situation means you don't know about it. <S> Your ignoring of the same situation means you know about it, but choose to ignore it. <S> As others have said, if you don't want to use the gerund , you can speak of willful ignorance - but the "not knowing" meaning associates so strongly with ignorance <S> that this usually means you have gone to some trouble to avoid knowing (rather than that you know, and choose to ignore). <A> "Ignore" and "ignorant" come ultimately from a Latin word "ignosco" < "in-gno-sco", meaning "not know". <S> In English the verb "ignore" has come to mean a deliberate not-knowing; but the adjective "ignorant" does not have that implication. <S> In French, in contrast "ignore" does simply mean "not know", without this implication. <A> I think there's a subtle difference in the way the term is used that differentiates between the two meanings. <S> If you describe a person as "ignorant" without any other context you usually mean that they're bigoted / obstinate as described above. <S> e.g. <S> "What did you think of Dave?" <S> "I think he seemed a little ignorant" <S> However, if you use it to refer to a particular context then it can be used (carefully) to describe the simple fact of not knowing e.g. <S> "How did Dave get on with the customer?" <S> "He was ignorant of their networking requirements" <A> We have a good match when it results in a crime. <S> Criminal negligence <A> "Selective knowledge". <S> Or "lack of objectivity". <S> A word or phrase that "describes someone's conscious decision to ignore the facts" implies that this person is being knowledgeable only selectively. <S> Also, they may not care to be objective because that would require looking at various angles dispassionately which this person has no intention of doing. <S> In more formal settings and when this arrogance is displayed in order to dismiss another's viewpoint, it is termed "impermissible viewpoint discrimination".
| It is used both for those who are ignorant harmlessly, by virtue of lack of exposure, and as an insult or negative comment about someone who displays a lack of enlightenment on an issue when they should know better; quite often when they do know better, but choose to ignore the facts. A possible English phrase to match the German meaning would be "willful ignorance"--you were given an opportunity to educate yourself but purposely chose not to learn anything new about the situation, preferring to remain entrenched in your current opinion.
|
Alphanumeric abbreviations in English I've been running across some interesting abbreviations on the internet. For example: b4 : before w8 : wait I find it clever because you use just 2 letters to express a longer word. What's the origin of these abbreviations? Can you please provide a full list of them? <Q> Such abbreviations are older than the Internet, though they became popular through text messaging on mobile phones, before spreading to Internet-based chat and beyond. <S> The oldest instance that I know of is Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man . <S> The original version serialized in the Galaxy magazine in 1952 featured such characters as T8 and $$son . <S> The subsequent novel publication was edited to tone down the use of such abbreviations, but there are still characters called @kins and ¼maine. <S> Randall Garrett wrote a review in verse whose beginning and ending I will quote here: <S> In the far & distant future — you can pick the d8 2 suit yourself … … <S> are the (ter of Reich. <S> (Pronounce ( as parenthesis; it's not an exact match.) <A> I would think most, if not all, of these diminutives have evolved with the texting/IM culture. <S> Before the days of cellphones with full keyboards, users saved space and, perhaps, time using these abbreviations. <S> The general rule is to replace a syllable with the figure of the number that sounds most like it. <S> Most of these abbreviations, however, consist of more than two characters <S> e.g. "9ce" (nice), "gr8" (great), "2moro" (tomorrow), etc. <S> You could also invent yours e.g. "d8" (date), "f8" (fate), but who uses these?! <A> Essentially the concept is to type phonetically, using the numbers that are comprised of a standard syllable: <S> 1,2,4,8. <S> (3 tends not to be used.) <S> The spelling contractions, lack of punctuation and phonetic replacements are extensive and most words that can lose letters whilst still remaining loosely readable do so; a lot of acronyms are thrown in to the mix as well. <S> Therefore you get a multitude of sins produced in this medium, usually blamed for the downfall of literacy in youth. <S> Some example uses: <S> (apologies) hi m8, u out 2nite? - " <S> Hi mate, [are] you [coming] out tonight?"we 1! - <S> "We won!"w8 4 me m8, no1 else <S> 2come. <S> - "Wait for me mate, no one else to come [after me]. <S> " <S> Fortunately some people do still use proper English in such messages, but it is surprisingly uncommon. <S> Most people seem very happy to dispense with the rules of language.
| Well, they are a variety of shorthand, most notably on the rise because of text messaging (SMS - sending textual messages via mobile/cellular phones).
|
Seasonal parsing: "enjoying Re-run's of Christmas' past" — fragment, pluralization and ownership enjoying Re-run's of Christmas' past I just saw this posted as a Facebook status update, and it has boggled me as to how it should be considered or how it should be rewritten. If re-runs belong to Christmases of the past, and if the past owns Christmases then there is ownership present. What about Christmases' ? I'm not focused on the fact it's a fragment of speech. Maybe that imbues some ambiguity upon it in my mind's eye and prevents me immediate resolution. What's the most accurate, or else, your best interpretation of this fragment? <Q> The "of" takes care of possession, if in fact possession is intended. <S> Either way, I see the solution as simple plurals for both. <S> The possession is in the eye of the beholder. <S> Enjoying re-runs of Christmases past <S> Or more poetically: Enjoying re-runs of Christmas past <S> If TV is the subject, maybe you can convince your Facebook friend to decrease the ambiguity with something like: Enjoying old Christmas re-runs <S> Most people on Facebook appreciate this kind of constructive criticism. <A> I would have to assume that it's intended to mean that the person is "enjoying reruns from past Christmases", e.g. watching old favorites on TV, or catching the 96th consecutive showing of "It's a Wonderful Life," or going over old family Christmas movies and photos, or some such. <A> Apostrophe abuse! <S> Those re-runs do not possess anything, and neither does that Christmas! <S> Your friend failed English. <S> "Enjoying re-runs of Christmases past."
| The re-runs belong to Christmases past, or the writer is experiencing re-runs of the past Christmases themselves.
|
How would I say this sentence correctly? After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from a job application she posted online from Macy's asking her to come to a interview. The sentence does not sound right to me, what would be the correct way to say this? <Q> I am not quite sure as to the need for highlighting the fact that she has been looking for job for 6 months. <S> How about : <S> - Macy's responded to her online job application inviting her for an interview. <A> I suggest you drop 'from a job application' as it is pretty much implied. <S> After six months of looking for a job, she finally got a reply from Macy's asking her to come for an interview. <A> You can start by using the correct article "an" when referring to "interview." <A> You would be better to use "through" than "from" here: <S> After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply through a job application <S> she posted online from Macy's asking her to come to a interview. <S> Better still: <S> After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's (through an application <S> she had posted online) asking her to come to a interview. <A> I'd try to simplify: An online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's after six long months of looking. <S> This places the fact of the application being online front and center. <S> If the time period is to be emphasized: She looked for six long months before an online job application finally got her an interview at Macy's. <A> After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's regarding a job application she had posted online, asking her to come to a interview. <A> After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from Macy's to an online job application asking her to come in for an interview.
| However, if you do need to highlight the 6 month search, then one option i can think of might be :- Her 6 month job search has culminated in Macy's inviting her for an interview in response to her online application
|
When would one use "burnt" and when would "burned" be more appropriate? More out of curiosity than anything, when would one use "burnt" and when would "burned" be appropriate? For example, This coffee tastes burnt. This coffee tastes burned. or They burnt the coffee again. They burned the coffee again. Does it make a difference? I know when I speak either phrase they sound almost indistinguishable (my "t"s do not always sound sharp and come across like "d"s at times); can they be used interchangeably? [ As an aside, the problem with the coffee at the local Dunkin Donuts is what prompted the whole curiosity about this :) ] <Q> They are both used as the past tense of burn . <S> In the Corpus of Contemporary American English , a search for burned returns more than 5 times more results than a search for burnt (11558 for burned vs. 2005 for burnt ). <S> Note that in combination with certain nouns, burnt is actually what is in general used: "burnt ivory", "burnt cobalt", "burnt orange", "burnt yellow", "burn toast", "burnt smell", etc. <S> (For complete table use the compare tool between burned and burnt in the COCA .) <S> In British English, hovewer, they seem to be used with more similar frequency. <S> In the British National Corpus , a search for burned returns 1435 results and a search for burnt returns 1252 results. <S> Unlike American English, there are many occurrences of burnt as a verb too ( <S> e.g. <S> "And I burnt them"). <A> The simple past and past participle of burn <S> is either burned or burnt . <S> In addition, burnt also functions as an adjective to describe something as being damaged, injured, or made black from burning , a meaning slightly different from it being used as a participial adjective. <A> Burnt toast is easier to say than 'burned toast'. <S> And some things said simply become the more commonly accepted way to say it <S> and I think that's the case with 'burnt toast'. <S> There is also a shadow of some mountain regions of the South, of dialects of British English, of 'folk speech' in the word 'burnt' and others like it. <S> My father in everyday discourse would say burned, dreamed, spelled but when with his brothers and mountain-raised Scot-Irish father would only say 'burnt, dreamt, and spelt as in 'Remember when Jim took the prize because he spelt so well?"
| In American English, burned is used much more frequently than burnt .
|
Is "more poorly" an appropriate phrase? Today I described someone as being trained to react "more poorly" to a given situation. Her current reaction is poor. It is becoming more poor. So she reacts more poorly. Is this correct? It sounds awkward. <Q> The British National Corpus has 13 cites for "more poorly", and the Corpus of Contemporary American English has 83 (including 8 for "even more poorly" and 1 for "more and more poorly"). <S> Google returns about 826k results. <S> So it's obviously being used and understood. <S> And, as J. M. points out, it's not ungrammatical, either. <S> (Now, if you were asking for possible alternatives, that would be a different question.) <A> From a strictly semantic standpoint "more poorly" is acceptable. <S> It does sound a bit akward, as you said. <S> In your situation, "moor poorly" might be better stated as "less appropriately" or something along those lines. <A> Compare: <S> He did more poorly on the test. <S> vs. <S> He did worse on the test.
| Technically, it is not grammatically wrong, but just using the word "worse" is likely more straightforward and colorful.
|
Do things use apostrophe for indicating possessive? Possible Duplicate: Is using the possessive 's correct in “the car's antenna”? If someone owns something I would say: Mom's car . But if the owner is not a person, does it actually own it according to English rules or common usage? Which phrase is right? The house windows. The house's windows. The windows of the house. (Or something like that.) (Feel free to modify this question so it would be clear for other people.) <Q> The second and third phrases are correct: <S> The house's windows <S> The windows of the house <S> There is no requirement in the English language that possessors be people, and it's extremely common for inanimate objects to be used with the possessive 's . <S> There is very little difference between the version that uses 's and the version that uses of . <S> Related: <S> Is using the possessive "'s" correct in "the car's antenna"? <A> I'll start by saying that I've seen several heated debates about this online, but the general consensus is that this rule is one of those stylistic ones that someone created that has gotten passed around by some as an actual grammatical requirement. <S> So both of the following are correct: <S> The house's windows <S> The windows of the house <S> If you (or your supervisor/professor/etc.) prefer the second stylistically <S> , that's fine <S> but it's not an actual grammatical rule. <A> House windows is a compound noun with windows modified by house . <S> The modifier tells us what kind of windows these are, so house windows are different from car windows. <S> House's windows and windows of the house can both be used to refer to windows that are part of the house, though some authors consider it bad form to use the former.
| In practice, inanimate objects are quite frequently used with 's .
|
Obscenities considered less obscene in compounds? [NSFW] There are at least a few cases in which a compound word or phrase, transparently containing an obscene word, seems to be considered less obscene (in some dialect/registers/circumstances) than the word itself. The two examples on which I’m fairly sure of this are: clusterfuck bullshit Unfortunately I have no hard references beyond my own experience here: I’ve heard people use these whom I’ve never heard swear otherwise, and heard clusterfuck on the radio in programmes where I’d be amazed to hear fuck . But I recall also seing this mentioned somewhere online — a comment on Language Log, or similar — though I can’t now track that down. So… is this phenomenon documented? well-known? quantified? And are there other notable examples? The other potential example I can think of is motherfucker — it has I think become partially decoupled from fuck in its level of obscenity, but in the circles I know, it’s typically considered more not less obscene. (Since I don’t have any references, I'm open to the suggestion that I’m imagining this phenomenon, over-extrapolating from a few unusual occurrences.) <Q> I strongly disagree that clusterfuck and bullshit are considered less "obscene" than <S> fuck and shit are all by themselves. <S> People who would be shocked by the former will be just as shocked by the latter. <S> Even in the compounds you mention, those words still get bleeped from broadcast TV in the U.S. <A> (Others, such as "motherfucker", are worse.) <S> However, I don't think there's any kind of broad social consensus on this, aside from highly arbitrary censorship lists used by some regulatory agencies or style guides. <A> There is at least one instance of documentation: a remark in the Urban Dictionary that "ironically" the expression "cheeky bastard" is less offensive than the simple term "bastard". <S> Here is the link: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cheeky%20Bastard <A> Connotation, connotation , connotation . <S> Compounding a profanity puts it in context. <S> Shit is a striking word that can be used in a broad range of contexts – and therefore innuendo, inflection and sub/common-culture <S> can leverage lots of meaning into the word's usage. <S> The word Bullshit derives from a pragmatic, unavoidable part of life: that bulls ( Bos taurus ) generate large quantities of manure - shit , in the vulgar. <S> The mundane dimension of the etymology soften the nature of the word. <S> The word can be softened more among subcultures that are more 'basic' in their humor - such as ranchers , where the unsavory duties of managing bulls' shit become the subject of toil-lightening humor. <S> Likewise, in the USA, bullshit is 'softened' even further from its profane roots because of the stereotype of the long-winded , full-of-hot-air, big-talking Taxas rancher — a character whom can be seen as tragic, good-natured, and forgivable. <S> "Shooting the shit" is a conversational style, typical to this stereotype, wherein exaggerated or otherwise-untrue story elements (thus, bullshit ) may be told. <S> Compare this to the range of vulgar usages of shit , or the german scheiß . <S> Clusterfuck is similarly softened from the 'bare' fuck because a clusterfuck is often an unfortunate, uncontrollable, or fated situation <S> that is shared with others. <S> The interpersonal dynamics of the people involved in the clusterfuck stand as a major dimension of the meaning of being in a clusterfuck situation. <S> The vulgar meanings of the fuck morpheme have very little presence to the ethical and tragic dimensions of a clusterfuck . <S> Again, the 'bare' fuck contrasts sharply - with the common meaning of [genital] penetration, often color by the root meaning of thrusting or beating/striking .
| Contrary to Robusto's opinion, I find that certain compounds (such as those you mentioned) are indeed less offensive than the bare vulgarities you mentioned.
|
"One and the same" or "One in the same"? Which is correct? One in the same... or One and the same... A quick google-vote says the former is "correct". <Q> A good dictionary or phrase compilation will confirm this. <S> " <S> One and the same" is used for emphasis, especially when there are seemingly different identities, characters, etc, in question. <S> For example: Johnny Jackson and the blind beggar in that corner are one and the same. <A> One and the same. <S> Citation: Reference.com <A> It is one AND the same. <S> This structure is a compound where "one" and "the same" are conjoined by AND. <S> For instance if I say "John and Mr. Smith are one and the same. <S> " I am actually, in a more condensed form, writing "John and Mr. Smith are one and John and Mr. Smith are the same." <S> This more bloated way of stating the relationship was appropriately shortened to ... are one AND the same.
| The correct usage is "One and the same".
|
What is the difference between "truthfully" and "honestly"? These are different words, and their usage (context) differs substantially. How would you define them or explain the difference (if you believe there is one)? <Q> I would say that it is entirely possible to be completely truthful without being at all honest. <S> Generally you do this by answering a question exactly as asked, or by giving as little information as possible when you know something relevant that would interest the other person. <S> For instance, if your father comes storming into the house and demands, "What happened to the mailbox?! <S> ", you could be truthful and say "I saw that on my way in, it looks like somebody clipped it with their car." <S> (After all, you did see it on your way in, and it does look like that). <S> Or, you could be honest and say "My friend who was giving me a ride home wasn't looking when he turned his car around in the driveway and ran into it, and I told him not to worry about it, I'd take care of it for him." <A> It looks to me like you're actually asking about the difference between truthful and honest , not truthfully vs. honestly . <S> As used in conversation and writing, there is very little difference between the two adverbs: <S> Honestly, I have no idea how that happened. <S> Truthfully, I have no idea how that happened. <S> The honestly version has a slight flavor of throwing your hands up in the air and saying "no friggin' clue, sorry"; the truthfully version sounds like you might have spent a bit more time contemplating the situation before reaching your conclusion. <S> Also, as Rosey28 noted, the honestly version is slightly more likely to imply the opposite (i.e. that what you're saying is not actually honest), though truthfully can also be used that way. <S> The only other difference I can come up with is one of usage: usually, you say something truthfully, but admit something honestly. <S> But all of these connotation differences are so slight that it is very easy to come up with counterexamples. <S> The adjectives, on the other hand, are clearly different. <S> As Hellion noted, it is quite possible to be truthful without being honest. <S> Technically, it's even possible to be honest without being truthful, i.e. if you're mistaken about something. <S> My point is that this difference does not necessarily apply to the adverbial forms, especially when they're used as interjections/conjunctions. <A> Honesty is a quality held by persons. <S> Truth is a quality held by statements. <S> I honestly told my girlfriend how I felt about her. <S> The president's speech truthfully outlined his foreign policy position. <A> "Truthfully" has a close relation to the issue of fact or fiction. "Honestly" can be used to over-exaggerate one's supposed honesty, and in some contexts, it even suggests a hint of dishonesty. <S> For example: "I honestly have no idea who hit the mailbox." <S> Removing "honestly" from the sentence would almost make it seem more truthful. <S> "I have no idea who hit the mailbox." <S> In fact, in the legal context, people often add oaths like "honestly" when they are not telling the truth.
| So, for a definition, "being truthful" = "making only statements that you know or believe to be true", while "being honest" = "Telling the whole truth (that is, all the relevant information that you know)."
|
What does "cable" mean? I came across the word "cable" very often in http://www.guardian.co.uk . Like: WikiLeaks cables: Drive to tackle Islamists made 'little progress' US embassy cables: How the Guardian protects sources WikiLeaks embassy cables: the key points at a glance I know what a cable is, but what does "cable" here mean? <Q> Messages sent internationally via undersea cables were known as "cablegrams" or "cables", for short. <S> Another interesting point to note is a cable (the means of transmission) is insulated and protected from external elements, distinguishing it from an ordinary wire, which is just bare metal. <S> In the early twentieth century, governments and agencies communicated via cablegram and the name has since stuck. <S> Another reason I would suggest for this enduring usage, even with the advent of modern telecommunications, is the security and encryption involved in relaying these messages. <S> The messages are sent via a secure link and chances are that the signal even travels through an undersea fiber optic cable before reaching its destination! <A> Back in the day, "cable" was used to describe communications sent abroad. <S> In the case of Guardian, it seems to refer to news from overseas. <A> "Cable" in this context, means "cablegram. <S> " It refers to a report sent via a cable, not to the cable itself.
| The word "cable" has its origins in the days of the telegraph.
|
In a written work, is it better to reference people by their first or last name? In a work, when you introduce someone by their full name and later refer to them in a context which is not appropriate for a pronoun, do you use their first or last name? Example: "Eli Whitney is credited with inventing the concept of interchangeable parts. [...] Out of this contract, (Eli or Whitney) developed a sample of guns which he then presented to the United States Congress" <Q> Generally, with names in the Western world that consist of a given name ("first name") and a surname, the surname is used for formal occasions, and the given name is used only in cases of familiarity. <S> Thus in your sentence you'd say "Out of this contract, Whitney developed…". <S> You would use "Eli" only if you wanted it to appear informal and suggest that you were on a "first-name basis" with Mr. Whitney — knew him intimately — and possibly so was your audience. <S> (E.g. you'd use it if you were toasting your friend "Eli" among an audience of his friends.) <S> Incidentally, when talking to people, there's a greater assumption of familiarity—you can use the given name in more occasions—in America than in Europe (and in younger people than in older), where using the given name indiscriminately can cause offence or irritate. <S> In general, it's always safe to use the surname, until you're asked to use the given name. <S> [Caveat: <S> These naming conventions, however, are far from universal. <S> In China, for instance, it's customary to put the surname/family name first, and the given name later. <S> It's the same way in some European countries, I think. <S> Also, many Indian (especially South Indian) names do not have a surname, and consist of just a (given) name followed or preceded by an initial letter (or two) that stands for the given name of one's father (and possibly a town). <S> Some people, forced by the demands of Western convention to have a surname, expand that letter and put their father's name as their last name, in which case if you used "Mr. [last name]", you'd be addressing their father.] <A> @ShreevatsaR's comment about the level of formality/familiarity is pretty much right for Western names: <S> "Mr. [Jonathan] Purdy" > "Mr. Purdy" > "Purdy" > <S> "Jonathan" > "Jon". <S> In an essay or book which recounts historical facts, as in the question, I'd suggest going with the last name. <S> It's not too formal that it sounds stiff, not too personal that it sounds disrespectful. <S> However, there are some cases where you should use the first name; such as a biography of the Wright brothers, since they share a last name it would be confusing to read " <S> Wright handed the letter to Wright...". <S> In a novel or other similar work <S> it's often the case that characters are referred to by their first names. <S> However sometimes the author mixes and matches; this is one of the things that annoys me about the Malazan series. <S> Most characters with first and last names are referred to by their last name, except a few who are referred to by their first names. <S> Since all these names are unusual made-up names it's hard to remember sometimes if this is a first name or last name. <S> So try to be consistent. <A> If you're unsure of what's appropriate, using the full name when you need to refer to the name <S> and he <S> /she <S> when you can should probably be polite. <S> (Unless there are cultures where using the whole name is considered impolite). <S> If it's someone famous, you'd probably be safe using the name, title, or nickname/professional name <S> /pseudonym they're usually known by. <S> The musician Sting would be referred to as "Sting" since that's what he use, a monarch often is referred to by their title name and number and just the title when introduced in the text. <S> If a person is known by a quite short name, such as Bill Gates <S> it's probably best to refer to them as using the full name, if they're know'n by a longer name, especially if the "last name" (family name/place name/patronym etc.) is rather recognizable in it self <S> , I'd use just the "last name". <A> If I were to use a direct quotation in which a person referenced earlier is called by only his or her first name or last name, I would add the first name or last name to the direct quotation between brackets.
| If the work in question were a news article or an essay, I would use both the first name and last name of a person for every other reference after the first reference to the person.
|
Is it wrong to pronounce "pizza" as "peedtza"? I was extremely mocked by colleagues (good humor) when I said the word " pizza " in the middle of the conversation. Given my accent, the way I pronounced it was closer to " peedtza ", with a slight hint of that " d " that I never noticed myself until they brought it up. They were saying it should be pronounced " peetsa " with no " d " or " z " in there. Is my pronunciation absolutely wrong? Or could it be pronounced like that as well? I don't know if that matters, but we are in America, so a comparison between British and American English is welcome. I can take criticism, so be as blunt as you want! <Q> It's definitely " peetsa ", both in British and American English. <S> There is no correct alternative pronunciation. <S> If your accent imbues a subtle " d " sound, I wouldn't worry too much about that and people should be understanding. <A> The word pizza is from Italian and the spelling is still Italian in many languages (in all languages using Latin alphabets that I know of), in Italian it's pronounced /pittsa/ with a "long" (or "double" as I would call it in Norwegian) t sound. <S> Why it has a long [i] sound in English <S> I don't know, maybe it's related to how English speakers always pronounce French final "é" as "ay" (like Café French: /kafe:/ English /ˈkæfeɪ/). <S> The long "ee" /i:/ <S> sound is probably closer to the italian /i/ <S> sound than the short /I/ sound ("bin" etc.) <S> even though it's too long. <S> (I think it's pretty silly correcting someone for their pronunciation of a loan word when it's actually closer to the origin than the English version.) <A> The origins of the word "pizza" are widely speculated but most of the speculation implies that the word originates from a variant of the Greek or Italian words for "bread" ("picea," "pitta," and many more have been suggested). <S> I don't know much about these languages <S> but it would seem that none of these have a true "d" sound in them. <A> I live in an area where the only dialects I tend to hear are South Midland, American Southern, and AAVE. <S> I commonly hear "pete-sa" and "pee-sa". <S> I can't recall ever hearing it with a "d" sound clearly pronounced in it. <S> However, food words are about the most susceptible words in the language to regionalisms, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear alternates, and I doubt I'd make a huge deal of it if I did. <S> There is one exception. <S> Whenever I hear a New Englander say the word "corn", I can't stop myself from doing a bad Captain Kirk impression from Star Trek 2. <S> Khaaaaan!!!
| I have only heard it pronounced with the "t" sound and given the possible origins I'd say that "peetsa" is correct.
|
What's the difference between 'subway', 'metro' and 'tube'? When I watched the "American Album" program, Susan and Henry talked about New York, and she used the word 'subway'. When I listened to BBC's '6 minutes English', I heard 'tube' used in the conversation. And as I know, there is another word, 'metro', also used sometimes. Could you please give me some more description about these words? <Q> Each city’s metro system has a “common name” that developed historically. <S> London - “The Tube”, from the tube-shaped deep level bored tunnels Paris - metro, <S> full name “Métropolitain” New York City - subway, because the main lines have significant underground sections Chicago - “The L” - from el , because it is mostly elevated Boston - “The T” - from MB T A, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Washington, D.C. - metro <S> San Francisco - BART, Bay Area Rapid Transit etc. <A> Tube <S> This is the British colloquial (and also official) term for the London Underground. <S> Not all the lines of the tube today are underground, though. <S> However, the early Underground tracks were all subterranean. <S> Subway <S> In British usage, this word specifically describes an underground pedestrian road crossing. <S> The New York City Subway is the rail network that serves the City of New York (the subway does not travel outside the city's borders). <S> Originally, the term subway referred to the underground lines, some of which replaced existing elevated and at-grade railroads: (the BMT Subway, the IRT Subway). <S> But as the latter were eliminated in Manhattan and Brooklyn, it came to be used for the network as a whole. <S> One takes the Subway (or subway) in New York, while one takes the tube (or Tube) in London. <S> Metro <S> The word "metro" was originally used to describe the Paris rail network (Metropolitan Railroad). <S> Since then, many other major cities have adopted this nomenclature, notably Washington D.C. which had some degree of French influence in its design. <S> Other <S> The network in Chicago is fondly referred to as the El (from "elevated") because all the original tracks were above street level. <S> San Francisco has the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), which will probably soon be widely written as "bart", as it gets more popular. <S> While the word subway literally means "below way", many subway systems today combine both surface and underground tracks, as it is not always feasible to have a strictly subterranean network. <A> In Hudson County NJ, we used the term "tubes" exclusively to name the underground railway between Jersey City NJ and Manhatten. <S> As in ," I am taking the tubes to NY". <S> Years ago, it was renamed the PATH Train. <S> Now, if you use the term tubes to anyone under 35, they have no idea what you are talking about.
| The word "subway" can be generally used to describe an underground rail network.
|
Is the usage of "labeled" preferred to the usage of "named"? Considering the description of a method in a research paper, which is the most natural way to express how we refer to the method? Is there a rule about when to use named vs labeled? In this paper, we will describe our new method named "KICK". In this paper, we will describe our new method labeled "KICK". In this paper, we will describe our new method called "KICK". In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK". <Q> A name is different than a label. <S> Name: a word by which a person or thing is known Label: an identifying or descriptive marker that is attached to an object <S> So a label might have your name on it, but often it has something else on it, such as a warning, or description, or classification. <S> In the example question, it looks like the word you want is "name". <S> Consider this website <S> : the question's name is the question headline itself: "Is the usage of 'labeled' preferred to the usage of 'named'?". <S> The question's labels are its tags: "usage". <S> Edit: I just noticed your edit to this question. <S> The third and fourth sentences carry the same meaning as "named". <S> You are "called" by your name, usually. <S> I'd use "named" or go with the fourth option, which just names the method. <S> There are lots of synonyms for "name" but, importantly, "label" isn't really one of them. <S> Edit 2: <S> Google's built-in dictionary defines label as a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive. <S> This strengthens the notion that while labels are related to names, names are not a subset of labels (though labels might be said to be a subset of names). <A> Named is preferred in your example, since you are formally giving a name to your method. <S> Labelling (beyond the literal) generally infers that someone else has suggested an alternative name for something. <S> Microsoft named their browser 'Internet Explorer', but it's often labelled as 'Internet Exploder'! <S> Edit :Labelling is something you do when you categorise something informally; that is, you are attaching a virtual label to it, some meta-data, if you will. <S> For example, Critics have labelled Project X a disaster from start to finish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labelling <A> Name is a better choice than label if you are giving a name to something new. <S> The latter is used when you want to describe or give information about something instead. <S> For example, we say name the baby but not label the baby , don't label me as stupid but not don't name me as stupid , and label the medication with this sticker but not name the medication with this sticker . <A> Pardon the brevity of this answer, but I would say "named" is preferred within the context of your example. <S> Thus: In this paper, we will describe our new method named "KICK". <S> Better still, you can omit "named" or "labeled" altogether for succinctness: <S> In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK". <S> The comma before "KICK" is sometimes treated as a matter of preference. <A> You should actually use neither. <S> The implication is obvious: <S> Here we discuss our new method "Fantastic Method". <S> To draw a parallel: <S> Here we discuss our child named Thomas. <S> Or: <S> Here we discuss our child labeled Thomas.
| A rule of thumb is that names are unique(ish) and labels are not.
|
What is the accepted stance on using "they" in a singular form? Is it good English to say "They have just left", when talking about a single person (perhaps someone you don't know the gender of)? (I am a native English speaker, I'm looking for the view held by lexicographers). <Q> When using the plural third-person pronoun to refer to a single person, grammatically you are introducing a disagreement in number. <S> So this is technically an incorrect usage and, again technically (and historically), one is "supposed" to use the third-person singular masculine pronoun <S> he where gender is non-specific. <S> All that is changing. <S> Since the advent of the women's movement and feminism, people have felt uncomfortable substituting a masculine pronoun in such cases, as if women were some lesser beings wholly submerged by men. <S> This led to some difficulties. <S> It makes for painstaking sentences to always refer to "he or she" when you don't know the gender, as in <S> If someone were to look in the cupboard, he or she would find the plates. <S> That's fine for a simple sentence, but if you get into a paragraph where you constantly have to use "he or she" to refer to the subject of the paragraph, it makes for some tortured writing. <S> Informally people use "they" all the time to avoid this kind of thing. <S> There was an effort some years ago to introduce a neuter set of pronouns ('tey', 'ter', 'tem'), but like all such manufactured language solutions it was destined to fail. <S> Just because something may be a good idea doesn't mean anyone will actually use it. <S> I even find myself writing "someone ... <S> they" and having to go back and edit. <S> If someone uses it as you did, saying "They just left" to mean someone just left, I wouldn't worry about it at all. <A> Singular they has been used in English for a long, long time. <S> Seriously, Shakespeare even used it. <S> Unfortunately, a significant number of English speakers think it's wrong. <S> Why? <S> No clue. <S> I'd label it a hypercorrection. <S> I think the most important thing to think about is whether your audience will understand you. <S> On this count, singular they really shines, as everybody — even those who pooh-pooh it — understand exactly what you're saying. <S> Another consideration is what alternatives you have. <S> One sounds stuffy; he or she is too long; just he is inaccurate (and possibly offensive). <S> Singular <S> they is really the best way to go. <A> <A> It's primarily used when referring to somebody whose gender is unknown (either because an unknown person has done something, or because you're talking about a hypothetical situation rather than referring to any specific person). <S> It's also common when the speaker wishes to hide the gender of the person they're speaking about, or feels the gender is unimportant to what they're saying. <S> For example, "I wanted to meet a friend today, but they're too busy" is a sentence that feels perfectly natural to me. <S> It's unlikely to be used if the gender is specified. <S> For example, I'd be surprised to hear a sentence like "I wanted to see my niece, but they're too busy" <S> - I'd expect "she" in that case because a niece is by definition female.
| In formal usage I'd avoid the singular 'they', but it's very common in my experience (native British English speaker) in everyday language. It's considered wrong by some people and generally avoided by most, but I think it's going to become standard in the future as there aren't any other attractive alternatives and as non-traditional gender identification becomes more accepted and common, we will find ourselves needing such a pronoun more often.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.