source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
What does 'cool toy' mean? I found a word 'cool toy' in the following sentence in today's New York Times article:'Spending money on tablet computers may seem an extravagance, but some educators say they are more than just a cool toy.'What does 'cool toy' mean? What are typical items of cool toy, for instance? Are they electronic toys? <Q> In this context, toy is defined New Oxford American Dictionary as follows: an object, esp. <S> a gadget or machine, regarded as providing amusement for an adult <S> So, yes, an iPad, or similar fancy electronic gadget, could be considered a "cool toy". <S> Other examples of toys are luxury cars or motorcycles. <A> Cool toy is not a technical term. <S> Here, cool is an informal way of saying excellent or fashionable ; see the definition number 7 at Merriam-Webster or Wiktionary . <S> What is cool is highly subjective; different people will have different opinions. <S> For example, some might say that iPhone is cool; others might disagree. <S> A cool toy doesn't have to be electronic. <S> For example, I think that LEGO is extremely cool. <S> (But again, others might disagree and say that Playmobil is cooler.) <A> Cool here is used informally to mean fashionable . <S> When the article says it is more than a cool toy , it means the toy is not just fashionable but has real value. <A> In this context where it says more than just a cool toy , it means that it has a practical purpose that you can use for more meaningful tasks (not just to play with...). <A> A few month ago I said 'awesome gadget' than I walked around considering whether or not I should buy an iPad. <S> It's a cool toy <S> nobody really needs it, but my wife.
| cool toy means a gadget that you just MUST have because it is is the latest 'thing', but you really don't need it.
|
Response when your boss thanks you What should be your response when your boss thanks you for using his own resource allotted to you and you respect your boss and cannot respond him like It's ok or you're welcome . <Q> Some appropriate responses would be: "My pleasure." <S> "Don't mention it." <S> "You're [most] welcome." <S> "I'm glad I could help/be of help." <S> "Oh [no], thank you! <S> Always at your service. <S> " <S> "It was not a problem at all. <S> [I'm] glad I could be of assistance." <S> And, of course, you could use "sir" or "ma'am" to make your response even more polite. <A> " It's short, it's to the point, and it's sufficiently formal. <S> If you need to dress it up a bit further you can add "glad to help" at the end. <S> I would worry that too long or too flowery of a response might be interpreted as being condescending or mocking, especially if you're responding in written correspondence where the intonation of the response is hard to judge. <S> Let me put it this way, if I thanked a subordinate and she responded with something verbose like, "I am always most happy to serve you," or, "It is always my pleasure to come to your aid," I would think that bordered between weird and condescending. <A> I go with " <S> It's my job" or I don't even answer. <S> I get paid to do what I do. <S> Too many thank <S> you's are meaningless to me. <S> Show me thanks in form of a raise or bonus. <S> Then I'll say thank you.
| You can't go wrong with, "You're welcome.
|
What is the difference between "speaking" and "talking"? It seems more politically correct to say that someone is speaking rather than talking . What is the definitive difference between these terms? <Q> To me, it's not a matter of gentleness or political correctness. <S> I find that speak connotes more care or intelligibility. <S> That is, there are meaningful words and the words are clear. <S> It could also be more formal. <S> Since talk happens to have more uses (for example, "talk someone into" doing something, "have a talk", "give a talk", etc.) <S> , it also feels like a muddier term to me. <S> There is the phrase "talking without saying anything", which implies idle chatter and not a lot of meaning. <S> So for me, speak <S> is more formal and more precise than talk . <S> (That applies both to the thing being described by <S> speak or talk as well as the person using the term speak or talk .) <A> The two words are synonymous, but "speak" often seems to be used in a gentler way. <S> Compare "talk to" and "speak to" " <S> I will talk to him" often sounds harsher or implies the impending monologue will be harsh. <S> "I will speak to him" is a bit gentler, though still conveying a sense of impending correction in the coming monologue. <S> If you replace "to him" by "with him" in the sentences above, the message seems gentler still because "with" implies a dialogue. <A> According to NOAD: speak : 1 <S> say something in order to convey information, an opinion, or a feeling. <S> 2 talk to in order to reprove or advise. <S> talk <S> : speak in order to give information or express ideas or feelings; converse or communicate by spoken words. <S> Obviously, the two words are synonyms. <S> Speak can sometimes sound a little more formal than talk <S> but there really is no "definitive difference" between the two. <S> While there are certain contexts where I might highly favor one over the other: <S> Linda always speaks highly of you . <S> Let's talk about our vacation next year. <S> there are others where my preference for one over the other would be only slight: <S> The president will speak to reporters this afternoon. <S> I think you should talk with your wife, and ask her what she wants to do for Valentine's Day. <S> It's worth mentioning that the accompanying preposition can often change the tone of the remark. <S> You can speak (or talk) to , speak with , speak from , speak of , speak about , or speak on . <S> In general, talking or speaking to someone seems more one-directional, while talking or speaking with someone seems more conversational. <S> Some of these expressions have idiomatic meaning, for example, you can speak from the heart , or you can talk about someone behind his back . <S> It's far too complicated to concisely say when I'd use one over the other, or when they could be used interchangeably. <S> For example, I can think of instances where either one of these would suffice: <S> I need to speak with you for a moment. <S> I need to talk to you for a moment. <S> Those two remarks seem about “even” to me – while with seems “warmer” than to , that warmth is offset by the more formal word speak , which has the secondary meaning of “to reprove or advise.” <S> However, there's no way to say for sure how every listener will hear and interpret such remarks. <A> Speaking is much more intelligible. <S> One can speak from the heart but it would be too weird to say 'talk from the heart'. <S> is the art of saying something.
| Talking is the act of saying something whilst speaking
|
What is the proper usage of "Y'all" in southern American dialects The construction of the word to me implies that "you" is singular, whereas "y'all" is plural. To a football team: "Y'all are going to play a great game."To a tennis player: "You are going to play a great game." However, I hear southerners address me personally as Y'all quite often. What's the correct usage? Aside: Comments that y'all is improper are not helpful. <Q> From what I understand, most dialects work as you describe: <S> you <S> = singular and y'all = plural. <S> There is some controversy over whether some dialects have extended this further, such that y'all = singular and "all y'all" = plural. <S> Here is a discussion over at Language Log , where they say that there is a lot of disagreement about this. <S> I think the overall sense from this article is that people have anecdotes and random quotes where people use <S> y'all as a singular, but no person from the South who attests that "yes, this is what I do. <S> " <S> And here is a followup discussion . <S> Here there is a similar type of disconnect between anecdote and speaker intuition. <S> There seems to be mention that in Oklahoma, y'all can be used for singular and plural, which, if true, might be fueling a false conclusion about "all y'all" being the plural of singular <S> y'all . <S> There is a lot more in there, and it is worth a read for anyone interested, but the last thing I wanted to mention was this hypothesis at the end of that page: <S> Thomas Nunnally (1994) has offered a second hypothesis for the emergence of yall as a singular. <S> He suggests that it may well be expanding to fill the role of a polite singular, just as you did several centuries ago. <S> He points out that many of the citations of yall -singular show the form occurring at the edges of discourse-in greetings, partings, and so forth. <S> The following citation, provided to us by Robin Sabino (1994), certainly fulfills this function. <S> Sabino overheard an African-American waitress in an Opelika, Alabama, restaurant say to a customer eating alone, "How are you-all's grits?" <S> All of this may seem strange, but if you look at the origin of you itself, the same thing happened: it used to be that thou/thee was 2nd person singular and ye <S> /you was 2nd person plural, but as we know, plural you became the 2nd person pronoun for singular and plural (in Standard English, at least). <S> So these kinds of shifts are possible. <S> Note: <S> This has been extensively edited in light of some research I found over at Language Log. <A> This is the way I always explain it. <S> You is singular. <S> "Are you going to lunch after church?"meaning you yourself, singular. <S> Y'all is plural. <S> "Are y'all going to lunch after church? <S> meaning is any of your group going. <S> All y'all is what I call plural inclusive. " <S> Are all y'all going to lunch after church?"meaning is every single last one of your group going. <S> Important details when you need a head count to reserve a table. <A> "Y'all" was originally coined as a contraction of "you all" and thus was originally used as the second-person plural pronoun, comparable to "ustedes" in Spanish and "vous" in French. <S> It fills a void in the English language as compared to Latin languages and even German, which all have at least one second-person plural pronoun. <S> The dual meaning is likely French in origin; the pronoun "vous" in French, in addition to being the general second-person plural, is also used as a polite second-person singular. <S> It's an artifact of culture, particularly high culture, similar to the "royal 'we'". <S> The term carries into English through a combination of English's beginnings in French and also through off-and-on English obsessions with French culture throughout history. <S> Its usage as a singular, if one has to try to make the shoe fit, may come from a mingling of English-derived Deep South and French-influenced Creole/Cajun cultures. <S> "Y'all" may have come into common use through Creole adaptation of the term to replace both of the uses of the French counterpart "vous". <S> Now, IMO that's stuffing the shoe on the wrong foot. <S> Vernacular speech, no matter the language, is full of "common-use" grammar errors. <S> As a native Okie and naturalized Texan, IMO the use of "y'all" as anything other than a contraction of "you all" is more of the same.
| Classically, "you" has had both the singular and plural roles, and if a distinction had to be made, the phrase "all of you" or "you all" is correct for the plural.
|
Is the game, "go," a proper noun? What about "checkers" or "chess"? The game of Go is... or The game of go is... Apparently the International Go Federation capitalizes it. Its dictionary entry doesn't appear to be (from what I have seen). It seems to fit the definition of a proper noun as it isn't preceded by an article (such as "the" or "an"). So which is it? Also, where does that put checkers, chess, basketball, football, etc. They are never (or at least not regularly) capitalized, yet they seem to have the same characteristics. I predict the argument is going to be that Monopoly is capitalized because it is a brand and go should not be capitalized since it is not a brand and it is not referring to a specific instance of anything. Is that correct? <Q> Personally, I prefer italics to capitalisation, where possible. <S> The names of games are often capitalised regardless of whether they're trademarks, seemingly in arbitrary fashion based on what looks good or feels right. <A> The OED does not capitalize the name of the game, but its quotes do all have capitals. <S> A third option would be not capitalized but italicised, because it is a foreign word. <S> I suspect that the argument goes that names may lose their capital once they are "felt" to have turned into regular words - a very vague criterion, of course; but compare how compound nouns lose their spaces and then their hyphens, which is equally difficult to define. <A> Jon Purdy says in his answer that it is to differentiate it from an existing word in the English language that has a specific meaning, which is a very good point. <S> (I gave him +1 for that) <S> I would say that this is also the case for "Monopoly" as monopoly is also a regular word, where the game has taken an existing word as its name. <S> Consider this sentence: <S> I have monopoly on the table <S> Without consider capital M or not, this could mean <S> I have a game of Monopoly lying on the table or <S> it could mean <S> I have monopoly on selling this type of tables. <S> The other examples (checkers, chess, basketball, football) do not have other meaning - they are uniquely identifying the games <S> (basketball and football are made up of several other words, but the combined terms are uniquely describing the games).
| I'd say that Go is often capitalised simply because go is already a very common English word, so most sentences about the game would become significantly harder to parse if it weren't somehow differentiated typographically.
|
"supposed to" or "suppose to"? What is the actual spelling/pronunciation? What is the origination of this phrase? <Q> Supposed to is a very common phrase, as in: you're not supposed to come here . <S> Using *suppose to in this sentence would be considered wrong by most educated speakers. <S> The cause of this common omission of the d is probably that d t sounds the same as t , so that there is no difference in pronunciation between supposed to and <S> *suppose to . <S> To suppose something means to assume something . <S> To be supposed to means to be expected to, to be obliged to . <S> You can see that the verb gets a somewhat different sense in the passive voice from what would normally be expected. <A> The original meaning of "suppose" is epistemic : "think", or "assume". <S> But various modal verbs, such as "must", have both deontic ("you must go" = <S> "you ought to go") and epistemic ("you must be" = <S> "I conclude that you are") meanings. <S> In the passive only, "suppose" has acquired a deontic sense. <S> Nowadays "suppose" nearly always takes a sentential complement ("I suppose that ... "), but in older or more formal English it can take a direct object and an epistemic infinitive complement " <S> I supposed him to be ... ". <S> So "He was supposed to go" <S> is the passive of a construction which is now rather restricted, in the epistemic sense of "It was thought that he was going". <S> But in the specialised deontic sense, the construction has survived. <A> The expression "supposed to", when used to describe what someone should do, is always spelled "supposed to" and always goes with a form of the verb "to be" (E.g. "they are supposed to do X", "I am <S> not supposed to do Y"). <S> Historically, it originated as a passive-voice version of the verb suppose, meaning in this context "expect". <S> The "supposed" part is therefore in origin a past participle, which is why it has the "-ed" suffix. <S> But in modern English, this expression doesn't really behave like an ordinary passive-voice version of to suppose. <S> For one thing, I believe everyone pronounces it differently: "suppose" is /səˈpoʊz/, ending in voiced /z/, while "supposed to" is /səˈpoʊstə/ or /səˈpoʊstu/ (or, as mentioned in the comments, /ˈspoʊstə/), with voiceless /s/ <S> after the /oʊ/. <S> This kind of phonemic voicing assimilation between words is unpredictable and not common in English; so I think "to be supposed to" should be classified as fixed expression that has become somewhat distinct from the ordinary verb "suppose", just as "to be born" has become somewhat separate from the ordinary verb "to bear". <S> We see the same devoicing of originally voiced fricatives in certain other verbs that have developed specialized meanings in fixed expressions containing the word "to": " have to "/"has to": normally, "have" ends in /v/ and "has" ends in /z/, but "have to" has /f/ and "has to" has /s/. <S> (But "had to" retains a voiced /d/ phoneme, which is not a fricative.) <S> This only applies to "have to" as a fixed expression with a specific, special meaning; it doesn't occur when the word "have" or "has" just happens to come before "to", as in "She will give all she has to fight cancer. <S> " <S> "used to" meaning "once did" has /s/, <S> even though the ordinary verb "use" has /z/.
| When used in a passive construction, you use a form of the verb to be plus the past participle of to suppose , which is supposed . It means "you should not come here", "you are not meant to come here".
|
Why "integrity" means "honesty" The word integrity meaning wholeness seems to come from the word integer which, roughly speaking, refers to whole numbers. Why does integrity also mean honesty ? <Q> Dishonesty and other vices are often seen as corruptions, or shortcomings in a person's character or composition. <S> An integral person, on the other hand, is whole. <S> Such a person is not lacking in moral virtues. <A> Etymology online has the following entry for integrity : mid-15c., "wholeness, perfect condition," from O.Fr. <S> integrité, from L. integritatem (nom. <S> integritas) " <S> soundness, wholeness," from integer "whole" (see integer). <S> Sense of "uncorrupted virtue" is from 1540s. <S> That doesn't answer why integrity also means honesty, but you can see that circa 1540 the word began being used to express "uncorrupted virtue," which implies honesty, as a virtuous person does not lie. <A> I'm not sure that integrity and honesty are entirely synonymous. <S> I think integrity is closer to the word consistent than the word honest. <S> Of course, you couldn't really be dishonest and have integrity because dishonesty requires inconsistency between your words and your thoughts. <A> I agree with @John Weldon that integrity and honesty aren't synonymous. <S> So defining integrity becomes important, and I'm inclined to go with the crowd on that-- <S> integrity in a human being is a state of having all the important virtues. <S> Being "whole" or "complete" as a being of virtue. <S> There would probably be some disagreement about which virtues are required for integrity, of course. <S> In this view, honesty can be seen as a necessary condition of integrity--you can't be "integrated" without it--but you can be honest and still lack integrity if you also lack other crucial virtues. <A> In the usage where integrity means honesty, it comes from a meaning that what you communicate and your actions/intentions are coherent with each other, forming a whole that has the property of integrity. <A> This question -> <S> 1 <- was closed, but I don't see it as a duplicate of this one at all. <S> In the Mental Health professions, one speaks of "being Integrated" or "well Integrated", but the term "integrity" itself almost invariable has no special meaning. <S> Rather, it has the common usage that associates it with ethical or moral values. <S> A person could be "well integrated" i.e., in no way suffering from Associative Identity Disorder (the current term, not M.P.D.), and still have ethics or morals that their society would judge to be poor. <S> So, the answer to the closed question is No, 'Integrity' is not an antonym to 'Honesty', but 'Integrated' could certainly be considered one. <S> The answer to this question is that strictly speaking Integrity and Honesty are not identical, but in common usage what most other members of a society consider to be a whole, complete "well adjusted" person is usually one that they also consider honest.
| I think people sometimes think of integrity as synonymous with honesty because it's one of the most obvious virtues, and one that most people can agree is necessary for integrity.
|
Strong Wind(s) or High Wind(s)? Which one is more popular? I always used strong wind, but I found high winds also used some times. <Q> The terms strong winds and high winds are synonymous in everyday jargon, although they may have different meanings to a meteorologist. <S> As far as what phrase is more popular, I imagine it varies by locale. <S> You can use Google Trends to analyze the popularity of two competing search terms. <S> Here are the results for strong winds and high winds : <S> In the US, high winds is decidedly more popular than strong winds . <S> This difference is most pronounced in North Dakota, Hawaii, and Nevada, where high winds trounces strong winds . <S> In other countries, such as New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, the term <S> strong winds <S> is quite a bit more popular a search term than high winds . <S> Some countries have virtually no one searching on the term high winds . <S> The Philippines, Singapore, Finland, and Sweden are four such examples. <S> In a nutshell, both terms are valid, but which one is more popular depends on the region. <A> The CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH indicates that high winds is used more than strong winds (435 vs 251 occurrences). <A> Either one is fine, although you do see "strong" used more. <S> But it's your pleasure. <S> Paul Simon repeats the phrase "strong wind" on his album Graceland . <S> But the National Weather Service says on one of its pages "This information is most useful in the decision-making process to decide which people might be most vulnerable to high winds at inland locations."
| Worldwide, the two terms are used about as often, although high winds is a slightly more popular search term.
|
Is “completely good” proper English? If not, why? I was recently asked by a Japanese person why completely good was improper English, as in “This is completely good.” As a native speaker of English (raised in northeastern America), I do feel there’s something strange about the phrase, but I can’t quite put my finger on what — after all, phrases such as very good , mostly good , perfectly good , etc. are used. Is this in fact improper English, or, for that matter, does it depend on dialect, and if so, why? <Q> Perfectly good would be different than saying completely good in most contexts: perfectly good tends to be used in a hyperbolic sense, meant to signify something that's "good enough". <S> For example, that apple is perfectly good to eat <S> is not the same as saying that apple is completely good to eat : the apple might have some flaws, but none that would prevent it from being eaten. <S> Which leads to the point that you'd only want to say something is completely good when there is no chance for it to be bad. <S> Completely good is not a good substitute for very good or really good , which merely mean that something is notably good, not entirely or absolutely good. <S> But, the Christian God or a saint would be characterized as being completely good because they aren't even remotely evil by definition. <S> Finally, if you wanted to say something was good in the superlative sense, completely good would be wrong. <S> The correct word would be best , as in that course of action is best not that course of action is completely good. <A> "Completely good" is grammatically correct. <S> As has been said, "completely" is simply an adverb modifying "good." <S> The phrase only sounds odd because it is not commonly used. <A> For example, good is a noun or adjective, and well is an adverb or adjective. <S> You can say "He is good" or "He is well," <S> but when you use a verb like "to run" then you have to say "He ran a good race" or "He ran well. <S> " See here, well is an adverb, but good is not. " <S> He ran good" is improper English. <S> As long as this is observed, "completely good" should be fine.
| It seems to me that as long as you are using good and well in their proper locations, you should be fine.
|
Difference between "society" and "the society" I am not very clear on the difference between "society" and "the society". As far as I know, "society" (without "the") refers to a society that is more general. But I don't have a clear distinction between them. Could anybody explain to me? For example, if I want to say "socialization is the process of learning to live in (the) society", should I use "the"? Edit: I am still a little confused here: it seems that "society" can still refer to a subset of people. After seeing your answer, my understanding is that without the article, "society" doesn't emphasize a specific society: it doesn't matter which society it refers to (although through context, which one is referred can be inferred). With "the", however, the speaker emphasizes a specific society.Then the sentences should be different: Soldiers protect society. Soldiers protect the society. Am I right? Could someone further explain it to me? <Q> From Wikipedia Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships between individuals sharing a distinctive culture and institutions. <S> Without an article, the term refers either to the entirety of humanity or a contextually specific subset of people. <S> I would restate one part of the original question as '"society" (without "the") refers to human society in general ' and, the example should read "socialization is the process of learning to live in society" <S> Again from the Wikipedia article, discussing a particular group <S> This nobility organized warriors to protect the society from invasion. <S> In this case, "the society" is used to limit the scope to the group under discussion, and not all of humanity. <S> Edited to respond to OP's edit of original question <S> In "Soldiers protect society" <S> the lack of an article preceding "society" makes it a statement about human society in general. <S> As such it can stand alone without other context. <S> "Soldiers protect the society" seems taken out of context. <S> It begs the question which society? <S> (Note: <S> The following example statements are not meant to be historically accurate.) <S> In general, soldiers protect (human) society. <S> In ancient Rome, soldiers called centurions protected the (Roman) society. <S> In ancient Japan, soldiers called samurai <S> protected the (Japanese) society. <A> I would read "Soldiers protect the society" as a generalisation of John Satta's phrase, meaning that British soldiers protect British society, German soldiers protect German society, etc . <S> "Soldiers protect society", on the other hand, is a more interesting point, implicitly contrasted with "Policemen protect individuals". <S> So soldiers are not expected to save individual lives (indeed, when the army is called in to a problem, you would expect more casualties rather than less): they are protecting the intangible network called 'society'. <S> Declaring martial law prevents (for example) looting and random shootings, at the expense of suspending civil freedoms and approving the summary execution of looters. <S> Whether you think this is a good thing or not, the change means society still exists, rather than breaking down into anarchy. <S> [I realize this is a controversial view: I am not saying I agree with it, just that this is (in my view), the meaning of the phrase.] <A> Use the society when referring to a specific association e.g the law society,the consumers society etc <S> but when referring to a large number of people definite article "the" should be removed. <S> American society not the American society.
| The phrase "the society" is used in areas of study such as anthropology, political science and sociology when referring to specific groups.
|
"Are either of you free?" In the process of writing to two people I typed: "Are either of you free?" and was immediately called out by my grammar checker which suggested I should write: " Is either of you free?" The second of these options feels intuitively wrong to me, as I am addressing two people so should be using the plural. However I feel this is tied up in the whole issue of whether a group should be referred to in the plural or singular sense, e.g. Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band Uses "is" to indicate that the band is a singular entity, whereas Red Hot Chili Peppers are a band Uses "are" to indicate that the band is made up of multiple people. So, which is correct? " Is either of you free?" or " Are either of you free?" <Q> Your grammar checker corrected you because "either" does technically function with a singular verb. <S> If you think about your question slightly expanded it would be " is either one of you free?". <S> However, leaving technical correctness aside, I think conventional usage allows for your question in both forms, and I would ignore your grammar checker if I were you. <S> By the way this has nothing to do with whether a collective noun (as in your Red Hot Chili Peppers) functions as a singular a plural. <S> That's a separate issue, which I am sure is addressed many times over on this site, e.g. this question <A> This is one of those situations where a prescriptive grammar guide might have no qualms about telling you that you should always have singular verb agreement with either . <S> But it really is not that simple in practice. <S> The word <S> either actually gets singular agreement sometimes and plural agreement other times. <S> In particular, I think you will find a tendency toward singular agreement when the word either is by itself or part of a phrase that is clearly singular, e.g.: <S> [Either] is fine. <S> Is [either one] okay? <S> But you will find a tendency toward plural agreement when you have it as part of a phrase where the other component is clearly plural. <S> [Either of them] are fine. <S> Are [either of your brothers] coming? <S> Even with these tendencies, you will find occasional exceptions (depending on the speaker) or gray areas, but this describes why both types of agreement exist. <S> In the case of you , the word you can be singular or plural, although if it is preceded by "either of" then it is necessarily going to be the plural you . <S> In my (US) English, I don't distinguish between "Chili Peppers are a band" and "Chili Peppers is a band" (I just go with whether the band name is singular or plural, and agree with it), but I do the either singular-plural alternation. <S> That said, I think it is a similar type of phenomenon. <S> Semantics is stepping in and influencing the verb agreement — it's not always a purely syntactical decision. <A> The pronoun'you' in English functions as both a singular and a plural. <S> The conjugation of the verb 'to be' for both the singular and plural form is 'are'. <S> Hence 'are you' is applicable for both the singular and the plural. <S> Hence 'are either of you <S> free?'must always be correct. <S> However 'Is <S> either Peter or Paul free?'would be correct, since either is the opposite of 'both' and <S> hence the conjugation 'is' would be correct in such instance. <A> The subject of the sentence "Is either of you free?" is "either" not <S> "you" therefore the verb will have the same number as "either" not "you" <S> "Is either of the brothers free today?" <S> "Of you" is a prepositional phrase functioning as an adjective describing "either". <S> Either one OR the other, not both. <S> " <S> Is one or the other of you free today?"
| "Either" is singular.
|
Does one use 'a' or 'an' before the word X-Ray? I was asking this question on Area 51: "How do I tell if an airport scanner is a X-ray scanner?", but I keep wanting to put an 'an' in front of X-ray because it starts with the 'eh' sound. So is it 'a' or 'an'? <Q> Definitely "an". <S> The word X-ray is never pronounced any way other than "exray", and as has been discussed before, the choice of a or <S> an is based solely on pronunciation, regardless of spelling. <S> Since X-ray is pronounced beginning with a vowel, it must be preceded by an . <A> 'an', because how it sounds is what matters. <S> An interesting example is an hour , et. <S> al. <S> The fact that h is not considered a vowel from the article point of view says a lot about English pronunciation. <S> Another interesting example of article form leaking unusual information, from Life, the Universe and Everything : <S> "I think," said Ford in a tone of voice <S> which <S> Arthur by now recognized as one which presaged something utterly unintelligible, "that there's an SEP over there." <S> It means that the author meant that SEP achronym is to be pronounced 'es ee pee' and never 'sep'. <A> In this situation you use "an", because phonetically the sound you are making (the X) starts with an "E": you hear "Ex - ray". <S> This is true of any letter that, when pronounced, sounds like it starts with a vowel, and often you will need to adapt your use of "a" or "an" even for the same letter. <S> For example: A Nasty cold was going around the office vs <S> An NHS doctor was the first to diagnose the bug <S> Phonetically you say "EN AITCH ESS", so you use "An NHS". <S> Likewise, as you say "EX-RAY", you say, "An X-Ray". <S> The way the word is pronounced is the key factor here, rather than the spelling. <S> Edit <S> : Looks like JSBangs beat me to it :) <A> <A> The choice of the indefinite article in English is purely phonetically based. <S> Since the pronunciation of the letter X is headed by a vowel, an is the natural choice.
| "An X" is correct, as the pronunciation of the letter X has an initial vowel sound.
|
Is there a canonic term for "the one whose birthday party is being celebrated"? Something along the lines of 'hero of the occasion', but specifically for birthday? If there isn't, how would you otherwise say that? ('the subject of birthday party', 'the hero of this birthday party', 'birthday's hero' all sound stupid somehow). <Q> I have often heard the person in question informally referred to as the "Birthday Boy/Girl". <S> e.g. <S> The birthday girl was having a wonderful time at her party. <A> <A> In a birthday situation, the word 'celebrant' would be generally understood to mean the one whose birthday is being celebrated. <A> My first reaction was that the birthday boy or girl is the "Fetted" person, which upon research appears to not be a (current) dictionary word! <S> For what it <S> ’s <S> word Here are some usages of it from culture, via https://www.wordnik.com/words/fetted : <S> In hindsight, asked Marr "is there anything different you might have done over the past decade, anything you did wrong ... <S> maybe became too enthrawled by the magic of these bankers you knighted, fetted, appointed to high office?" <S> Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word Living in an age when women as writers and playwrights were not as evident or plentiful as they are today <S> , Hellman felt she could take liberties with the truth knowing full well <S> how Hemingway and other fetted and celebrated male writers were also bound to fudge the truth, or embellish. <S> The scandalous Lillian Hellman <S> It seems to be very fringe but a fun and useful word, despite the similarity to "Fetid".
| Though its usage isn't limited to birthday parties, I like "guest of honor."
|
Alternatives to "this last point" What alternatives are there to the expression "this last point"? I'll give an example of a sentence that I wrote recently, referring to the Jane Austen novel Pride and Prejudice: The dialog and narration is written with a fluency and accuracy that allows Jane Austen to make remarkably fine points. This last point is of particular interest to me, as I often find myself unable to convey the exact meaning that I would wish. <Q> "This". <S> as in "This is of particular interest to me". <S> Vigorous writing is concise... <A> I like simply "This," as suggested by Rob. <S> Also, when the preceding point is of some complexity, you can specify the point or points to which you are referring. <S> For example, you could write "This accuracy is of particular…" <A> These fine points are of particular interest to me, as I often find myself unable to convey the exact meaning that I would wish. <S> Does ' this ' mean the dialog and narration itself, the fluency, or the fact that Jane Austen makes find points?
| Using ' this ' might work, but that would create a little ambiguity as to what 'this' is referring to:
|
Using "dear", "darling", or "honey" to address a friend As far as I know dear , darling , and honey are commonly used between lovers, but I suppose there are more words like that. What else is commonly used? Which of these can be used to address a (close/not close) friend without sounding sarcastic or awkward? <Q> This varies greatly by geography. <S> This practice is so intimately associated with "The South," that it will almost always be awkward or at best unusual for someone without a "southern accent" to speak in this way. <S> These terms do seem to be acceptable throughout the U.S. and Canada when speaking to a significant other or to very young children. <S> If this is not the way that you are known to speak, it could be awkward to use any of these terms to address a friend. <A> I agree with Jay's answer, but would add that "Dear Sir", "Dear Mr. Smith", etc. used to be (still are?) <S> considered standard openings for formal or business letters. <S> In this pro forma context, the word "dear" is nearly meaningless. <S> Perhaps at most, it means "I respect you, and I respect the tradition of opening my letter this way". <A> Taking the geographical oddities a little further in Cornwall (South West of the UK) complete strangers, normally women, may finish questions with the term 'my lover'. <S> IE " <S> That'll be seven sixty my luuver" best pronounced with a distinct country burr. <S> Here in Australia there's an equivalent which is 'Darl' - short for darling, again best pronounced with a good Queensland aussie accent. <S> In answer to your question many couples have pet names, which are normally toe curlingly cute - fluff bunny, didums etc, but the use of darling, honey etc sounds a little 1950's to my English/Australian ear. <S> We use mate a lot, as in 'Cheers mate' for anyone we're interacting with - works for friends and aquaintances - but then Australia is known for being very informal. <A> In the American South, it’s quite common for women to address total strangers, as honey , sugar , baby , etc. <S> (On TV, black men do too, but I haven’t observed this first-hand. <S> It might be fiction.) <S> It’s a tricky thing because you’re taking a very familiar attitude. <S> If you’re a vigorous Southern woman with heaps of personality, it’s charming. <S> You’re just irrepressibly friendly. <S> For maximum effect, you have to give the impression that if the president of France walked in the diner door, you’d call him honey too. <S> But if you have to ask, don’t call people honey . <S> Most people don’t, and you especially shouldn’t. <S> You weren’t born into it. <S> You’ll stand out. <S> In fact, if your demeanor towards someone is otherwise professional, and especially if you are a man and that person is a woman, never address them using such terms. <S> It’s patronizing and offensive, an echo of the sexual attitudes of the 1950s and ’60s. <A> In Australia and New Zealand you'll hear any of the terms luv , mate , cuz , bro , darl , darlin , honey , sweets , cobber , dear , sir , ma'am and even on occasion buddy , you guys , jokers , blokes , sheilas , and so on. <S> It seems to depend on the individual as to when and how these terms are applied. <S> None of them are generally considered sexist or offensive when used casually but that too depends on the context because they can equally be used as terms of endearment or sarcastically. <S> At any rate, using any of the above terms to address another individual seems better than “hey you” and other less appropriate or derogatory terms such as babe , retard , wanker , asshole , and much worse. <S> However, even these horrid terms are used quasi-endearingly within groups of individuals, especially teens. <A> My mom uses the word 'love' when addressing her close friends. <S> Like by saying "Thanks, love! <S> Much appreciated!" <S> And also sometimes if I thank someone like a store clerk for their help, they will say "You're welcome, honey." <A> I think the word Dear is quite okay while addressing your close friends. <S> I do that very often and it's not so awkward. <S> As for Honey.. that would mean a little more than friends, or extremely close friends who wouldn't mind being addressed anything at all! <A> As part of a new campus initiative, my college's student body had to take a sexual harassment test. <S> Interestingly enough this test claimed any term of endearment such as, "sweetie" or "honey" was a form of sexual harassment. <S> I live in Chicago, but in the South Eastern United States its not uncommon for friends to refer to each other in such a manner. <S> The novel A Confederacy of Dunces , which is widely championed for its depiction of Louisiana accents, frequently includes dialog where friends call each other "babe" and "honey." <S> It's more of a cultural thing than anything else, but as a general rule I would avoid using the terms in language or writing since they can have drastically different meanings. <A> If you use those words in the office then you feel some inclination towards those who you addressed. <S> Again it depends on geography.
| In the Southeastern United States, it is not uncommon for some women to address or answer people--even strangers--of either sex with terms of endearment, such as Honey , Sugar , Sweetie , Darling , Baby , etc. It does depend upon the genders of speaker and the addressee, and the cultural/geographical/linguistic background of the addressee. In the end it all depends on your relationship with the friend to whom you are addressing.
|
Is there a semantic difference between relevance and pertinence? The dictionary defines relevant as being Closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand whilst pertinent is defined as Relevant or applicable to a particular matter. Both of these definitions seem to me to be the same, and the dictionary also defines pertinence and relevance as synonyms. However I feel that in my normal usage I apply a further meaning (something I can't quite articulate) to pertinence. For example, I see a difference between a relevant question and a pertinent one. Perhaps it's that I see a pertinent question as one which maybe alights on some previously unexplored aspect of the matter at hand, whereas a relevant question explores more familiar ground. Almost as if pertinence requires more insight than relevance. Does anyone else feel that there is a difference between the two? Update So, we're agreed that there is a difference, but I'm still not definitely clear on what that difference is. I think there's maybe more to it than Guffa's suggestion that frequency of use causes pertinence to feel more important. I feel that Robusto might be on to something with impertinence being definitely not the same as irrelevance. I will look into this more when I get the time, but in the mean time I appreciate your help. Update 2 I've accepted Ghoppe's answer, because I think that one sums up what I'm feeling the best. However (as pointed out by Noldorin in the question comments) I appreciate there's not any real difference at all in their meaning. <Q> I think the difference is in degree. <S> It's similar to the difference between large/huge/gigantic or small/tiny/miniscule. <S> In some contexts, you may be able to substitute any of those words, but due to common usage or word origin or whatever other factors, there is an understood subtle scale. <S> So, if you have relevant facts to discuss, they may or not be important, but they are related to the matter at hand. <S> But if you have pertinent facts to discuss, they have precise or logical relevance to the discussion. <S> They absolutely should not be overlooked. <S> One reason why this may be the case is that pertinent could also be used as a synonym for apt (ie. <S> strikingly appropriate) <S> but relevant doesn't really have that meaning. <S> If I said you wrote an "apt answer" to this question <S> how would you feel? <S> What if I said it was a "pertinent answer?" <S> Or "relevant answer? <S> " <S> I think most people would feel that calling it a relevant answer is nearly a mild insult. <S> Oh yeah, it's related, but not close to perfect. <A> I feel that pertinent may be slightly stronger, but the two are definitely synonyms. <S> When something is irrelevant <S> it has no bearing on the topic at hand. <S> Impertinent can mean the same thing, but is usually used to describe a person's rudeness or lack of proper respect: "You asked a very impertinent question" can either mean the question was entirely irrelevant or the person asking it was being discourteous by doing so. <A> Perhaps examine the question by inverting it: impertinent vs. irrelevant. <S> This leads me to this differentiation: <S> pertinent questions SHOULD be asked; we suffer a loss if they are <S> not.relevant questions CAN be asked; we do not waste time answering them. <A> I see that relevant has come to be used (at least in technical discussions) just to divide things into what's relevant and what's irrelevant. <S> As such, saying that something is relevant doesn't really stress it's importance, just that it's not irrelevant. <S> While pertinent should have the same meaning, it's not as frequently used, so it can function as an alternative to relevant when you want to point out the importance of something. <A> My feeling is that 'relevant' is about raw facts and 'pertinent' is more about appropriateness or "soft values". <S> Robusto's answer says that impertinent can be meant as rude (more or less), but an impertinent statetent or question could certainly be relevant. <S> But I'm not a native english speaker though.. <S> I've just read a lot of books. :) <A> I am confused on how to discriminate relevant, pertinent, and germane, too. <S> Are they interchangeable? <S> But I have done some research and hope it could help you. <S> I assume,and please correct me if I am wrong, that "relevant" is "close to the topic, or in the field of one topic", which means so you can put two relevant objects without making meaningless mistake, for example, in discussion about "How to evaluate the rise of mobile phone", you can talk any factors such as technology, economy, which are relevant, but if you say" Apples are not bananas", or you talk about the decline of the mobile phone, it's irrelevant to the topic. <S> Whereas pertinent refer to the connotation meaning of two objects, like causality, like A is the cause of B, or B can derive from A, A and B have reasonable connection. <S> For example, "The job title is not pertinent to your salary level". <S> Germane is something has substantial connection, close relation, and central to the issue. <S> For example," this paper material is very germane to the case, it could define whether she was suicide or murdered".
| The major difference I see is that the negative forms can be quite different. Pertinent facts are always relevant , but relevant facts are not necessarily pertinent .
|
"On website" or "at website"? Possible Duplicate: This question has been asked at/on SO? Which sentence is grammatically correct? The papers are freely available at the journal website. The papers are freely available on the journal website. Using Google's search results: available at the website returns 72,800,000 results. available on the website returns 106,000,000 results. So, I inferred that both variants are popular. Is this method (comparing the number of results by Googling) sound? <Q> Speaking as a longtime computer geek, files are said to reside on a hard drive or on a certain machine. <S> Since I know that a website is made of computer files, I think of a website as being on a machine and so any part of the website is also on that machine. <S> A website's "address" is a "Uniform Resource Locator" or URL. <S> These terms connote the idea of website as "place". <S> In this case the file would be at the website location. <S> So, if you think of a website as it is actually constructed (files stored on hard drives), you will probably say on . <S> If you think in the location metaphor, you will probably say at . <S> Personally I find myself saying "on" to other geeks and falling into "at" when speaking with normal people. <A> For some purposes, the method is sound. <S> What's in use is generally what's correct, or what will become correct if it's used long enough. <S> Even if it's not strictly correct, if it's very commonly used it's still usable, people will understand it, and few will react to any inaccuracies. <S> If it's very popular, it's simply good enough for most purposes. <S> If you are writing something where you really need to be correct, looking at what's popular is not a sure method to find that out. <S> Something that is incorrect can still become more popular than the correct form. <S> In the case of "website", it's not so clear what's correct, as a website is a rather abstract phenomenon. <S> If you think of it as a site on the web, "at" would be correct, but if you think of it as a page on the web, "on" would be correct. <A> Something is sound if, and only if, it the premises are true and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. <S> If you're using the number of results returned to determine proper usage, there might be a high correlation between number of results and usage, but it's not a sound method. <S> For a counterexample, consider the British and American spellings of words: if color had more results than colour , inferring that color is the proper word and colour is wrong would be incorrect. <S> If you're using the number of results to determine popularity, it's not a sound method, either. <S> Firstly, the number is without context: to provide meaning, you'd need something else to compare it to. <S> When you start doing that, you run into the problem mentioned above. <S> If you're inferring that because it has over n results, it must be popular, realize that Google only provides a basic estimate that can change due to a number of different factors, including doing something as simple as browsing page 2 of the results. <S> Additionally, certain keywords are given undue weight due to their SEO value; a historical example is the keyword "mesolthelioma" : a relatively obscure term for malignant tumor that caused by exposure to asbestos. <S> It's particularly popular in search results because of the high settlement rate for asbestos exposure compensation cases. <S> Keywords like that highlight the reality of Google results: they're not the sum total of human knowledge and are subject to gaming. <S> The only sound conclusion one can reach from the number of Google results is that Google has indexed a lot of pages that contain or relate to that keyword, not that the term is particularly popular or that it's correct. <A> I think a key point missed by the answers so far is that in the examples you listed: The papers are freely available at the journal website. <S> The papers are freely available on the journal website. <S> So it seems to me that the papers exist on a website. <S> If an address had been given instead then at would be appropriate.
| The subject is "The papers" is the subject, and "website" is the direct object (and now I'm second guessing whether direct object is the correct term).
|
"with whom" or "whom with" I've been looking, but I have not come across this 'whom' related question anywhere. Specifically in this circumstance, I feel 'with whom' flows more naturally but I remember someone suggested that 'whom with' is actually the proper order since it is referencing 'the people' I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people whom with I work. Or I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people with whom I work. <Q> You could always go with "I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with." :-) <S> However, "with whom" is clearly the correct form for your proposed wording. <S> Whoever suggested "whom with" was smoking dope or something it like. <A> Your second example is correct. <S> I don't believe I've ever seen "whom with". <A> <A> (BrE) <S> Although prescriptivists will lament, in British standard spoken English, I would say neither of these is the norm. <S> Nearly everyone will say: I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people I work with. <S> Actually looking to find <S> also sounds pretty formal to me, and enjoying people has certain overtones, so they'd be more likely to say: I am looking for a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the company of the people I work with. <S> Forget the old 'rule' about not ending a sentence with a preposition. <S> Churchill killed that one, if it wasn't dead already. <S> In the UK, whom is now used mostly only in written English, and only after a preposition, so - with whom <S> And this is what virtually all British-published English language courses for foreigners now teach. <S> You do occasionally hear someone use whom in spoken English, but they stick out like a sore thumb. <S> Believe me, whom is on the way out. <A> The "whom with" suggestion might actually refer to the "whom...with" structure, like: <S> I am looking to find a friendly environment where I can enjoy my work and the people <S> whom I work with
| "with whom" is correct, because your dependent clause is "with whom I work", and prepositions (emphasis on pre ) should in most cases introduce a prepositional phrase, except in some cases where it makes the statement seem awkward.
|
What does "to bleed something" mean? In Bloomberg magazine, I saw this sentence: Rust Belt states that have bled manufacturing jobs. Does it mean they have lost the jobs or gained more jobs? <Q> Bleed means to lose something steadily in a way that is dangerous to the life of something, as bleeding is to human life. <S> The example you cite means Rust Belt states have lost jobs. <S> If they lose too many — bleed <S> too many jobs <S> — the Rust Belt is in danger of dying. <S> Which it is. <A> Just to add to Robusto's answer, to bleed can also be used as a transitive verb : drain of liquid or steam; "bleed the radiators"; "the mechanic bled the engine" (Bleeding a radiator (the kind used to heat a house, not the one in a car) is the most common usage that I'm familiar with, and refers to opening a valve in the top of the radiator in order to let out any air that may have entered the system.) <A> Note that bleeding can also refer to the out-dated practice of bloodletting. <S> If you read older literature from when bloodletting was accepted, you might read about "bleeding someone" in reference to an attempt to heal them from some malady through bloodletting. <S> In this case, it could be considered positive. <S> I haven't seen "bleeding something" used in a similar sense in older literature, but it's plausible that you could find examples of it. <A> "Bleeding jobs" is to lose jobs.
| "Bleeding" is to lose (blood).
|
What's the difference between "You have my word" and "I promise"? What's the difference between you have my word and I promise ? <Q> There is really no difference. <S> It can be argued that "You have my word" is a bit stronger, because "my word" means the person is taking an oath, in effect guaranteeing based on that person's honor, but that is a very fine point indeed. <S> So one's word is a promise. <S> No difference. <A> However, "You have my word" could be construed to imply that you have previously (already) promised (given your word) and this statement is a reaffirmation of what was said before, whereas "I promise" implies that you are just now giving your word. <S> OTOH, "You have my word" could be taken as present tense too, and would then essentially be the same thing as "I promise". <A> 'You have my word' derives from the civalric code. <S> One would literally have to stake their word, synonymous with their honor, upon completing whatever was agreed upon. <S> A promise remains similar, however no catagorised honor is laid upon it (although its recommended to keep promises). <S> This is perhaps best summed up in stating that if some-one has given their word and not fulfilled it, it may be said they are 'not a man of their word' or 'their word means nothing' <S> However if a promise is broken, whilst not particularly well reflecting on ones character, the person's 'word' or catagorised honor remains intact as it was never staked upon the result.
| There's not a lot of difference. A promise means the same thing: promise: a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that guarantees that a particular thing will happen one's word: a promise or assurance
|
How do you like them apples? What exactly does this phrase mean and in which situations is it used? <Q> Robusto's answer does a good job explaining the meaning of the sentence, but for the sake of completeness, here's the origin of the phrase. <S> Apparently during the first World War, the Allies had an anti-tank grenade which was colloquially referred to as a "toffee apple" thanks to the appearance of its bulb: <S> In the John Wayne movie "Rio Bravo", one of the characters launches a "toffee apple" at the enemy lines and says the phrase "How you like them apples?" referring, of course, to the bomb. <S> As movie phrases are wont to do, it entered popular consciousness as a boastful expression of triumph. <A> It is used as an expression of gloating when someone turns the tables on someone else. <S> There is a good example in the movie <S> Good Will Hunting , where Matt Damon's character (Will Hunting) gets a girl's phone number in a Harvard bar where he, coming from working-class South Boston, is, despite his extraordinary intellect, socio-economically out of his league and is insulted by the Harvard rich kid (Clark) whom he has bested — actually, destroyed — in an argument. <S> On the street later he sees his rival for the girl's attention through a restaurant window. <S> He goes up and raps on the glass to get the young man's attention, and the following dialogue occurs: <S> Will: Do you like apples? <S> Clark: <S> Yeah. <S> Will: <S> Well, I got her number. <S> How do you like them apples? <S> It can also be used as an expression of surprise at a sudden turn of fortune. <A> I'm pretty sure that the phrase, "how do you like them apples," does not appear in the Wizard of Oz. <S> The apple tree says, "What do you think you're doing!" <S> and "How would you like to have someone come along and pick something off of you." <S> Rio Bravo was a western - no one shot a "toffee apple" mortar in the movie. <S> If they did use the phras, "how do you like them apples," it would be an anachronism, because the phrase was apparently popularized during World War I. <S> The same mortar was alternately called, "plum pot." <S> Early in the war, before the "toffee apple" trench mortar was developed, soldiers made improvised explosive devices, grenades and mortars using empty "plum and apple" jam tins. <S> The words "plum" and "apple" may have been associated with mortars and grenades as a result. <S> Other grenades were also called "apples" during the war, so it was not always a specific reference to the "toffee apple"-style trench mortar. <S> http://esnpc.blogspot.com/2014/07/ieds-jam-and-trench-warfare-bombastic.html <S> But even though the expression became popular during the war, there is one known example (as far as I know) of the expression used in Texas in 1895 (also a t the above link ), so <S> it may have been regional or not widely known before it spread in the trenches of WWI. <S> And its original meaning may not have had anything to do with trench mortars or grenades, even if they played a role in how troops understood or used the expression during the war: <S> Bryan is the best cotton market in this section of the state and has received more cotton than any other town in this section. <S> How do you like "them apples?" <S> The Eagle, (Bryan, Texas), September 26, 1895, page 2. <A> This phrase appears in the Wizard of Oz in 1939, years before rio bravo. <S> In the first scene with the Tin Man, a tree throws apples at him and says, "How do you like them apples!" <A> An episode of Perry Mason ("The Case of the Sunbather's Diary" Season 1, Episode 17) has the phrase as "How do you like those potatoes?" <S> A language book from the 1920s uses this version of the phrase in a setting that suggests the 'them potatoes' version was also popular: http://books.google.com/books?id=W9kRAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22how%20do%20you%20like%20those%20potatoes%22&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q=%22how%20do%20you%20like%20those%20potatoes%22&f=false <S> Looking through Google Books, <S> both 'them/those apples' and 'them/those potatoes' seem to only go back to about the 1920s in print, but the earliest version being a 1919 book of military history where it's listed, without elaboration, amongst humorous stories and sayings. <S> http://books.google.com/books?id=rndBAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22how%20do%20you%20like%20them%20apples%22&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q=%22how%20do%20you%20like%20them%20apples%22&f=false <S> This suggests the military origin of the phrase to be correct, though in use before it was said in any movie. <S> As for the meaning -- older versions tend to use it as an expression of surprise, akin to "How 'bout that!" <S> or "I'll be!" <S> Nowadays, however, it's most commonly used as an expression of gloating. <S> (Person #1: <S> "I got 20 points in the game!" <S> Person #2: <S> "Well, I got 200, so how do you like them apples?")
| The British had a trench mortar that was called a "toffee apple."
|
How do you say 'Twisted' Congress power balance? Currently Japan’s ruling party (Democratic Party) holds a majority in the Lower House, but fewer seats in the Upper House than the opposition party (Liberal Democratic Party). We call the state of power balance as such a ‘Nejire Kokkai’ in Japanese – Twisted Congress meaning the Congress in 'twisted (reversed)' power balance by verbatim translation in English. What is the proper counterpart to this Japanese term for “Twisted Congress” in short (one) word? I was asked this question recently by one of my friends who is English learning enthusiast like me. <Q> I know of no set phrase for this situation (which is odd as it happens a lot), but I would used "mixed". <S> As in "The Obama adminsitration may have a harder time moving their agenda this session because they face a mixed congress." <A> Does Japan have a two-party system? <S> The U.S. does have a two-party system, and a bicameral Congress, but there is no well-known term for describing the situation where different parties control the Senate and the House of Representatives. <S> In English-speaking countries with parliamentary legislatures, such as Britain, Canada, and Australia, they do have a term, "hung parliament," but this seems slightly different than you describe. <S> In these countries there are many political parties, and "hung parliament" refers to the case where no one party has a majority of seats in the legislature. <A> The most commonly used term in American English (this situation isn't really possible in other English-speaking legislatures) is "split control of Congress" or "a split Congress". <S> Google for those terms and you'll find lots of references. <A> I like the term gridlock . <A> When referring to the United States (and by extension, other countries with presidential forms of government), Wikipedia refers to this as a divided government . <S> In countries such as France, with a semi-presidential system, the situation can arise where there is a president from one party, but a different party is the largest one in the National Assembly, leading to the likelihood of the prime minister also being of that party. <S> This is referred to as cohabitation . <S> The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy like Japan. <S> However, its upper house, the House of Lords, is (currently) appointed, contains a significant number of independent members, and has a composition which is not directly related to the balance of parties in the lower house, the House of Commons. <S> In addition, the House of Commons can overrule the House of Lords in certain circumstances . <S> Hence I'm not aware of any term to describe the situation in the question which applies to the UK. <A> Usually the phrase is specific to the situation. <S> A Republican president may face a "Democrat-controlled" Congress (or Senate or House) or a Democratic president may face a "Republican-controlled" Congress (or Senate or House).
| Possible ways to express this idea are: "opposing majorities" or "split congress."
|
What does "fine-grained" mean? I always see "fine-grained" in technology articles. What does it mean? <Q> When used in the context of "fine-grained control", for example, it carries the connotation of "very precise": a volume knob that gives you fine-grained control means that you can set your volume to the exact level that you desire <S> , you don't have to choose only between "too quiet" and "too loud". <A> I can't find a reference on this, but I think the etymology comes from sandpaper. <S> Sandpaper is made with grains (originally sand) and if you make coarse-grain sandpaper you can quickly remove lots of unwanted wood, but the result is rough. <S> If you make fine-grain sandpaper you can smooth or polish the wood to a high degree, with great control, but the work is slower because the smaller grains don't remove as much wood. <S> This metaphor extends into other tools where the tools offer control of minute details in order to achieve specific results. <A> It just means what it sounds like: comprised of smaller entities. <A> The sandpaper analogy reads very well. <S> In pre-digital photography, "grains" of light-sensitive silver nitrate were used to capture images. <S> It gets very technical, very fast, <S> but I think it's safe to say "the smaller (finer) <S> the grain, the higher the possible image resolution: Wikipedia search results <A> In Computer Science (as you're looking for), coarse-grained means ' monolithic ' fine-grained means ' modulized ' or ' devided into smaller pieces ' For examples, there are many kinds of architecture for web services: monolithic architecture is coarse-grained architecture. <S> microservice architecture is fined-grained architecture. <S> These meanings are illustrated in this article .
| This could imply higher quality or fidelity if smaller entities make the system's overall properties better.
|
What’s the etymology of the word “unstable”, in the context of software? Approximately when in the history of computing did unstable come to be commonly used to refer to computer software? Can this time in history be linked to the release of a certain product (no jokes please, unless the truth is sadly funny). Is it a euphemism synonymous with buggy or subtly different? If different, then how? <Q> Unstable does not have a special meaning in the context of computer software. <S> It has the conventional meaning. <S> Unstable describes something which is likely or prone to <S> give way , change , or fail . <S> ¹ <S> An early use in print of the word unstable applied to software can be found in Edsger Dijkstra’s <S> ² <S> A Discipline of Programming (1976): ³ <S> Since then we have witnessed the proliferation of baroque, ill-defined and, therefore, unstable software systems. <S> Instead of working with a formal tool, which their task requires, many programmers now live in a limbo of folklore, in a vague and slippery world, in which they are never quite sure what the system will do to their programs. <S> Under such regretful circumstances the whole notion of a correct program—let alone a program that has been proved correct—becomes void. <S> What the proliferation of such systems has done to the morale of the computing community is more than I can describe. <S> ( Emphasis added .) <S> For example, an automated daily build which does not undergo regression testing might be labeled as the unstable build, again using the conventional meaning: there is no assurance that such a build will not give way or fail when used, and such a build will change from day to day. <S> For terms which are specific to the software development process, see the Wikipedia article “Software release life cycle”. <S> ⁴ <S> Stable and unstable are employed, again using their conventional meanings, in the definitions of some of these terms. <A> I'm pretty certain "unstable" has always been used in the history of computing, as it has been used in science and engineering… it's the most natural word to use for something that is "not stable." <S> As for the second part of your question, I think "unstable" and "buggy" have slightly different uses. <S> I would say "buggy" more often refers to incorrect output and "unstable" more often refers to catastrophic failure, where the software ceases to function, "hangs" or "freezes". <S> That said, they can be interchangeable. <A> When talking about an application, stable is not the same thing as bug free . <S> The stability is the ability for an application to survive a period of use, and to some degree misuse, and still contintue to function without crashing or starting to misbehave. <S> So, an application can be buggy and still considered to be fairly stable, as long as the bugs doesn't cause the application to degrade. <S> In the middle of the eighties the role of testing shifted from being just a tool for finding bugs into a tool for measuring quality. <S> ( Software testing: History ) <A> In the field of numerical analysis, which is quite close to computer science, unstable indeed has a technical meaning when applied to numerical algorithms. <S> So the meaning for computer software could either have come from this technical definition, extrapolated to computer software, or from the natural meaning of unstable . <S> It might be tough to trace which of these it really derives from (if it's not influencted by both).
| The word unstable is often used to name or characterize a software package which has not been subjected to extensive testing. I think that the concept of software stability (along with other quality aspects) evolved along side with how software testing evolved.
|
Capitalization of User Interface Buttons Being an amateur programmer and a bit of a perfectionist, I often find myself wondering about capitalization in user interfaces. If you look towards the top of this very website, you'll notice the links under the "English Language & Usage" banner are all capitalized. Every word, in fact; not just the first word of every link. However, the ones at the very top of the page ("log out," "chat," etc.) have no capitalization. What is the correct form? Furthermore, when describing the buttons in a manual, should they be capitalized as if they were proper nouns? For example: Navigate to the "First Example" pane and click the arrow next to "Second Example." This will bring up a dialog. Now click "Third Example" to perform the task. <Q> I would go with Stacker's answer. <S> As per the Manual of Style for Technical Publications (MSTP), which is strictly followed by all of Microsoft's manuals, software applications etc., title case uses uppercase for every word in the title except prepositions, conjunctions and articles. <S> Prepositions that have more than 5 letters such as <S> "During" and "Through" should also be capitalized. <S> Words that appear after colons/semicolons are capitalized as well. <S> Hyphenated words are capitalized based on consistency. <S> For example, if you start out with "Non-company", you retain the lowercase for 'c' throughout the manual/application. <S> If you start out with "Non-Company", you capitalize the 'C' throughout the manual/application. <S> However, Web 2.0 has broken many of these standards and "log out" has also become acceptable. <S> Ideally it should be "Log out". <A> Capitalization does not only apply to menu items, it is usualy part of a style guide which describes almost all elements of a user interface. <S> Microsoft Styleguide <S> Another one for KDE <A> There is no correct form. <S> If you are used to UNIX and C programming, you might be tempted to make your site look like craigslist.org did in its early days. <S> You can do whatever you like. <A> Microsoft has made a page for a very quick overview and "cheat sheet" concerning capitalization of UI elements: MSDN Common UI Controls and Text Guidelines: Capitalization
| Articles that appear in the beginning of a sentence should obviously be capitalized.
|
What is the origin of the phrase "when push comes to shove"? "When push comes to shove" means "as a last resort" or "if absolutely necessary". Does anyone know why the phrase came to be used in this way? <Q> I'm not sure about this rugby scrum origin theory. <S> I found a snippet of a 1981 William Safire column in New York Times Magazine article that indicates this guess was put forth by an AJ Gracia of Southbury, Connecticut. <S> It goes on to call it an "offbeat etymology." <S> Etymonline has the phrase dated from 1958, but with no mention of rugby. <S> I found the phrase used over a decade earlier ( 1947 ) in the English translation of Haitian Jacques Romain's Masters of the Dew done by Langston Hughes and Mercer Cook. <S> Again, no rugby context: <S> It would be interesting to know what original French phrase was translated as such. <S> Hughes went on to use the phrase again in Simple <S> Takes a Wife , 1953—the next reference I can find in print. <S> Edit : <S> Safire wrote another column on the phrase in 1997 which drops the mention of rugby altogether. <S> He concludes "a black-English origin for the phrase is pretty likely" and cites a 1954 example, four years earlier than OED 's earliest reference (1958). <S> He also dug up this more plausible origin of the phrase: <S> Other evidence there of the phrase's black origin is a recollection from Norman Pierce of Jack's Record Cellar in San Francisco of Shove Day, or Bump Day, the traditional Thursday off for domestic servants in the 1920's, ''on which blacks 'accidentally' jostled whites in public places, railways, streetcars, etc.'' <S> Edit <S> #2 : <S> I just found another antedating of the phrase. <S> These are from Black Thunder by Arna Wendell Bontemps (close friend of Langston Hughes), 1936: <A> Answers.com also cites the rugby reference. <S> It also notes the other meaning of the phrase as in "They supposedly support equality, but when push comes to shove they always seem to promote a man instead of a woman". <S> I think the difference is "if" vs. "when". <S> I see think the "when" meaning is more prevalent. <S> It means "when actually tested". <A> Push is just a push, and things have escalated to a shove now. <S> It now means business. <S> Escalate to get the thing accomplished. <A> According to this site , this term comes from rugby, where, after an infraction of rules, forwards from each team face off and push against one another. <A> They start with a push and a shove, so when "push comes to shove", it means a fight will break out. <S> Fighting is the last resort, or at least the least desired outcome of an argument. <A> I imagine he just made this up though... <A> The earliest instance of the idiom I found is from Central Valley project of California: Hearings . <S> United States. <S> Congress. <S> House. <S> Committee on Flood ControlFebruary 7-9, 1935 : page 52 <S> It's my guess that the idiom is derived from the fixed expression push and shove , which Wikipedia calls Siamese twins or binomials. <S> The order of the words are never reversed and they are usually conjoined by the words and or or . <S> The words constituting a Siamese twins phrase may be synonyms , antonyms, include alliterations or similar-sounding words that often rhyme. <S> The combination: <S> push and shove is firmly rooted in the 19th century (earlier instances I did not find in Google Books) and clearly expresses a frustrated type of struggle, where people or animals have to fight each other in order to reach their objective. <S> As seen in the following excerpts: Young Men's Christian Association , 1903 <S> The Nursery by Fanny P. Searverns 1867 <S> The Donkey and The Pigs <S> The London Review and Weekly Journal of Politics, Literature, <S> Art... <S> 1860 <S> For the rest of us, we push and shove ourselves into the best places, after the manner of Englishmen, that is, to our mutual discomfort, and without the least necessity ; and then we look round, and compose ourselves, to the due enjoyment of the imposing spectacle. <S> Missionary Chronicle Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Board of Foreign Missions, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A . <S> 1844 <S> Some go about begging and push and shove one another, [each greedy to get first]. <S> Others go about begging unthreshed rice of the donor. <S> They strive for food, transgressing the rules of propriety. <S> They do not properly demean themselves. <S> From push and shove to "when push comes to shove" the path seems to me fairly straightforward. <S> After all what is a shove if not a more decisive and aggressive type of push? <S> A shove represents a surge of energy, the last resort, the final action when no alternative option is available. <A> I suspect it might have its origins in the 16th and early 17th century English, during the English Civil War. <S> The phrase that comes to mimd is a description of what happens when opposing pike blocks engaged in melee. <S> It was described as push of pike and musket butt. <S> That phrase would have percolated through the population easily since the civilian population was intimately associated with the armies. <S> It could easily morph into push comes to shove as that rolls off the tongue so easily and aptly describes the soldiesr in the pike blocks doing exactly that.
| Well my understanding of the phrase has always been this: Pushing and shoving is a way of referring to fighting, particular little man-to-man arguments. In one of the Discworld books, Terry Pratchett alludes to the origin of this word as being midwifery (I think it's Nanny Ogg who has the relevant line).
|
Do Americans say "don't" as often as the British? This is really a question for Americans. When watching US TV or films, it's often my impression that—while using all the other contractions—Americans don't seem so keen on 'don't' and use 'do not' rather more often than we Brits. I also don't think this difference only occurs when it is stressed. Any comments? <Q> I did some searches in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and compared the results to similar searches in the British National corpus . <S> What I found was that overall <S> , in American English there was a 7.9-to-1 ratio of <S> do <S> n’t to do not . <S> With breakdowns by type: <S> SPOKEN <S> 19.6FICTION <S> 17.9MAGAZINE <S> 7.5NEWSPAPER <S> 7.7ACADEMIC 0.5TOTAL <S> 7.9 <S> In British English <S> overall, the ratio was 4.4-to-1 in favor of don’t , with breakdowns by type: SPOKEN <S> 56.9FICTION <S> 16.8MAGAZINE <S> 4.1NEWSPAPER <S> 3.4NON-ACAD 0.9ACADEMIC <S> 0.2MISC <S> 0.9 <S> So, if it is reasonable to conclude anything from this data, it is that Americans overall use don’t about twice as frequently as the British, but the British use <S> don’t in speech about 2.9 times more frequently than Americans. <S> In any case, these are not big enough ratios to be noticeable by anyone not counting every incidence. <A> I think we use "don't" and "can't" almost exclusively in normal conversation here in the U.S. <S> "Do not" and "cannot" are reserved for making special emphasis or dramatic effect. <S> But we have a long history of using the word "don't" — particularly in admonishing our former colonial masters. <S> Have a look at this colonial American flag (Gadsden Flag, source: Wikipedia). <S> And its naval equivalent: <A> I'm new to the site. <S> I stumbled across this forum question, because as a British ESOL Tutor, living in the USA for the past 25 years, my lesson for my students tonight is about "contractions"! <S> In fact, as a Brit, I treasure be a proud and frequent speaker of contractions, especially (don't!) <S> but my oldest teenage son and his teenage buddies rarely speak this contraction. <S> They, in fact, to my observant ear, only say "do not"! <S> I'm constantly admonishing my son for not saying "don't!", instead choosing his wording in a similar vein to his fellow teens. <S> I will, however, bring to your attention, that my son likes to text IDK, in place of "I don't know". <S> Which then makes me in turn chuckle, because of his infrequent use of the contraction "don't". <S> I need to draw to his attention his acronym doesn't make sense unless he actually uses the contraction "don't" in his conversation, because his acronym should instead read IDNK (I do not know)! <A> I don't doubt that we say "don't" in the US as much as our cousins across the pond. <S> That is, I expect usage is similar in the US and UK. <A> I've voted for nohat's answer, because of the evidence, but I offer my observations anyway: <S> I find that Americans generally use accepted contractions, including <S> don't . <S> I rarely hear do not except for emphasis. <S> Another data point: <S> In <S> Star Trek: <S> The Next Generation , Worf and Data are conspicuous for their contraction-free speech, again including don't (Worf is formal by choice; Data has some kind of weird programming deficiency). <S> This is actually played up in the show from time to time. <S> Everyone else uses don't freely. <A> When I was young I was taught not to use contractions in my written works. <S> I wonder if the same English style conventions were taught in the UK, and if that has any effect on American and UK script writers or not. <S> I believe children are now being taught to write more conversationally, and contractions are not frowned on in written language as much as they used to be.
| I, from my own personal experience have observed and noted, that the spoken contraction (don't) is definitely 'spoken' less frequently, by all and sundry, around Palm Beach County where I reside.
|
When "etc." is at the end of a phrase, do you place a period after it? Example: It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc. VS. It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc.. Update What happens if the abbreviation is inside parentheses, do you place a dot after and before the closing parenthesis? It's all about fruit (apples, bananas, etc.). <Q> If etc. <S> occurs at the end of a sentence , then you do not add another period. <S> It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc. <S> However, if etc. <S> occurs at the end of a clause , you can add a comma or other punctuation mark after it. <S> I bought the apples, oranges, etc., but they were all rotten. <S> Grammar.ccc.com <S> gives the following rule: <S> When an abbreviation with a period ends a sentence, that period will suffice to end the sentence. <A> The correct form of your example: <S> It’s all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc. <S> Jack Lynch’s Guide to Grammar and Style <S> states : <S> If a statement ends with “etc.” <S> the period in the abbreviation does double duty, serving as the full stop to end the sentence. <S> If, however, you need another mark of punctuation after an abbreviation, you can put it after the period. <S> So: This was her first trip to the U.S. <S> (The period does double-duty, ending both the abbreviation and the sentence.) <S> Is this your first trip to the U.S.? <S> (The period ends the abbreviation, but the question mark ends the sentence.) <S> On her first trip to the U.S., Kristina lost her passport. <S> (The period ends the abbreviation, but the sentence keeps going after the comma.) <S> The only thing to remember: don't double the periods. <S> Everything else is logical enough. <A> Note also that, when an abbreviation comes at the end of a sentence, only one full stop is written. <S> You should never write two full stops in a row. <S> 'Guide to Punctuation' by Larry Trask. <A> If is was not a question, then you would not need two periods at the end of the sentence, but you do seem to need the period before a question mark. <S> You might just use the full et cetera . <S> Then you don't have to worry about the problem at all. <A> No, which I say because we just don't and I learned that we don't, but since references are desirable, here's what Grammar Girl has to say .
| This one is simple enough: never double up periods.
|
Kilo as 1 024, Mega as 1 048 576 Under SI, the kilo prefix refers to 1,000 and mega refers to 1,000,000. In strict computer terms, kilo refers to 1,024 (2 10 ), mega refers to 1,048,576 (2 20 ) and giga is 1,073,741,824 (2 30 ). The original question was how widely known outside this domain is this distinction? Going by the answers provided, I should be using binary prefixes in order to remove the ambiguity in my documentation. <Q> Not so many. <S> The slightly larger kilo unit actually have gotten it's own unit, or actually a set of units. <S> 1024 bytes is one kibibyte , 1024 kibibyte is one mebibyte, and so on. <S> Even within the computer domain, both types of units are used. <S> Disk storage manufacturers for example uses 1000 as kilo to measure disk sizes, while operating systems uses 1024 as kilo to measure disk usage. <S> That means that a 2.0 terabyte disk only has room for 1.82 terabyte data. <S> (Also, as some of the space is used to keep track of the data on the disk, the actual amount that you can store on the disk is even less.) <S> Even disk manufacturers aren't consistent, and both units has even been mixed to measure the size of a single type of disk. <S> The (once) so well known 1.44 megabyte <S> 3.25" floppy disk is actually neither 1.44 megabyte nor 1.44 mebibyte. <S> It's actually 1.44 * 1000 * 1024 bytes, or 1.44 kilo-kibi-byte... <A> Not many. <S> At least that’s presumed — by the people who then invented Kibi and Mebi and Gibi . <S> Yup, there’s sort-of (I don’t deign to honor them as) <S> SI prefixes <S> : kB is kilobytes, that is, 1000 bytes (some used “KB” to signify 2 10 bytes, but that’s really nonstandard). <S> While kiB, kibibytes, is 1024 bytes. <S> Likewise for MB -> MiB (Mebibytes) and GB -> Gibibytes. <S> The bi here stands for binary, so the long longform could be Kilobinarybytes . <S> It’s all weird anyway. <S> I guess one could presume that even fewer people “outside the domain” are aware of those new binary prefixes than were aware of the old power-of-two one, if you consider that even people inside said domain are unaware of those new prefixes. <A> The answer is not many. <S> That's why there is an increasing move to refer to use "kibi", "mebi" and so on as prefixes for these powers of two. <S> Wikipedia has an article about it: <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix <A> Umm, not very many? <S> The computer definitions aren't much use outside computer stuff, so I'd say that the vast majority of non-computer people are ignorant of the distinction (or don't care enough to remember it). <S> But really, I could guess at numbers all day. <S> How on Earth would we know the answer to this? <A> Regardless of how many people know or don't know about it, if you're writing a specification or technical publication, my suggestion is to use the binary prefixes ( kibi, mebi ), that way there is no room for ambiguity. <A> Actually, kilo- , mega- , etc. are ambiguous , because some think they ought to be based on powers of 2 in a computing context and powers of 10 otherwise, some disagree, and both sides just go ahead and use what they prefer. <S> To solve this, the prefixes <S> kibi- <S> (2 10 ), mebi- <S> (2 20 ), gibi- <S> (2 30 ), and tebi- <S> (2 40 ) have been introduced; these I find are rarely used in whole form, but there's increasingly common use of their abbreviations KiB, MiB, GiB, and <S> TiB. I for one always say "K", "meg", "gig", and "terabyte". <S> The Wikipedia entry on binary prefixes sums up the issues nicely.
| Most people within the computer domain aren't even aware of all the details.
|
What does “they made bones” mean? Context: an old (70+ years old) Londoner is being interviewed about his past as a lighterman on the River Thames and says the following: Three big wharves there, they've flattened, all gone. One of them we called the stinker wharf. They made bones . It used to pen and ink when you went by there. Webster's Third defines “to make bones” as “to show hesitation, uncertainty, or scruple,” but it doesn't seem to fit here. Partridge Slang says that “bone” could mean a marijuana/tobacco cigarette in the US; but it would be odd if an old Londoner used American slang terms. <Q> I sent an email to The Company of Watermen and Lightermen in London and asked them if they knew what a "stinker wharf" was and what it might mean to say that "they made bones" there. <S> Susan Fenwick replied a stinker wharf would have been a tannery (there were many along the Thames) or perhaps a knackery (where they boiled down animal carcasses to make glue, bone meal, etc) and so called because it smelled bad. <S> As a side note, "make bones" (in the US anyway) can mean making money, and "bones" can refer to dice or dominoes as well. <S> I don't think either one of those fits here. <A> "Dog and bones" is Cockney slang for telephone . <S> Conceivably, this phrase had been shortened: "they made bones" could be translated as they called (on the phone) . <S> I would translate it as: <S> Three big wharves have been demolished. <S> One of them we called the stinker wharf. <S> They called and complained because it stunk so much when you went by there. <S> EDIT <S> Actually, after a little more thinking, make no bones about is a synonym for to have no objection to . <S> So while my translation is correct, I'm thinking "making bones" about the wharf is just a reversal of the phrase. <S> They objected to the wharf. <S> More research. <S> "Elizabeth was thus making huge bones of sending some £7000 over for the general purposes of the government in Ireland." <S> -- Richard Simpson's The School of Shakspere, 1878 <A> I suspect the common meaning of make [no] bones [about it] is irrelevant here, and that he simply meant they boiled bones (to make glue, for example). <S> Having driven past many old glue factories, I can confirm they do indeed pen and ink (stink). <S> LATER <S> I'm still sure make [no] bones [about it] <S> is irrelevant to OP's quoted usage. <S> As is the well-known rag and bone (phone) . <S> But it might be worth pointing out that "bone" is also Cockney rhyming slang for throne (toilet) . <S> I admit it's not obvious to me why a toilet manufacturing plant should "stink". <S> Unless they have exceptionally realistic on-site product testing methods, flushing straight into the Thames. <A> It would appear that on a gloss of those meanings, "They made bones. <S> It used to pen and ink when you went by there" would come across to the ear as "They would hesitate or complain because it stunk to go by there." <A> Perhaps the stinker wharf was a cannery? <S> It would have appeared that they "made (fish) bones" as a by-product. <A> Seems to me that someone might think of a knackery as a place where carcasses are turned into little more than bones; where the flesh is removed, rendrered and so on, just leaving bones. <S> The word "made" might not be so literal. <S> Sort of meaning that's what they did there <S> , that's what the end result was, though not exactly the end product. <S> They made the carcasses into bones, sort of. <S> Made piles of bones, like making a mess. <A> To make no bones about something is an old cockney term which means they will show no hesitation or uncertainty in doing something or saying something. <S> My mother, father, grandparents used this saying to express the fact for example:"If that person tries that again, I'll make no bones about it , I'll call the police" in other words they would not hesitate and you could certain that they would call the police/carry out a threat/meet out a punishment/etc. <S> And so to make bones is to wonder whether a certain action is right, to mull over or to be uncertain about doing something in other words the act of thinking and pondering and uncertainty over whether to do something is to " make bones about "
| So it seems most likely that he meant something like bone meal when he said "they made bones."
|
Differences between "audio" and "sound"? What is the difference between "audio" and "sound"? Is it possible that a beeping noise could be considered one but not the other? <Q> Audio is a more technical term, referring to sound coming from a recording, transmission or electronic device. <S> Sound is a more generic word and can be caused by any source. <S> So, if the beeping noise is coming from an electronic device, it could be considered audio, but usage is important. <S> You would rarely refer to a specific, discrete noise as "audio". <S> You could say: They raise the audio for TV commercials. <S> But I hear a beeping audio. <S> Sounds <S> incorrect <S> I hear a beeping sound. <S> Would be better. <S> Or: I hear beeping in the audio transmission. <S> Or, depending on context, using audio as an adjective may be acceptable: <S> I hear audio beeping. <A> Audio is more generally considered to mean artificially generated sound specifically. <A> From Wiktionary : Noun audio (uncountable) <S> A sound, or a sound signal <S> Noun sound (plural sounds) <S> A sensation perceived by the ear caused by the vibration of air or some other medium. <S> Nobody made a sound. <S> He turned when he heard the sound of footsteps behind him. <S> A vibration capable of causing this. <S> (music) <S> A distinctive style and sonority of a particular musician, orchestra etc
| It appears that the word 'audio' is used to specify a particular implementation of a sound, i.e. as in a digitally created sound, whereas 'sound' is the object itself.
|
What's a better word for "pensive" in this situation? I just used the word "pensive" to describe the feeling of a system administrator's state of mind while waiting for a long-running task to complete successfully, but I don't think that's the right word. I am trying to describe the feeling of waiting for the results of a task; a feeling of anxious anticipation, hoping things will work out for the best but planning one's next move in case things don't turn out as one had planned. Is there a better word than "pensive"? EDIT: I am questioning my word choice because Merriam Webster defines pensive as: suggestive of sad thoughtfulness and sadness isn't part of the emotion I'm trying to convey. <Q> Apprehensive? <S> I guess it helps to clarify that there's both a bit of <S> "the worst could happen right now and that would suck" and there's a bit of "ok, it's going to be fine, what's the next thing I need to do <S> so I'm prepared" <A> "Anxious" itself seems better. <S> A state of anxiety often suggests a mind racing with the scenarios of possible outcomes. <S> The phrase, "with bated breath" also comes to mind, as it combines the act of waiting with a feeling of anxiousness, though it does not suggest any sort of planning for contingencies. <A> and you'd like to find out very soon. <A> I guess it depends on the system administrator. <S> Some expect for everything to go right and cuss when things go awry, others plan for the worst and are pleasantly surprised when anything works as it is supposed to work. <S> / <S> she expects to see, and is simply performing the steps <S> he/she needs to do to get there. <S> For the egotistical, self-centered system administrator, I'd go for triumphantly or defiantly, as if he/she is self-assured that everything is correct, but is daring the computer to throw an error his/her way. <A> <A> Expectantly perhaps? <S> Pensive is not quite correct. <A> I agree that pensive definitely doesn't fit here. <S> Pensiveness is thinking, actively trying to puzzle something out. <S> To me it connotes calm more than sadness, but I can agree with the sadness description partially. <S> I mean, it is the dictionary at all. <S> Apprehensive and anxious might deliver the goods, as have been suggested. <S> The word that struck me when reading your description is 'uncomfortable' or maybe uncomfortable concern. <S> You're not really sure how to feel <S> but you can't just not think about it. <A> I vote solicitous from wiktionary Etymology <S> From Latin sōlicitus, alternative spelling of sollicitus (“thoroughly disturbed; anxious”). <S> Adjective <S> solicitous <S> (comparative more solicitous, superlative most solicitous) <S> Disposed to solicit; eager to obtain something desirable, or to avoid anything evil; concerned; anxious; careful. <S> Solicitous of my reputation. <S> -John Dryden. <S> He was solicitous for his advice. <S> -Edward <S> Hyde Clarendon. <S> Enjoy <S> the present, whatsoever it be, and be not solicitous about the future. <S> - Jeremy Taylor. <S> The colonel had been intent upon other things, and not enough solicitous to finish the fortifications. <S> -Edward Hyde Clarendon. <S> Anxious or concerned (usually followed by about, for, etc., or a clause): <S> solicitous about a person's health.
| I think "Apprehensive" implies pessimism about the results and "Anxious" implies a result that could be good or bad Pensive is a great word to describe that state. For the grizzled system administrator who has seen everything, I would go for expectantly, since that sysadmin probably has a good idea what output he
|
Is there a difference between "disc" and "disk" for naming digital storage media? I thought that a disc was a disc, and it is sometimes spelled disk . I now have got an indication that those two are not the same thing. In this answer on Graphic Design , I wrote floppy disc in the answer. I got a comment from someone that it should be floppy disk . He stated that Disk is a magnetic storage media, while disc is an optical one. Is this correct? <Q> Yes, according to Wikipedia the dis- <S> k <S> version of the word has been used to refer to magnetic storage media since the 1950s when IBM (a US company) pioneered the first hard drive. <S> Subsequently the advent of optical media from companies such as Philips (Who are Dutch and therefore used the European spelling) and Sony meant that the form dis- <S> c was chosen. <S> Rhodri (see below) also notes that the persistence of the word disk (even in European usage) for a magnetic storage medium is in deference to its American roots at IBM. <A> I was on the ANSI committee that defined the 5 1/4 inch floppy specification (ANSI X3-B8) back around 1980. <S> Even then, among all the existing manufacturers, there was no consensus about disk versus disc versus diskette. <S> So both "disk" and "disc" are correct. <S> As an aside, that was a pretty rockin' crew. <S> That ANSI committee met three times a year, and always in some cool place, like Lake Tahoe, or New Orleans during Mardi Gras, so we could meet hard all day and party all night, entertaining each other on company expense accounts. <A> I believe that disk is American English whilst disc is English English. <S> In the era of personal computers with removable disks, the spelling mostly came from the US computer industry and has taken hold in other parts of the Anglosphere. <S> Currently, most optical discs are popularly referred to as CDs, DVDs or Blu-Rays, so perhaps the distinction is moot. <S> No one has used a floppy-disk for decades, the 8-inch ones were certainly floppy, the 5.25 inch ones much less so and arguably didn't deserve the name. <S> You might have been referring to a 3.5 inch diskette . <S> Athletes still throw a discus I think. <S> Whether your car is equipped with disc-brakes or disk-brakes probably depends on where you purchased it. <A> Well, he is right in the manner that this is how the different spellings have come to be used. <S> There is however no inherent difference between the spellings. <S> The difference in usage between magnetic media and optical media is just a convention based on what was originally used when the media was introduced. <S> When first hard disks were sold, the k spelling was chosen, but when the compact disc was introduced the c spelling was chosen. <A> I worked for many years at U.S. technology magazines; it may be of interest to readers to see the word-list entries for disc and disk that governed our house style for those words at two magazines that shared the same word list. <S> Here they are, from an era before DVDs appeared on the scene: <S> disc use for CD-ROMs, audio CDs, and laser discs disk for floppy disks, hard disks; don’t use diskette <S> As you can see, the split in spelling that we followed was based not on a general U.S. preference for disk over disc , but on two separable categories of components/media: magnetic/electronic and optical/electronic. <S> I suspect that the split arose because our magazines had gravitated toward hard disk and floppy disk in the early days of personal computers as a U.S. English preference, but nevertheless adopted the conventional spelling compact disc for CDs when they emerged. <S> Note that this is essentially anecdotal information <S> : I don't know how many other U.S. publishers adopted the same distinction, but <S> my impression is that our house style was not unusual in its treatment of these words. <S> As for why CDs were designated as compact discs instead of compact disks , even in the United States, I believe that the impetus came from vinyl records, which were usually styled discs , rather than disks , when the term was applied to them at all. <S> That spelling follows in the tradition of the words discophile (since 1940, according to Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary ) <S> discotheque (anglicized since 1954, according to MW), disco (the short form of discotheque , since 1964), and disco <S> (the verb associated with disco music, since 1979). <A> Disk is American spelling while disc in British spelling. <S> No difference otherwise.
| Etymologically speaking both words are synonyms, with the only difference being that disc is more common in British English, whilst disk is more popular in American English.
|
What is the plural of Prius? What would be the correct plural of Prius , and why? A Latin professor would say Prium’s the best... <Q> I suspect that Toyota's advertising department just made up a word they thought sounded nice. <S> If it were Latin and a noun/adjective, the plural would be priora . <S> Since this probably is not the case, Priuses seems to be the only choice. <A> I wish people would stop referring to the latin/greek roots and words. <S> According to normal grammatical rules assuming the Prius is a proper noun (which it is), then you simply add an "s" but since it ends in "s" you add "es". <S> So it is properly Priuses. <S> I have a friend named Gus and an uncle named Gus as well. <S> When I am with both of them I am with 2 Guses. <S> Not Guii or Gusiay or whatever. <S> You cannot under any circumstances change the name of something. <S> If you have a Prii then you have no Priuses. <A> Octopus -> Octopi <S> Prius - <S> > Prii (pronounced pree-eye). <S> That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. <S> I plan on never being anywhere where more than one Prius is present. <S> That way, I will never have to use it in conversation. <S> All jokes aside <S> , I don't think proper nouns are supposed to be subject to the rules of plurality, and Priuses would be the most common usage. <S> EDIT: <S> Apparently Toyota actually had a poll about this, and the "offical" answer from Toyota is now prii . <S> It goes along with a big ad campaign about their new Prius models. <S> I'm not sure how I feel about this. <A> Even if we assume that "Prius" is Latin, not all Latin words that end in -us are made plural by changing the -us to -i. <S> As Cerberus notes, in Latin "prius" is the neuter form of the adjective meaning "before" -- with the masculine and feminine forms both being "prior". <S> (Cerberus said all this between his original post and later comment <S> so I upvoted his answer, but perhaps this clarifies a little.) <S> But just because an English word looks like a Latin word doesn't make it a Latin word, especially when it's the name of a product, which would often be a made-up word. <S> I'm reminded of the story of the Latin professor who reported to the police that he had been mugged. <S> "Could you identify the hoodlums?" <S> the policeman asks. <S> And the professor pedantically replies, "You mean 'hoodla'." <A> Prius is a loanword from the Japanese puriusu ( プリウス ), an abbreviation of puritii usuita . <S> puritii ( プリティー ) is, in turn, a loanword from English: pretty . <S> usuita ( 薄板 ) means laminate or veneer. <S> When we pluralize loanwords in English, we can choose to either follow the pattern of the original language or simply follow the English rules. <S> In general, Japanese lacks plural forms (or, to put it another way, every noun is a mass noun) which is why, for instance, samurai is often pluralized as just samurai . <S> So you can choose: A greenwash (the collective noun ) Prius (follow the Japanese pattern) <S> Priuses <S> (follow the English pattern) <S> Whatever dumb form <S> Toyota's marketing department comes up with (not recommended) <A> The plural of Prius is Prius cars or more formally, Prius automobiles . <S> Marketers. <S> Sheesh. <A> There is no correct plural for the word Prius at the moment. <S> The matter is still up for debate. <S> It is left to Toyota to determine what this should be. <S> The company has, however, graciously opted to standardize the plural of Prius based on popular opinion. <S> To contribute or make your voice heard on what you think the correct plural form should be, go cast your vote on the Toyota website website . <S> The options are: priuses , prium , prien , prius and prii . <A> No plural is needed. <S> Attributive modifiers are always used in the singular and trademarks are attributive modifiers. <S> Correct <S> : Hand me the Yugoslavia report. <S> Correct <S> : Hand me the Yugoslavia reports. <S> Incorrect <S> : Hand me the Yugoslavias report. <S> Incorrect <S> : Hand me the Yugoslavias reports. <S> Just as Yugoslavia identifies the country a report is attributed to, Prius identifies the named line of vehicles a car is attributed to. <S> There is only, and can ever be, one such named line. <S> I suppose one could imagine a case where there were two different lines of cars both called Prius . <S> For example, one can talk about the "Koreas" to mean both North and South Korea. <S> But that would be the only case where one would need a plural of Prius. <S> Incorrect: I could have had two V8's. <S> Correct: I could have had two V8 brand vegetable juice beverages. <S> Correct: <S> Both my wife and I have Prius cars. <S> Correct: My car is a Prius, and so is my wife's. <S> Ambiguous: I'm glad I'm a man, and so is my wife. <S> You can read these, and many other fine rules that no sane person follows, in INTA's trademark usage guide .
| The plural of "prius" in Latin is "priora".
|
Properly refer to the turn of the year During a meeting I was explaining a problem that only occurs once year: when one year ends and new one begins. Specifically during the first few days of the new year. Unfortunately, I was lost for words to describe the phenomenon, and, in the midst of stuttering, uttered, "Well the problem only happens during year turning, umm, well when 2010 became 2011..umm.." I got my point across, with mild sense of embarrassment, considering that a fairly large audience was attentively listening to my poorly formed narrative (I'd better stop now with this extraneous information). What is the best way to describe what I was trying to telegraph --that is, the issue only occurring during the turn of the year? <Q> The phrase in your question is good: <S> The issue only occurs at the turn of the year <S> (if it only happens at the moment the year changes), or perhaps The issue only occurs around the turn of the year <S> (if it happens for a longer time period) <S> Or you can paraphrase: <S> The issue only happens when the year changes from 2010 to 2011 (though that might imply it only happened in those specific years), or The issue only happens in the first few (hours, days) of January <A> You could use the term year-end , which refers to the period at the end of the year, as in year-end awards, year-end sales, year-end charitable giving, and in your case, a year-end problem, e.g. a problem that occurs at year-end. <A> Presumably, as you continue to describe why the problem occurs people will understand it is because the year changed. <A> Think a new word or term might have to be coined for that one. ' <S> Trans-annual' perhaps? <S> It sounds suitably like 'management speak' anyway: 'How many people shall we lay off in the trans-annual period?' <A> How about "The problem only happens at New Year"? <A> At "the turn of the year" is the only one of these answers which actually fits precisely this situation. <S> Some languages have a single word for this concept (eg Swedish årsskifte) but most, like English, only have a word or phrase for 'year's end' or 'New Year', which are not quite the same things. <A> "At the turn of the year" is acceptable. <S> I certainly understood what you were saying. <S> As someone else mentioned, "turn of the century" is used often in English but just because "turn of the year" isn't used often doesn't mean that people won't clearly understand the point you are making. <S> I might have said "the problem only occurs each year during the month of [blank]" or "the problem only occurs in the last week of December and first week of January in the new year" <S> BUT I like "turn of the year" much better... <S> rolls of the tongue better and cuts to the point. <S> My opinion.
| I think simply saying the problem only happens at the start of the year would be enough.
|
Word to describe "when sensitive information is given to a trusted proxy in case of untimely death" What's a good word to describe the situation when sensitive information is given to a trusted proxy (such as a lawyer), to be released only when a certain event occurs, such as a person's untimely death? <Q> I might call that a contingency confidence. <A> The trusted information is held in escrow ? <A> TV Tropes (warning: not productivity safe) has an entry for Dead Man Writing , and some of those examples cover what you're talking about. <A> Edit : Answered before the question was clarified, and addressing the information so entrusted, rather than the process. <S> But you can't use it without setting the stage because it has too many alternate meanings. <S> On a snarky note, there is "last will and testament" , but again it won't work if you haven't set it up. <A> This would actually be the "testament" part of last will and testament. <S> It comes, through three other forms, from the Latin for witness, which seems to dovetail pretty perfectly into the heart of the situation you're trying to describe. <S> The act of putting that information in the hands of a chosen proxy would be described as giving testament. <S> The second google definition looks perfect. <S> From google: <S> tes·ta·ment ˈtestəmənt/ <S> noun <S> noun: testament; plural noun: testaments 1. <S> a person's will, especially the part relating to personal property. <S> 2. something that serves as a sign or evidence of a specified fact, event, or quality.
| If the context is already established "insurance" is not a bad choice.
|
More colloquial term for "confidant" Is there a more colloquial term for a " confidant ", or someone who has been entrusted with sensitive information to be disclosed only under certain conditions? This is related to my previous question on trusted proxies. <Q> In Harry Potter, they call that person a "Secret Keeper", although that also involves magic and whatnot. <S> In computer terms, a group of people who are entrusted with secret information (such as SSH keys) are indicated to be a part of (or within) a circle of trust. <S> In High School, girls call those people BFFs. <A> I don't think there is a more colloquial term that fully encompasses the meaning of confidant . <S> I can't think of a more formal one, either. <S> Confidant and confidante are not particularly formal terms, even if they sound it. <S> These are not uncommon in everyday parlance. <S> If you truly require something more colloquial, you'll probably have to settle for a longer phrase. <S> Even then, many of the terms I might use to construct such a phrase seem no less formal than confidant : <S> privileged privy trusted counselor <A> <A> In cryptography, there is concept of " web of trust " and " strong set ".
| A right-hand man is colloquially used to refer to someone whom you can trust with your secrets.
|
What does the expression 'Do the fish' mean? I just recently heard this expression and couldn't quite figure out its meaning from the context, unless it means something like "take the bait." Is this a common expression? Is it perhaps an abbreviation of another expression? Most importantly, if it is a common phrase, what does it mean? Edit: The basic context in which I heard this expression used was this: one person asked a technical question of a group, to which a member of the group responded, beginning with "I'll do the fish" and then proceeding to the technical explanation. <Q> Well, I bit the bullet and asked the guy what the heck he meant (imagine that). <S> Turns out he was referring to the oft-quoted teach a man to fish proverb. <S> He also clarified that this is not a common expression, just an idiosyncratic reference he invented and uttered spontaneously. <A> I can think of two possible interpretations. <S> The first is that it is a variation of "taking the bait", as you surmised. <S> Specifically it reminds me of the expression "I'll bite.", which I've heard used in similar cases. <S> The second, which I don't think is likely, is that "doing the fish" might be a metaphor for cleaning the fish, a chore that some people find unpleasant. <S> But that doesn't really seem to fit your example and I've never heard anyone say this. <A> It seems as though he was going for the first part of a longer construction: <S> I'll do the fish and take the bait. <S> Wherein 'do the fish' means 'do as a fish does'. <S> Consider the joke make like a tree and leave. <S> This is applied as an order for someone to 'go away'. <S> I wonder, would it be as easily understood if the speaker simply said make like a tree. <S> I think the same structure is at work in both, with the spoken words implying the longer construction. <A> I would guess that it comes from the expression "fish or cut bait" -- that is, either do the work, or help the guy who who is doing the work.
| I think that the speaker here meant 'Do the fish" to mean the same thing as 'take the bait'.
|
Can snow be dry? Disclaimer: There are a lot of questions packed in but their answers are interdependent. Different textures of snow can be described as "wet" and "dry". Considering that water is the quintessence of wetness and snow is water, is it accurate to describe snow as being dry? Is there a fallacy in the above syllogism because water in its frozen form is not water but ice and therefore even though snow is made of water it is not the case that it is water? If so, is wetness a property that can only exist in non-freezing conditions? Are all of the above questions predicated on the false assumption that the adjective "dry", when applied to snow is intended to be literal when in fact it is figurative? <Q> Dry means (NOAD here, but others would give similar definition) “free from moisture or liquid”. <S> Snow is a mixture of ice crystals (a solid form of water), liquid water, and some water vapour (usually in negligible amount due to the temperature). <S> In that sense, wet is somewhat synonymous with slushy. <A> Ice could be dry (even if it isn't carbon dioxide ice) if it is so cold that there is no discernable trace of water on it, and so could snow if it were the fluffy powdery kind rather than the slushy kind. <S> Wet usually means having liquid water about (sometimes other liquids) either literally or figuratively. <S> It might even mean having water vapour around (wet gases). <S> Also, being made from water doesn't mean something is water; people are chiefly water and are not normally described as wet, except in a figurative sense as I mentioned earlier. <A> If wine can be dry (even though it's indubitably a liquid), then snow can be too. <S> In the first case, dry is meant in a sort-of-figurative sense (it has a dry taste); in the second it means that it's not sticking together as a liquid or semi-liquid would - it's "dry" like a powder. <A> Snow can have a variety of different properties. <S> Ask a skier or snowmobiler, and most likely they will speak to you at length about it. <S> Ask a skier what it's like to ski in powder. <S> Like any other noun, a variety of words can be used to describe it, even words that would seem at first glance to be oxymoronic. <S> When compared to other types of snow, some can be wet, and some can be dry. <S> We use the word snow rather liberally to describe a variety of winter conditions. <S> For example, when it snows 8 inches, then the temperature rises and it rains a half-inch, <S> the resulting mix is still "snow" even though a quantity of rain is contained within it. <S> To put it into another context, "jumbo shrimp" makes no sense, if shrimp are supposed to be small. <S> However, jumbo shrimp are large when put in the context of other shrimp.
| So, snow is dry if it's mostly composed of ice crystals, and wet if it has an important part of liquid water mixed in.
|
Why is “resolved” used ahead of a question in a debate title, instead of saying “the Subject, topic” or alike? I’m now reading a book titled “Competitive Debate – The Official Guide” by Richard E. Edward. In it, there is the following sentence: The topic for public forum debate are selected by a comitee of the NFL. --- Some public forum topics have been resolutions of fact: “ Resolved : The United States is losing the War on Terror.” Some topics have been solution value: “ Resolved : The costs of legalized casino gambling in the U.S. outweigh the benefits” “ Resolved : The United States should issue guest worker visas to illegal aliens.” In all of the above examples, for what meaning is “Resolved” used? I gusess “Resolved” means “Question to be resolved.” But I don’t understand why it (Resolve) is used in past participle form, not in noun form, and why not using a word like “the debate subject” “theme”, “issue”,“agenda” or even “Resolution required”? <Q> As per Bartelby's: In 1876 General Henry M. Robert set out to bring the rules of the American Congress to members of ordinary societies with the publication of Pocket Manual of Rules of Order . <S> It sold half a million copies before this revision of 1915 and made Robert’s name synonymous with the orderly rule of reason in deliberative societies. <S> In Chapter 4 : When a main motion is of such importance or length as to be in writing it is usually written in the form of a resolution; that is, beginning with the words, “Resolved, That,” the word “Resolved” being underscored (printed in italics) and followed by a comma, and the word “That” beginning with a capital “T.” <S> So, because Robert’s Rules of Order have been a popular framework for American "deliberative societies" they have been adapted and applied to formal debate, so much so that Resolved has become the go-to word to begin your thesis. <A> It's just a way of announcing a topic (i.e. a resolution) which will be debated. <S> According to Wikipedia: In policy debate, a resolution or topic is a normative statement which the affirmative team affirms and the negative team negates. <S> Resolutions are selected annually by affiliated schools. <A> In Lincoln-Douglas debate, when a person says something like “Resolved: When in conflict, an individual's freedom of speech should be valued above a community's moral standards,” it means that’s the topic that will be debated. <S> Saying the word 'resolve' or 'resolved' is actually an abbreviation of the term 'resolution,' which is like saying 'motion.' <S> If you're debating a subject, imagine you're arguing for a motion to be passed in a vote of some kind. <S> So, you might say "I move to make eating pretzels illegal" or "Motion: to make eating pretzels illegal." <S> Resolution is the same as motion. <A> It sounds to me as if 'resolved' is being used to mean 'agreed'. <S> Why is'ahead of' now being used everywhere to mean 'before' or 'ready for' or 'in the light of'? <S> It's very annoying. <A> The word resolved <S> stated before the resolution means "obsolete", to deal with successfully, clear up, an immediate course of action, meaning that the plan would immediately be enacted. <S> Therefore, if you come across a case that involves something like cooperation with other countries or anything that takes a significant amount of time, you can argue that it violates the word resolved . <A> I disagree with the excerpted use of Resolved . <S> Here is a quote from an online version Robert's Rules . <S> If it is desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated in a preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with "Whereas." <S> Whereas, We consider that suitable recreation is a necessary part of a rational educational system; andWhereas, There is no public ground in this village where our school children can play; thereforeResolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that ample play grounds <S> should be immediately provided for our school children. <S> Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the chair to present these resolutions to the village authorities and to urge upon them prompt action in the matter. <S> In the examples you cite in the second paragraph, I would only agree with the third Resolved . <S> The others should use <S> Whereas . <S> In "The United States is losing the War on Terror," the deliberative body is not deciding (or Resolving) to do anything. <S> It is a preamble to a resolution. <S> Same for "The costs of legalized casino gambling in the U.S. outweigh the benefits. <S> " These both need a Whereas followed by a later "Resolved" and a resolution. <S> The excerpt provides the decision in "Resolved: The United States should issue guest worker visas to illegal aliens. <S> " This is the correct usage. <S> Whereas, The usage of whereas and resolved were established by Brig. <S> Gen. Roberts in 1876, and <S> Whereas, Some modern usage of whereas has been confused with resolved ; therefore Resolved, That questions be posted to a suitable online forum to inquire as to correct usage of resolved . <S> Resolved, That authors, legislators, and members of deliberative bodies observe and employ the correct usage of whereas and resolved .
| Saying 'resolved' before a debate represents one debater's stance on the subject either in favor of or in opposition to that resolution.
|
How to avoid sexist language? I have observed that I use a lot of sexist terms; it comes naturally to me! I have resolved to be "perfectly" non-sexist from now onwards. I would like to know how to avoid sexist language. Yes, I've googled and found a lot of useful resources . But I am looking for suggestions based on personal experiences. <Q> Some common things to watch out for: <S> Avoid using gender-specific nouns when neutral ones are available. <S> For example, use human instead of man/woman . <S> In the absence of neutral words, include both sexes. <S> For instance, you should say alumni and alumnae instead of simply alumni to refer to both men and women who have graduated from a certain institution. <S> Use both masculine and feminine pronouns when the gender is unspecified. <S> Thus, use he/she instead of simply he . <S> Common examples are headmaster and director . <S> You should not use headmistress or directress/directrice , especially not in the US of A! <S> Abstain from potentially derogatory feminine descriptive words such as chic[k] , <S> vixen , shrew , crone , and the rest of them. <S> Pay attention to the contexts of your writings or conversations. <S> Sometimes, it is okay or even expected, to be gender-inclusive. <S> At other times, it may be considered highly offensive to be gender-inclusive! <S> Sexism is not restricted to the written or spoken word. <S> It certainly applies to behavior, as well. <S> Thus, some more extreme traits of someone who aspires to be completely blameless with respect to avoiding sexism would be linked to the following rules: <S> Treat all humans (not men !) as equals. <S> Do not treat the ladies any more special than the gentlemen. <S> Thus, do not pull out a chair for a lady, offer to put on/take off her coat, give up your seat for her in a crowded place or hold the door open for her. <S> Never offer to assist a female who is clearly struggling to carry a heavy item. <S> (Believe me, I have offered and have been rebuffed on several occasions, much to my consternation and annoyance, but I continue to do so, anyway!) <S> Do not try to be overly anti-sexist. <S> That may even make matters worse, depending on the situation. <S> Disclaimer: I do not follow any of these rules, except the first and the last ones! <A> Don't overdo it <S> If there's no neutral noun: use the feminine one if it refers mostly to females use the male one otherwise <S> Use proper words, don't make up new ones <S> For the love of the poor guy who invented writing thousands of years ago, do not <S> **EVER <S> ** <S> use abominations like he/she or (s)he; they look plain stupid to any sane person (fall back to the rules above) <S> If you're talking about people killed or something like that, never state <S> "X victims, Y of which were women" : men are not more important than women, nor the other way around, we are all humans <A> I think before a change can be made to a persons's language with regards to any "ism" (sexism, racism, etc) that person needs to become more aware of his or her thought processes, prejudices and biases. <S> When you examine why your language changes when you are speaking to your coworker Sally as opposed to speaking to your coworker Bill, you can determine what the motivation behind that change was and correct it. <S> (For example: even though all three of you are on the same project, you are more likely to talk about non-work things like your kids or the weather with Sally, while you are more likely to use Bill for an idea springboard for work stuff.) <S> It doesn't need to be overtly sexist in topic to be sexist in implication - whether you're not divorcing Sally (from the previous example) from her role as a mother (and therefore by extension thinking of her as unable to divorce herself from her role, making her not as dedicated as yourself or your other, male colleagues to your jobs) or cat-calling her as she walks down the hallway, she is still a second-class citizen in your eyes. <A> I'd like to comment on this point: "Use both masculine and feminine pronouns when the gender is unspecified. <S> Thus, use he/she instead of simply he." Should you wish to avoid the awkwardness of such constructions, make the subject plural and everything else will fall into place. <S> For example: Change:The student should not place his/her bag on the floor. <S> To:Students should not place their bags on the floor. <A> As far as I know, it is appropriate to use plural form they (their) in cases when it is not possible to determine the gender.
| Avoid using feminine derivatives where the masculine term has become acceptable for both sexes. Essentially, if you teach yourself to turn a critical eye inward and examine why you choose the words, actions, and implications that you do, the changes to your language will follow. Use a neutral noun if there is one, and it doesn't sound odd
|
What does the phrase "before too long" mean? What does the phrase "before too long" mean? Excerpt from where I read this phrase: The response to the SDK has been quite good and I expect to start hearing about some great apps and success stories before too long. <Q> It is an oblique way of saying soon . <A> In addition to what Jay said, sentences like this are usually a kind of emphasis . <S> This double negative (which is a form of understatement) is called litotes (thanks to RegDwight for pointing this out). <S> It’s the same as saying “not bad” when you actually mean “quite good indeed”. <S> Interestingly, the same exists in most other languages, and has always exists. <S> For example, in Latin there’s the idiom “non ignoro”. <S> “ignoro” means “I don’t know”, and “non” is just the negation. <S> Thus, “non ignoro”, though literally translated as “I don’t not know”, in reality means “I know exactly “ (with emphasis). <A> While others have explained the literal meaning of "before to long" being "soon", I would like to opine on when it is used. <S> The phrase "before too long" is one of hope that something will grow under it's own momentum. <S> Word to spread, crops to grow, etc. <S> Phrases like, "Well, we've planted the corn, before too long we'll be taking it to market." <S> Or, Boy, you keep eating all that corn, before too long you'll be bigger than me!" <S> This is opposed to the phrase, " <S> It won't be long now" which is used in pessimistic ways. <S> " <S> Grandpa's been sick a long while. <S> It won't be long now before he eats is last piece of corn." <S> But they are English phrases, so of course they are also used the reverse of what I just said. <S> We like to keep you guessing. <A> It means before it takes too long time. <S> In your example it may mean in 1-2 years.
| “before too long” figuratively means the exact opposite of “a long time long in the future”.
|
Which one is more correct: "works at a university" or "works in a university"? My relative is a fairly big academic and works at a university. Is this correct? or should I have used in instead? <Q> My relative is a fairly big academic and works at a university <S> is correct. <S> My relative is a fairly big academic and works in a university is wrong. <S> See a similar example at Cambridge Dictionaries Online . <A> The quoted sentence is fine. <S> 'In' is usually used when speaking about the general kind of work someone does, e.g. <S> My father works in telecommunications. <S> but My father works at the telephone exchange. <A> I would possibly use 'in' if I meant that he works there, but is not directly involved in the university establishment, for example someone who is for whatever reason doing an unrelated job but using the university for accommodation, or a cleaner etc. <A> I would also use " at " in that case. <S> It's completely correct. <A> AT university <S> My son studies at a university . <S> My brother teaches English at a university. <S> But... <S> My friend Sohan is a painter. <S> He is now working in a university. <S> A student studies or a teacher works AT a university while a person not directly involved with studying or teaching for which a university exists, like a carpenter or a painter, works IN a university. <S> At the same time you should use at when the name of the university is mentioned: <S> Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to study at University Oxford.
| Using 'in' is not just plain wrong - although in that context it does sound it.
|
What do all capital letters typically refer to in writing? In many error messages and conversations, I come across words in all capital letters, as demonstrated in the examples below. ERROR: Please type your e-mail address. or ME: I can't make it SHE: I HATE you. ME: I'm soo sorry. What is the typical meaning of or reason for these words written in all capital letters? <Q> All caps are typically used for either of two reasons: Visual Style <S> Capital letters are often used on covers of magazines, in logos and artsy-typography, usually to emphasise the visual style of the letters themselves, rather than the word. <S> ( Example Image ) <S> Contextual emphasis: <S> Capital letters can be considered a third form of emphasis, among Italics and Bold text. <S> This is done by tabloid newspapers, for example: <S> Political Correctness Gone MAD! <S> (in this example, the exclamation mark is used, erroneously, to add even more volume) <S> Legal documents sometimes use capital letters to denote areas of special importance. <S> They are, presumably, trying to avoid the area being overlooked by the reader, by making it stand out from the rest of the text. <S> This product comes with NO WARRANTY. <S> There are also technical reasons for using capital letters. <S> Here are just some examples of this: Typesetting systems (old computers, stencils, ...) <S> that don't allow for italics or bold text may encourage some to use capital letters instead Capital letters to denote a SURNAME as opposed to a first name (according to wikipedia, this is done in francophone countries) <S> There are suggestions, some call it a consensus, that upper case text is harder to read than correctly capitalised text. <S> This, to my knowledge, first manifested itself in public policy when British road signs were changed in 1957. <S> The Worboys Committee proposed a new type face called Transport , using lower case letters for the first time. <S> This is based on the idea that one reads the shape of the word rather than each individual letter. <S> The All caps article on Wikipedia summarises the evidence for this. <S> It's not even always a good idea to capitalise acronyms and initialisms, as illustrated by this ridiculous example: Have they turned on the LASER yet? <S> Rhodri rightly says that this is uncommon and only happens to de-facto words. <S> As Jimi pointed out, ALL CAPS in email and instant messaging conversations is considered shouting, and people who use it extensively are considered trolls . <A> ALL CAPS ON THE INTERNET OR IN WRITTEN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS IS OFTEN THE RESULT OF A MISTAKE BY OLDER, OR LESS EXPERIENCED, <S> COMPUTER USERS <S> WHO USE CAPSLOCK AND FORGET THAT IT IS ENABLED. <S> GENERALLY, WHEN IT IS NOT A MISTAKE, IT DENOTES SHOUTING, EMPHASIS, IMPORTANCE, OR URGENCY. <S> IT CAN ALSO BE USED IN SCENARIOS <S> WHERE CLEAR TEXT IS REQUIRED - THOUGH <S> THIS IS USUALLY EMPLOYED WHEN WRITING BY HAND. <S> MY ANSWER IS IN ALL <S> CAPS BECAUSE IF YOU READ IT <S> BACK IN YOUR HEAD <S> IT WILL SOUND LIKE <S> I'M SCREAMING <S> AT YOU MARCO :D! <A> They are usually used to add emphasis. <S> They are also often used in place of italics in situations where those can't be displayed. <A> All caps is used primarily for emphasis. <S> When used excessively in an electronic message (email, discussion thread, etc), this is called shouting <S> and it is considered quite rude. <S> For more on the various uses of all caps , see the Wikipedia article . <A> Lo, these many years ago, I took a typing class (manual typewriters, for a true sense of age!). <S> We were instructed to use ALL CAPS as a substitute for bold and underline ( _ _) as a substitute for italics . <S> When I started going on line (long before publicly available Internet), I was taught to surround text with asterisk <S> (*) when I intended bold and with underscore (_) when I intended italic . <S> If you pay attention to the markup used in this forum, you can see how those conventions have been honoured and expressed over time and through changing technology. <S> In English classes (native English, not ESL or second-language) we were also taught to use ALL CAPS to separate the 'description' from the 'real' text. <S> So, in your error message example, ERROR: is telling you that what follows is an error message as distinct from a warning message (WARNING:) or a purely informational message (INFO:). <S> A similar concept applies to dialogue the way it is normally written in plays. <S> As a side note, I was also taught that underline was introduced with the typewriter and that previous to that scribes and typesetters used actual italics (and bold). <S> I have not been able to confirm that anywhere, though. <S> The other answers are, of course, also correct. <A> Used to emphasize a point you want to make. <S> But using it excessively would seem like you are shouting at the top of your voice.. which is not very nice..... <S> All CAPITALS make reading quite difficult too... <A> For example: The Soandso Players will be performing THE TURN OF THE SCREW at the K---- Memorial Theater this August 30 th and 31 st . <S> I am told that this is a carryover from typewritten manuscripts, particularly stage plays and the like, where upper case is used to distinguish character names from dialogue.
| In some usage circles, titles and other things that would properly be set in italic are translated to uppercase instead. They are used to denote a louder, almost shouting (and in many cases actually shouting) pronunciation.
|
"Time is of the essence"… of what? I'm having a hard time understanding the purpose or meaning of the definite article, the in the common phrase, Time is of the essence. My first thought is that it refers to the task that is time-sensitive, but certainly time or timeliness is not the essence of that task (unless perhaps the task is to set a clock). Can anyone shed light on this formulation? <Q> According to my New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition), the phrase of the essence means critically important <S> When it is said, "Time is of the essence," it is implied that time is in short supply or it is of the utmost importance. <S> Therefore, if this statement is used with regard to a certain task, then that task must be completed as quickly as possible, and with a sense of urgency. <S> Anything can be of the essence in any given situation. <S> Examples: <S> Your concentration will be of the essence here. <S> Put your mind squarely to the task at hand. <S> A keen interest in this job is of the essence, otherwise you lose it! <S> Consistent hard work is of the essence in this course; don't fall into lassitude. <A> It means that whoever is fulfilling the contract doesn't have limitless amounts of time to get around to it. <S> For more than that, you'd have to consult m'learned friends. <A> I would guess that "time is essential in this project" would sound logical and appropriate to your situation. <S> Note that the word essential is directly derived from the word essence ; "of the essence" is one way of adjectivizing essence , and essential is just another way of doing so. <S> We do similar things with many words. <S> A couple examples: <S> "Talk about something of substance " vs. "talk about something substantial ". <S> "A statement of fact " vs. "A factual statement". <S> "I did it by accident " vs. " <S> I did it accidentally " (in this case we are adverbializing). <S> It so happens that, nowadays, "of the essence" is rarely used, while "essential" is common. <S> "Time is of the essence" is one of the few phrases that retains this construction, and so it sounds odd, but etymologically and structurally, it is straightforward. <A> Time is of the essence of the contract. <S> It is an essential term of the contract. <S> Where essential terms are breached, even slightly, the non-breaching party is afforded damages.
| "Time is of the essence" is a phrase used in contract law.
|
"it's" vs "its": what happened lately? During the course of the last 6-12 months (approx.) online I've seen more and more the mistake of using "it's" in place of "its" and the other way around. While my habits might have slightly changed, I'm talking about a huge difference here: a few years ago I knew it was supposed to be a "standard mistake", now I notice it almost daily! Even by native speakers! Assuming it's not "just me", did you notice that? Have any idea of what could be the cause? The only logical thing that comes to my mind is that the Internet is now more cheaper and worldwide, so (no offence intended) we have more non-native speakers and more uneducated people. With "uneducated" I do not only mean they might not know proper grammar: I mean they might not care to write correctly. <Q> I doubt that the average person makes significantly more apostrophe-related errors today than they did five years ago. <S> However, you may be noticing an uptick in such errors due to some combination of the following reasons: <S> The proliferation of informal online content. <S> I think it's safe to say that today there are more blogs, discussion boards, and other websites created and maintained by non-professional writers than there were 5 years ago. <S> Consequently, a a random page on the Internet today vs. one from 5 years ago is more likely to contain grammatical errors. <S> Confirmation bias. <S> Once you get the germ of a particular grammatical error in your head, you are sensitive to it, seeing and remembering it more often than you otherwise would. <S> Texting norms. <S> People text a lot more today than 5 years ago. <S> When texting, adding an apostrophe usually requires a couple button presses, thereby slowing down the user. <S> Consequently, texting often forgoes punctuation marks, including apostrophes. <S> One can assume this behavior would translate onto the web. <A> My iPhone offers me "it's" in all circumstances: I have to reject that to get "its". <S> Assuming other iPhones behave likewise (and perhaps other devices too) that would seem likely to account for the proliferation. <A> I don't think that it has gotten significantly worse in just the last few years. <S> The vast majority of people writing today were also writing 5 years ago. <S> That said, it has almost certainly gotten worse over time, as book-reading has declined and grammar has been de-emphasized in primary education. <S> Apostrophes are notoriously confusing for people, and the default seems to be, "When in doubt, stick it in there. <S> " I see things like CD's and DVD's all the time, for example. <S> I think in your case, you have become more sensitive to the error as you have become more aware of it.
| Another component may be the proliferation of weblogs and other informal outlets, so although writers have not gotten materially worse, we have been consuming an increasingly large volume of informal writing, thus encountering the error with greater frequency.
|
Is "architect" a verb and a noun? I hear the word architect used as a verb in the technical field and now more often in other industries and groups, for example: We need to architect a better solution to the problem. I am interested if this is considered acceptable usage, as I see this word being used more in published technical documents (not necessarily books, but corporate publications). I can see how a conductor can conduct, a typist can type, but can a scientist "science"? A scientist might research, analyze, and so forth, as an architect might design, create, build, etc. Merriam-Webster defines architect as a noun , however, I have been told that other dictionaries exist that define architect as both a noun and a verb — is there a credible reference or source that authoritatively answers this question? <Q> Since the language is largely defined by its usage, and (as Robusto notes) nouns often become verbs and vice versa, it's hard to say that it's wrong - but many consider it poor style, and in formal writing (especially if intended for an audience unfamiliar with business-speak) it might be better to choose an alternative that conveys the required meeting - perhaps "design", or "build", or even "think of" or "solve" in the specific example you gave :-) <A> Merriam-Webster’s Third International lists “architect” as a verb. <S> So does the Oxford English Dictionary (probably the most authoritative and prestigious dictionary ever compiled for any human language), with citations going back to the early eighteen hundreds: To design (a building). <S> Also transf. <S> and fig. <S> 1818 <S> Keats Let. <S> July (1958) I. 350 <S> This was architected thus By the great Oceanus. <S> [But see architecture v.] <S> 1890 Harper's Mag. <S> Apr. 809/2 <S> We would not give being the author of one of Mr. Aldrich's beautiful sonnets to be the author of many ‘Wyndham Towers’, however skilfully architected. <S> 1913 <S> W. Raleigh <S> Some Authors (1923) <S> 3 <S> He has come out of the prison-house of theological system, nobly and grimly architected. <S> Personally, as a data architect, I find this a useful verb, since I use it to include analysis and integration, as well as design. <S> It also encompasses the standards for deliverables associated with the architecture process. <S> Those who do not find this term useful are not required to use it. <S> But it is inappropriate to sneer at those who do. <A> It is both a verb and a noun. <S> Curiously, most English nouns can become verbs just by using them in that sense, and vice versa. <S> " <S> Gift" has become a verb lately. <S> I gifted him with a pen-and-pencil set. <S> Verbs also become nouns. <S> In David Mamet's play Glengarry Glen Ross the salesmen talk about going on a sit , meaning making a sales pitch in someone's living room. <S> So you can safely say He was the head architect on that project and <S> She architected a whole new genre of glass sculpture. <S> Addendum <S> : See The Give That Keeps On Gifting , an ELU blog article I wrote on this topic nearly two years later. <A> Yes it's acceptable, but it is a somewhat fraught word because readers can interpret it two ways. <S> Some readers will see your use as parochial and assume that you are an insider in the building or software industry. <S> Others will take it as satirical and mocking of industry jargon and of pretentious speech in general. <S> So unless you are writing for an audience that's already settled on their interpretation of the word, use "designed." <A> I googled it (because Google is a verb now), and saw that "architector" is an obsolete form of architect, which implies that an architector is one who architects. <S> So I think you could make a case for architect as a verb, and feel like you are reviving an ancient word as opposed to following the modern trend toward creating verbs out of nouns.
| Traditionally "architect" is a noun only, but it is increasingly common to hear it used as a verb, though usually in business or technical situations where jargon is very common.
|
I sent vs I sent out Which one is correct and why: I sent out the inquiry to the support team vs I sent the inquiry to the support team Even though the question is specific to " sent out ", please verify the correct usage usage of articles. <Q> In this case, "support team" tends to refer to the support department instead of its members , so I would say the second sentence makes more sense. <A> In your first example I sent out the inquiry to the support team. <S> The out is superfluous. <S> You could tighten it up by just saying I sent the inquiry to the support team. <S> If you don't have a specific party to whom you sent the inquiry, use out . <S> I sent out the inquiry. <S> This has the connotation that you sent the inquiry out to multiple people. <A> There are a number of verb +* <S> out* constructions that can be generalized to the following: sent = "sent to one or more people" sent out = "sent to multiple people" Other examples: pass/pass out , hand/hand out , give/give out , speak/speak out . <S> The out -form has this sense of going out to more than one person. <S> This does not work for all verb+out forms, but there is a certain domain where this out extension is productive in English in this sense.
| "send out" is generally used when you send something in bulk to a group (often large) of people, as opposed to simply "send" which is generally used when issuing something to someone in particular, or to a certain place.
|
What's the difference between "yet another" and "another"? What's the difference between yet another and another ? <Q> Yet another is more emphatic. <S> It implies that the list of things being counted is getting really long, and suggests a certain amount of impatience or irritation on the part of the speaker. <A> You get the first one (of whatever it is that is under discussion), then you get another of them, and then you get yet another of them. <S> So, it could be argued that 'yet another' implies at least the third. <S> It could also mean that something is happening tediously often: <S> First one interruption, then another, and another, and then yet another. <S> Aaargh! <S> How am I meant to get any work done? <A> "Yet another" isn't just more emphatic. <S> It also changes the focus. <S> Consider the following sentences. <S> Another question was asked on the subject. <S> Yet another question was asked on the subject. <S> In the first sentence, the focus may be on the question or the subject. <S> In the second sentence, the focus is on the fact that there are so many questions. <A> Often it can be used as an expression of the exasperation to see something for the penultimate times <S> Yet another internet meme... <S> In fact, it is also used at the beginning of acronyms designated something that was made so much time that finding an original name is quite difficult.
| As explained by @JSBangs and @Jonathan, "yet another" is used as an emphases on the fact that there were many more before.
|
How should I greet a close friend from the United States? I (male) have a very good (female) friend over in the south-western United States that I met one year ago and we're exchanging mails or messages from time to time. We're both not older than 22 and I consider her a very open person. Note that this is not about dating her—just casually writing mails. What would you suggest to end the mails with? It shouldn't sound too stiff, but also not too intimate. I definitely don't want to send "Kind regards", but also no "kisses". In addition, I'd like to know if "cheers" is possible with US-American people? <Q> It doesn't require a "complimentary closing" such as "Kind regards" or "Sincerely". <S> Such formality seems odd in emails. <S> You don't even have to use your name, since the recipient already knows who wrote it. <S> I would suggest a single short sentence, something like: <S> I really hope to see you soon. <S> or It was great talking with you the other day. <S> If you must have a complimentary closing, maybe something like a simple "Best" or "Yours" ... <S> but I have to say, even these sound a little stilted for the format. <A> There are many possible answers (things that come to mind that people have used in emails to me, that I think might be suitable in your situation, include "Bye for now", "Later", "Cheers", "Ciao", or even just signing your name). <A> I don't end emails to close friends with anything at all. <S> The one exception is if I'm known to them by an unusual/humorous nickname, in which case I would sign with that name but still wouldn't include any closing phrase.
| You don't have to end an email the way you end a letter. But a good rule of thumb would be to follow what your correspondent does - so for example, if she says "Regards", I'd use that too :)
|
"in the year 1908" or "in the year of 1908" Do we need preposition "of" after a year ? Freud is a visitor at James’s Sussex residence, Lamb House, in the year 1908 <Q> It's technically acceptable either way, but the preferred use is "in the year 1908". <S> The word 'of' is used to indicate derivation, origin, or source, and it's obvious in this sentence which year is being referenced. <S> If you're a fan of economy of langauge, you can even omit "the year" to produce a less-antiquated form of speaking: <S> Freud is a visitor at James's Sussex residence, Lamb House, in 1908. <S> (Again, it's not only obvious but assumed that you're talking about the year 1908 AD) <S> Question...are you quoting something or did you write that sentence? <S> If you wrote it, consider that "Freud is..." <S> probably should be changed to "Freud was...". <A> is correct; ‘the year of 1732’ is unusual in modern usage, and I think in most historical usage too. <S> Use of ‘the year’ is also optional here: in modern usage, ‘…in 1732’ would be more common, but ‘the year’ adds emphasis and formality; in historical usage ‘…the year 1732’ was more standard. <S> On the other hand, if specifying the year by an event, then ‘of’ is correct: In the year of George Washington’s birth, the King of England was George II. <S> (Of course, you could also phrase this as “In the year when George Washington was born, …” or similar.) <A> John's response is best. <S> In fact, the principle of concision can also be applied to the main verb: "Freud visits James’s Sussex residence, Lamb House, in 1908. <S> " <S> This version assumes that the present tense is contextually appropriate.
| When giving the year by its date, “of” should be omitted: George Washington was born in the year 1732.
|
Where does the -en come from in misshapen? We can say both misshapen and misshaped . Where does the misshapen form come from? What other words use this form? <Q> Misshapen comes from shapen , originally the past participle of to shape . <S> This ‘strong’ -en ending for past participles survives in a few other verbs as well <S> : e.g., eaten , gotten <S> (also begotten , ill-gotten ), taken , fallen … (Wikipedia gives a longer list , and some historical explanation .) <S> However, in these cases, the other forms of the verb have also remained irregular. <S> I would guess that in the case of (mis)shapen , it was semantic detachment from other forms of the verb — ( <S> mis)shapen getting used as an independent adjective, not considered just as a form of the verb to shape — that allowed it to keep this form while the rest of to shape regularised around it? <S> According to the OED , it was during the 14th–16th centuries that most forms of to shape became regular; since the 16th century it has been completely regular, with normal past participle shaped ; but shapen as an adjective <S> was in use into the late 19th century, and misshapen survives today. <S> (Compare also Kosmonaut’s excellent answer to “Why are clothes hung and men hanged?”) <A> This form is frequently used as an adjective, e.g. broken glass, written word, fallen soldier. <S> For misshapen in particular, dictionary.com does identify it as a past participle form of misshape. <S> 1350–1400; ME: ptp. of misshape <S> ; see -en3 <A> According to EtymologyOnline , -en <S> (1) suffix forming verbs (e.g. darken, weaken), from adjectives or from nouns, from O.E. -nian, from P.Gmc. <S> *-inojan <S> (cf. <S> O.N. -na). <S> Mostly active in M.E. -en <S> (2) <S> suffix added to nouns to produce adjectives meaning “made of, of the nature of” (e.g. golden, oaken), corresponding to L. -ine. <S> Common in O.E. and M.E., surviving words with it now are largely discarded in everyday use and the simple form of the noun serves as an adjective as well.
| I believe the -en ending is indicative of the past participle form of some verbs.
|
What would you call it when an aunt complains about her nephew in front of his mom to needle her? Here is a situation: Whenever a 2-year-old son does something wrong, his aunt always makes some remarks to her husband regarding that child's misbehavior and she does it deliberately in the presence of the child's mom obviously trying to needle her. For example, the mom told her child not to touch the remote control, but he just went ahead and grabbed it from the coffee table and accidentally dropped it on the floor - so the aunt right away told her husband, 'Look, he is so spoiled! Never listens to his parents!' Usually she doesn't do it loudly. She can't be accused of trying to start a fight with her sister-in-law (the child's mom) as she does have the right to tell her husband whatever she thinks, yet she never fails to do it audibly enough so that the child's mom could hear it. What would you call the aunt's actions here? How would you describe what she is doing? I am most interested in a noun or a verb: "What she is doing is called (noun)." or "She is simply (verb+ing)." Examples: What she is doing is called mockery. She is simply ranting. <Q> To describe the aunt’s behaviour as “passive aggressive” smacks a little of pseudo-psychiatry. <S> More commonly one might say she is being snide : adjective Derogatory or mocking in an indirect way: <S> snide remarks about my mother <A> Passive aggressiveness is very apt. <S> Provoking also comes to mind, depending on how we interpret her motives: she seems to be trying to provoke the child's mother, she is trying to get under her skin, she is trying to put her down. <S> I am assuming that the mother of the child is her sister-in-law: she is trying to drive brother and sister apart by provoking the sister and setting her husband up against his sister by pushing him to join her in her provocations. <S> She is a sower of discord, a bully, a manipulator. <S> And, no, I have never had a sister-in-law perform such tricks of bullying and manipulation on me. <A> I'd say it's a form of passive aggressiveness. <S> She doesn't complain directly to the person she's complaining about--she complains to someone else in her presence. <S> As you put it, "she can't be accused of starting a fight. <S> " That's one of the passive aggressive traits: Being argumentative or otherwise behaving badly, but with some kind of deniability built into the process so she can deny the aggressive behavior. <S> This is far from the only trait of passive aggressive behavior, but it is a type. <A> I can't accept passive-aggressive as an answer (though I've not down-voted) because it does <S> not mean "indirect complaints" (the behaviour you describe) <S> but rather it means passive negativity, sometimes obstructionism , which is something else altogether. <S> Needling is an informal word, but a good fit for this situation. <A> The aunt is a shit-stirrer : one who makes trouble for others...by making known facts that they would prefer to keep secret . <S> The shortened "cleaner" version stirrer is commonly used too. <S> For the action itself, shit-stirring can be toned down to stirring things up . <S> This metaphoric "stirring" is so common that even more oblique references occur in things like.. ...for Annina's sake, I expect you to hold that sharp tongue and put away your wooden spoon! <A> Obnoxious comes to mind. <S> The fact that it is not directly addressed to the sister-in-law, but yet still audible by her seems clearly an attempt to offend/ annoy her. <A> The aunt is frustrated and instead of complaining directly to the parents she is complaining to someone else loudly to show her dissapproval. <S> It is pretty common and lately this behavior has been labled passive agressive to show the indirect, yet confrontational manner. <S> If the parent does not like the aunt saying mean things about her and her son in front of her, she must either confront the aunt directly, or indirectly to another relative that is sure to get back to the aunt. <S> This is why passive aggressive aunts often do not get invited places making them even more upset about being slighted and even nastier. <S> A vicious cycle. <A> How about critical ? <S> Negative? <S> Passively critical , perhaps? <A> I would characterize the aunt as being PROVOCATIVE. <S> Essentially, she is trying to provoke the mother to pay more attention to her child by "calling out" the child's misbehavior. <S> You can call her "snide," but in a sense, she is trying to be "tactful" by directing her remarks to her husband, rather than directly to the child's mother. <A> In my opinion I would say that the aunt is being overreactive. <S> Seriously, what does 2-year old know about anything? <S> Anyone getting upset about an infant's action is slightly... disturbing. <A> The polite word for what she is doing is rebuke : <S> verb 1. express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions. <S> Another interpretation is that the aunt's actions are fine: she cannot rebuke the mom because it is not her blood-family, but she can rebuke the dad; the child is out of order and the parents need support from peers to ensure they raise the child well. <S> To do this, the aunt rebukes . <A> Consider trolling . <S> Oxford Dictionaries says : make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. <S> Urban Dictionary says : Being a prick on the internet because you can. <S> Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
| I suggest this behaviour is better described as needling , where the aunt is goading and provocative.
|
Use of the word "convergent" This question is for people who know some mathematics. Is it correct to say The sequence is convergent to 0. Normally we say: The sequence converges to 0. <Q> Without going into whether it is correct or not <S> (I think it's acceptable), I can tell you why mathematicians use it. <S> Sometimes, we want to emphasise the value of the limit. <S> In such cases, we say "This sequence converges to 0" or "The limit of this sequence is 0". <S> But sometimes, when we're more concerned with the analysis of the sequence (whether it is a convergent sequence, or divergent, or what), we want to emphasise the fact that it converges , rather than its limit. <S> In such cases, instead of saying This sequence is convergent, and its limit is 0" or This sequence is convergent, and it converges to 0" we (or some mathematicians) use a shortcut and say, equivalently, " <S> This sequence is convergent to 0." <A> Having said that, we know that language usage in technical areas is different from that in everyday life. <S> For example, we say the triangles are incongruent <S> to mean they are not congruent. <S> However incongruent is not a standard word in everyday use, and the opposite of congruent in the everyday sense is incongruous , which would not be used to describe triangles. <S> It all boils down to accepted conventions in technical usage then. <S> Grammatically, convergent to 0 is an adjectival phrase, with the adjective convergent modified by to 0 . <A> I believe it is technically correct, but stylistically I prefer the phrase "convergent toward 0". <A> I think it is a bit sloppy to say 'the sequence is convergent to 0'. <S> What if you said 'the sequence is not convergent to 0'?Does <S> that mean it is not convergent?
| We usually say The sequence converges to 0, but it is also correct to say The sequence is convergent to 0.
|
Why is it "on *the* one hand"? According to all dictionaries I can see and everyday use by native speakers, this is the correct way: On the one hand, it's larger; on the other hand, it's more expensive. What makes no sense to me instinctively is the use of the first the . What is the one hand ? Shouldn't it be just one hand ? Is this a grammatically valid construct I just don't understand, or is it an idiom that has changed to improve the presentation of the comparison described? It arguably sounds better with the additional the . <Q> The definite article is used to signal that one is talking about specific items, not items in general. <S> For example, this exchange at the reception desk of the hotel. <S> Guest: I'd like a room. <S> Clerk: Will you be staying the weekend, sir? <S> Guest: <S> No, just the one night. <S> The guest could have said "No, just one night," but adding the definite article makes it more emphatic and specific at the same time. <S> This applies to "on the one hand" constructions as well. <A> If you are talking to the person face to face, you'd emphasize the statement by waving one hand as you said "on the one hand", and by waving the other as you said "on the other hand". <S> Then "the one hand" and "the other hand" are quite clear. <S> And I'd be surprised if that was not the origin of the expression. <A> On the one hand, it might be there for emphasis, just as in you slept with her on the one day <S> I asked you to behave . <S> Then the question would be: why is emphasis often felt to be needed with "hand", but normally not in similar phrases, such as on one side of the paper ... <S> on the other side ... <S> and tie one end of the rope to ... tie the other end to ... ? <S> On the other hand, I think it might be there not for local emphasis, but to make sure the reader gets that the two sentences introduced by each "hand" are to be taken as linked but opposite perspectives. <S> Using "the" serves both to give them a common marker and to increase the visibility of the first "hand" as a signpost. <S> I don't really feel that on one hand and on the one hand are used with less or more emphasis (but I could be wrong [duh]). <S> Consider that you normally wouldn't say on the one side of the paper : the article is usually only added to "one" when there are three or more choices. <A> Though I'm not sure of the origin, I expect it's a back-formation from the phrase 'on the other hand', in the same way that people say 'that's a whole nother issue', contracted from 'another', where what they mean is 'other' <S> (though in this case it's acknowledged as incorrect). <S> I disagree that it indicates a definite object - were it not for the idiomatic status of the phrase, 'on one hand' would be a perfectly valid alternative construction. <S> If it wasn't developed subsequently to 'on the other hand', I'd guess that it was still designed to parallel it. <A> There's another aspect here that bears mentioning: this "one thing... <S> the other thing" construction applies to objects that come in pairs, where the objects are essentially interchangeable. <S> So saying "on one hand... <S> on the other" indicates that it doesn't matter which hand we're talking about, just that we're talking about one of them. <S> But we employ "the" when referring to the other hand because we specifically mean the remaining hand. <S> It persists because it is still grammatical and doesn't impede understanding. <A> The here specifies a particular set of hands, just two. <S> You have the one hand and the other.
| I suspect that "on the one hand...on the other hand" is simply an intuitive parallel construction.
|
Is it 'a usual' or 'an usual'? Why? is it 'a usual' or 'an usual'? 'A usual' sounds more correct in my head ('Today was a usual day.') than 'an usual', but u is a vowel. Which one is correct and why? <Q> Usual (pronounced /ˈjuː.ʒu.əl/ as in you ) begins with a consonant sound and, as such, it should be preceded by a not an . <S> As an aside, I cannot help but point out that the sentence Today was a usual day is not usually heard in regular conversation. <S> Today was an unusual day <S> is what one might hear, instead! <S> Indeed, I rarely hear the construction a usual . <S> The definite article is more commonly used, in my experience: <S> That's the usual thing. <S> Today was not an unusual day <S> This is a usual occurrence / <S> This is not an unusal occurrence or <S> This usually happens <S> You are right in saying that a usual sounds weird. <S> As speakers, we tend to avoid constructions which, though correct, do not flow easily from the mouth. <S> In sum, the following are valid and commonly used alternatives: not [an <S> ] unusual • <S> the usual • usually <A> An hour is correct, because hour starts with a vowel sound. <S> People seem to ask most often about words that start with the letters h and u because sometimes these words start with vowel sounds and sometimes they start with consonant sounds. <S> For example, it is a historic monument because historic starts with an h sound, but it is an honorable fellow because honorable starts with an o sound. <S> Similarly, it is a Utopian idea, but an unfair world. <S> The letters o and m can be tricky too. <S> Usually you put an before words that start with o, but sometimes you use a. <S> For example, you would use a if you were to say, “She has a one-track mind,” because one-track starts with a w sound. <S> Similarly, “She has an MBA, but chooses to work as a missionary.” <S> Use a before words that start with a consonant sound and an before words that start with a vowel sound. <S> Other letters can also be pronounced either way. <S> Just remember it is the sound that governs whether you use a or an, not the actual first letter of the word. <S> One complication is when words are pronounced differently in British and American English. <S> For example, the word for a certain kind of plant is pronounced “erb” in American English and “herb” in British English. <S> So the proper form in America is an erb, and the proper form in Britain is a herb. <S> In the rare cases where this is a problem, use the form that will be expected in your country or by the majority of your readers. <S> See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/a-versus-an#sthash.TGDxZuJP.dpuf <A> it starts with. <S> For example, "an homage," since the "h" is not pronounced. <S> I was going to say that "since 'usual' sounds like it starts with 'y <S> ', you'd use 'a' instead of 'an.'" <S> But then - is y a vowel or a consonant? :) <A> As Jimi Oke points out, it doesn't matter what letter the word starts with, but what sound it starts with. <S> Since "usual" starts with a 'y' sound, it should take 'a' instead of 'an'. <S> Also, If you say "today was an usual day", unless your pronunciation is extremely clear, you risk being misunderstood as "today <S> was unusual day", which will only confuse your listeners. <A> "a uniform" because you pronounce u as in you. <S> BrE /ˈjuːnɪfɔːm/ ; NAmE /ˈjuːnɪfɔːrm/ " <S> an umbrella, because you pronounce u as in cut. <S> BrE /ʌmˈbrelə/ <S> It is not the letter that decides but the pronunciation.
| I believe the usage depends on what the word sounds like In place of a usual , one would also be more likely to hear not an unusual : Today was a usual day /
|
What is the difference between a "ghetto" and a "slum"? What is the difference between a ghetto and a slum ? <Q> A slum is characterized by its run-down status, while a ghetto is characterized by the people who live there. <S> Both usually mean some degree of poverty, being overcrowded, and having high crime rates. <S> Historically, a ghetto would be a place to put groups such as immigrants, Jews or black people, who weren't allowed to live anywhere else. <S> Nowadays the reasons are mostly economical and cultural; people can't afford to live wherever they like, and choose to live among others with similar background. <S> A ghetto doesn't have to be particularly poor, some Chinatowns for example can be called ghettos even though they are not really slums. <S> Sometimes, "slum ghetto" is used to clarify both the ethnic grouping and the poverty of an area. <A> Originally, yes, <S> but people not aware of the history use them interchangeably now. <S> The word ghetto was used to refer to a concentration of a particular ethnicity into a single neighborhood. <S> In Poland during WWII Jews were forced to live in communities where they did not mix with others. <S> In the United States this term was used to describe the ethnically-centered neighborhoods in the big cities. <S> Some ghettos became slums and so now the two ideas have intertwined in the minds of many. <A> In a ghetto you will find people of the same race/socio-economic status/etc. <S> While today indistinguishable from a slum, from a historical perspective, a ghetto was meant as a separate part of a society where 'certain' people were moved (as for instance the Warsaw ghetto for Jews during WWII). <S> A slum, on the other hand, is merely a very poor neighborhood. <A> Ghetto can also be used as an adjective, and not necessarily a negative one, depending on context and speaker. <S> While the modern ghetto is usually of a lower socio-economic class, I think of a slum as much more destitute. <S> Also, lest we forget the term slumming it, as in stooping beneath one's self, indicating perhaps again the implied undesirable factor of a slum. <A> I can't afford to move out of east oakland California. <S> There is extreme poverty, and where the violence is sickening to me. <S> Full of turf gangs creating what mainstream media usually calls the killing fields. <S> I dont think Ive ever called this area a 'slum'. <S> The term ghetto started in WW2 to describe some of the areas the Jewish people were forced to live. <S> I think that term applies more because it's more about a specific race of people forced to live in a specific area due to whatever reasons. <S> Here it's due to poverty and a horrid educational system. <S> When I hear the term "Slum" or "Slums", I tend to think about people forced to live under slum lords that will grossly over pack their land with people. <S> I consider parts of Rio de Janeiro to be slums where there is people so over packed they're almost standing on each other. <S> Mostly for bad areas, people use the term "hood"
| A slum is a very low income area marked by poor living conditions, sometimes crime.
|
What is the origin of the phrase "blue moon"? Any alternate phrase for it? Was just wondering how this phrase came into being? Was it inspired from some natural or astronomical observation? or is it the result of poetic imagination? <Q> The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the following origin: blue moon 1821 as a specific term in the sense "very rarely," perhaps suggesting something that, in fact, never happens (cf. <S> at the Greek calends); suggested earliest in this couplet from 1528: <S> Yf they say the mone is blewe,We must beleve that it is true. <S> Though this might refer to calendrical calculations by the Church, so that the general sense of the term and the specific one (commonly misinterpreted as "second full moon in a calendar month," but actually a quarterly calculation) are difficult to disentangle. <S> In either case, the sense of blue is obscure. <S> Literal blue moons do occasionally occur under extreme atmospheric conditions. <S> So as you suggest, its origin could be either poetic or astronomical. <S> Perhaps the latter inspired the former? <S> A lot older than I would have guessed, in any case! <S> As for alternatives, the most obvious one is simply "[very] rarely". <S> A more interesting one is "black swan", which can be used to describe a very infrequent event. <A> A Blue moon is the second full moon in the same month. <S> As a full moon appears every 28 days the chances of a full moon happening twice in the same month are very rare. <S> This brings us to the common expression: <S> Once in a blue moon. <S> Meaning it happens very rarely. <S> Though <S> Dr Hiscock in one of his books noted this is a modern interpretation of the term "Blue Moon"; Historically it has probably been related to the moon changing colour because of atmospheric conditions (which was even more rare). <A> An alternative is once in a while .
| Usually, blue moon appears in the phrase, once in a blue moon .
|
Continuing to do something just because it was done before, without knowing why How would you describe someone that continues to perform and action solely because they have observed someone else performing that same action, but do not know the reason. Or, they perform an action in a certain way and do not change to a better method, only because they believe the current method must be the best way to do it because it has been done that way previously. What word/phrase/expression would you use to describe this scenario? <Q> These are two different things. <S> You should not conflate them. <S> How would you describe someone that continues to perform and action solely because they have observed someone else performing that same action, but do not know the reason. <S> The colloquial expression that comes to mind here is "monkey see, monkey do." <S> Or, they perform an action in a certain way and do not change to a better method, only because they believe the current method must be the best way to do it because it has been done that way previously. <A> The term Cargo Cult could fit this situation. <S> See the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult and scroll down to 'Other uses of the term'. <A> At one extreme, sheeple can be used to describe people who follow the masses and act without thinking for themselves. <A> In a commercial environment, especially at a large company (although small ones are by no means immune to this effect), one might say that such people are suffering from "institutional inertia". <A> they perform an action in a certain way and do not change to a better method, only because they believe the current method must be the best way to do it because it has been done that way previously. <S> Traditionalist. <A> One could say they are "set in their ways". <S> But that's more the latter scenario. <S> For the first... well, sheeple (which is a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people", btw) doesn't quite cut the mustard here, but it's not far from it, as it is "doing something without thinking". <A> There's a slightly obscure word that means something very close to this: perseverate. <S> The word comes from the medical context (discussing mental illness), and means to continue doing something after the reason has disappeared. <A> Slightly different shade of meaning: <S> do it by rote , that is, you've learnt it by repetition and do it without knowing why. <A> Some previously-mentioned words (eg hidebound , traditionalist , perseverate ) seem good. <S> Reactionary (“Opposed to change; urging a return to a previous state” or “Very conservative”), conservative (“A person who favors maintenance of the status quo or reversion to some earlier status”), and stick in the mud (""one who is slow, old-fashioned, or unprogressive; an old fogey) must also be mentioned. <S> Stick in the mud dates from the late 1500's, according to phrases.org.uk , which also says figurative phrase 'stick in the mud' ... <S> was preceded in the language by earlier versions, for example 'stick in the briers, clay, mire' etc. <S> These were usually applied to people who remained in a difficult situation, either by choice or because they were stuck.
| You could say they are set in their ways or hidebound .
|
What does "throw back" mean? In this sentence: I've throw back a lot of orange juice. What does to “ throw back (orange juice)” mean? <Q> In that particular sentence, it means drunk . <S> In that the person has "thrown back" a lot of orange juice, thrown the juice to the back of their throat, i.e. tipped their head back and drunk the juice. <A> I believe an alternate, perhaps British term, is to "knock back" (usually a drink). <A> It is also a loose reference to an old reference of the past... " <S> That old song is a throw back". <S> However, if used by a younger person — say, in a text reference —, it is a common vernacular for paying due deference to a time gone past; remembering nostalgically. <S> For example, teens will send me photos from their Instagram accounts that we had taken when they were younger. <S> Swimming, crafting, painting, water balloon fights etc. <S> The hash tag is always #tbtp which is throwing it back to... and my name. <S> I'm an old gal <S> so it always makes my day!
| Throw back or thrown back is definitely a reference to consuming a beverage.
|
Is "try taking these ones" correct? (doctor speaking to a patient) A patient is complaining that the pills that he had given her a week ago don't help, so he opens a drawer, takes another pack of some other pills and says: "Try taking these ones". Is it correct to say like this? Does it sound natural? <Q> I was always taught to use "these" instead of "these ones." <A> Well, this is grammatically correct: <S> Try taking these pills. <S> "pills" is a plural noun "ones" <S> is a plural noun <S> Looks fine, technically, to me. <S> I would say it's fairly unnatural, though. <A> Also, in this situation, this statement sounds entirely natural. <S> One might also hear, "Try these." <A> Having been informed of a Question Update, here is my new answer. <S> (try + to V) <S> We use this to indicate difficulty in the activity given by the verb. <S> for example, if some one is lying on the floor complaining of an injury to the leg, we might say try to stand up <S> This indicates that, because of the purported injury, we do not yet know whether this person will be able to stand or not. <S> Therefore, they should try and find out. <S> (try v-ing) <S> We use this when suggesting a solution to a problem. <S> For example, if someone is beside you in the crowd of a sporting event or similar and they complain that they cannot see, you might respond try standing up Here you are suggesting the activity given by the verb. <S> We know that the person is physically capable of standing up; we are suggesting that they 'try it out' to see what the results are. <S> Applying this to your example, 'try taking...' would appear to be correct since the doctor is probably not questioning your ability to swallow the pills but rather suggesting that they might solve your problem (i.e. make you feel better). <S> Hope this helps. <A> I think these ones rather than <S> just these implies there's some specific attribute applicable to each of the proffered alternatives, suggesting they've been individually checked and found to have the required attribute. <S> So a greengrocer might refer to some specially selected apples as these ones <S> if you didn't fancy the scabby ones originally offered. <S> But I can't see a doctor using this construct to refer to an alternative pack of pills which he presumably hasn't even opened and examined. <A> I agree with @FumbleFingers that the inclusion of 'ones' seems to add emphasis on a difference between the old pills and the new (ones). <S> I'm not quite sure why there is so much question over 'these ones' from the other posters as I have always thought it ok. <S> Nevertheless, if you really do want to avoid it but still want to emphasise the difference, maybe go for: <S> Try these instead. <S> If I asked which one should I choose, you might answer: Try these <S> If I then tried them and they were no good <S> and I asked for a replacement, you might respond: <S> Try these instead Just to reiterate, I see no problem with 'these ones' and would even be happy with: <S> Try these ones instead
| It is perfectly correct to say "Try taking these ones."
|
What is "the hottest seat/seed in town"? What is "the hottest seat/seed in town"? I am not sure if it's a seed or seat or something else. I heard it a few times on "CNN" when a new upcoming "Larry King Live" program was being advertised. Also what does it mean "in town" here? It seems that it has nothing to do with a physical human settlement on some territory, but rather with some sphere or even some time period, I am not sure. <Q> It's a play on words. <S> "Being in the hot seat" means a high-pressure situation in which a great deal of attention and scrutiny is focused on a person or organization — per Wikipedia <S> So, the "hottest seat in town" is a popular place to be, but also a place where you're under scrutiny and being asked questions you must answer. <A> It is seat , as reported in this article or this blog post . <S> It could design "a spot" (a place to be, here, one of the hottest to be, as in, "most exiting" or "more trendy"). <A> It's "The hottest seat" and refers to the seat the guest(s) sit on. <S> Because Larry King was advertized as a tough interviewer. <S> Which he arguably wasn't, but that's beside the point. <S> Given that Larry King fathered children pretty late in life, and his (current) wife is quite a bit younger than him <S> , one could easily think of "the hottest seed", but I'll leave finding out <S> what "seed" can mean to you (just google or wikipedia it). <S> ;-) <S> The "in town"... <S> interesting question, that one. <S> It doesn't refer to "your town", it just makes it feel more personal, I'd say, by making it seem to happen "in your town", close to you, and "pulls you in" more. <S> You the viewer <S> , that is. <S> It makes it feel like you're there <S> , you're a part of it. <S> Historically, it refered to the specific town/city something happene, as in "the hottest show/act in town", meaning this is the best show in this town (whatever "this town" is is obvious from context, like <S> when you come to Las Vegas and someone hawks tickets for some show telling you, well, "it's the hottest show in town") <S> But here the effect of it is important (since of course it's taped in... <S> where?), and it makes it feel like you're there. <S> Or could be there Or, on further pondering, it just adds a frame of reference. <S> Just "The hottest seat" would sound weird, people would wonder " <S> Where? <S> Compared to what?". <S> I think. <S> ;-)
| The "hottest seat in town" can refer to a popular/hard-to-get ticket to an event such as a play or game (similar to "it's a hot ticket").
|
Are there any English sayings to the effect that little changes may lead to big changes? Can you think of any sayings about change, especially ones expressing how a big change must begin with a little change? how certain institutions, ideas, or God remain eternally unchanged? Note: the above is an edited version of @lovespring's question. See edit history for original question. <Q> Something like these? <A> It's not yet a saying per se, but the so-called butterfly effect is a modern theme popular in certain circles and commonly referred to in modern speech. <S> So, people sometimes say things like “the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil might set off a tornado in Texas” <A> The type of saying I think you’re looking for is called a proverb . <S> There are plenty of online resources for those; for example, this list on Wikiquote . <S> On the subject of change, you might like the saying: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose Even in English speech or writing the original French is used, or it can be rendered in English as: <S> The more things change, the more they stay the same <A> Small streams make large rivers tongue-in-cheek <S> A small step for man ... <A> Here's another answer: <S> However, in my observation, the Butterfly Effect is mostly referenced neutrally, and a few times even positively, say for example when describing the power of small act of kindness to enable the performer to reap larger "karmic" rewards later. <S> On the other hand, the "for the want of the nail..." story usually has uniformly negative connotations, in emphasizing the role of unpreparedness in causing momentous tragedies in ventures of a complex nature. <A> Many small people, who in many small places, do many small things, will alter the face of the world. <S> Taken straight from the Berlin Wall Viele kleine Leute, an vielen kleinen Orten, die viele kleine Dinge tun, werden das Gesicht der Welt verändern. <S> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2982009459_3e6cdf7241_z.jpg?zz=1 <A> There's also the snowball effect . <A> Penny-wise and pound-foolish <S> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure <S> Based on the edited version of this question, here are some more: <S> Rome wasn't built in a day <S> "It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. <S> Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants" - New Testament Bible reference " <S> Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant" - lyrics in the song <S> High Hopes <S> about an ant moving a tree <A> how about: a stitch in time saves nine <A> It tries to convey the feeling that we strive to change so many things in the world as a way to preserve some other things as they are. <S> This connects with your comment that certain things remain eternally unchanged. <S> See here for an example. <S> Edit . <S> The original source is apparently Il Gattopardo . <A> Look after the pennies the pounds will look after themselves. <S> When a butterfly flaps its wings it creates a hurricane in the pacific. <S> Or at least emacs users worry about their memory being changed. <S> http://xkcd.com/378/ <A> This one is "English", i.e. Scottish: <S> Many a Mickle Makes a Muckle <S> There's even been a question asked on it. <A> There are several: <S> Little drops of water make the ocean big Small strokes fell great oaks <S> And one I came across here in English. <S> SE:- 3) <S> Many a mickle makes a muckle <A> A mighty oak from a tiny acorn grows. <S> Little streams make big rivers.
| The " for the want of nail... " proverb, which is somewhat related to FX_ 's answer , the Butterfly Effect, in that both proverbs emphasize the power of insignificant things to cause momentous changes further on. At risk of sounding cynical, "changing things so everything stays the same" is a phrase I've read and heard a few times and which I find very interesting. “Mighty oaks from little acorns grow” “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” A stitch, in time, saves nine
|
Meaning of the word 'en' While reading Paulo Coelho's novel, I came across a word that left me doubting whether it was of English origin. Following is the sentence: She fell in love for the first time when she was eleven, en route from her house to school. What is the meaning of the word en ? Please elaborate on its meaning, origin and usage. <Q> See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enroute . <S> There are other phrases of this kind, such as 'en banc' or 'en prise'. <S> There is another word 'en' which is printer's jargon and means the width on the page occupied by the letter 'n' (and is half an 'em'). <A> The word 'en' is actually of French origin. <S> It can mean 'on', 'in', 'inside' or 'along' depending on context. <S> The disambiguation page on Wikipedia says :"En route is a French phrase which means "on the way" or "along the way". " <A> En is a French preposition that commonly appears in phrases borrowed from French. <S> In this case, en route is a French phrase that means, roughly, on the way <S> ( OED ). <S> Other common French loan phrases involving en include: en avant - forward. <S> 1823 <S> Ld. <S> Byron Let. <S> 22 <S> Apr. (1980) X. 156 <S> But never mind—‘ <S> En Avant! ’ <S> live while you can. <S> en banc - all or a quorum of judges. <S> 1986 <S> J. Batten Judges 220 <S> Before the Second World War, the appeal courts would sit en banc for the most part. <S> en déshabillé - in undress. <S> 1877 <S> C. Reade Woman-hater I. vii. <S> 172 <S> Let me catch her en déshabille , with her porter on one side, and her lover on the other. <S> en l'air - <S> in the air, figuratively meaning unsupported. <S> 1964 <S> W. B. Pemberton Battles of Boer War vi. <S> 164 <S> The extreme right of the Boers was practically en l'air and deserted. <S> en plein - in full; betting entirely on one side or number in roulette. <S> 1966 <S> C. Robertson <S> Judas Spies i. 9 <S> He had been sitting at a roulette table.. <S> playing the even chances mostly, occasionally trying his luck <S> en plein . <S> en <S> pointe - dancing on the toe in ballet. <S> 1959 <S> Times 1 <S> Sept. 11/3 <S> Miss Doris Lainë..did a wonderfully neat hop en pointe . <S> en poste - in an official (usually diplomatic) position. <S> 1962 <S> John o' London's 31 May 517/1 <S> While he was en poste in Paris he gathered much of the material. <S> en <S> suite - forming a suite, often of adjoining rooms. <S> 2006 Peak District Life Spring <S> 33/3 <S> Crisp blue and white striped bed linen and curtains give a fresh feel to the guest bedroom and en-suite bathroom. <S> Outside of French borrowing, this preposition en is not a generative English word. <S> For instance, en the countertop , en road , or en top of the world don't work, except as an awkward substitution for in or on .
| The en here doesn't mean anything except as part of 'en route', which is imported from French and means 'on or along the way'.
|
"Two people got hurt and five people died in the tragedy" Can you say so? In other words, are deaths counted among people that got hurt? Does it make a difference if you say: Two people were injured and five people died in the tragedy. Let's imagine someone stabbed a knife into someone else. Then the victim is injured and then let's assume he dies afterwards. Does the victim need to be counted both as injured and killed? Then let's assume someone died immediately because of a heart attack or something. Does that count as injured? <Q> It depends on the context. <S> In early news reporting, where the aims these days seem to be speed and sensationalism rather than factual accuracy, the focus is likely to be on the number of deaths. <S> Thus you’ll see a headline like: <S> Five killed in tragedy <S> Maybe expanded in an article as: Five people died and two others were injured in the tragedy <S> But in a formal investigation report of the incident you’re more likely to read: <S> Injuries: 7 <S> (5 fatal, 2 serious) <A> They may both be classified as casualties of an incident. <A> Usually, deaths are deaths and injuries are injuries, so the dead are not counted as injured. <S> And I'd say "injured" instead of "got hurt". <S> "Got hurt" makes me think of kids, of children. <S> "Mommy, I got hurt!" <S> sort of thing. <S> Not to mention that "got hurt" can mean something else, as in "That remark really hurt my feelings!". <S> The victim of a stabbing (btw, "someone stabbed someone else with a knife", "to stab a knife into someone", while (I think) grammatically correct, just sounds weird) would count as injured. <S> Until he dies (if he does so). <S> Then he counts as dead.
| "Injuries" and "deaths" are disjoint groups usually, though you may sometimes speak of a "fatal injury" (an injury that later leads to death).
|
Which variant of English should I use when my target audience is the world? I know that all variants of English ( American English , British English , etc.) can be generally understood by everybody who knows any of the English variants. However, there are some regionalisms that can lead to ambiguity. What are the things I must be aware of when the target audience (of my writing: book, blog, etc.) is the world? <Q> If your target audience is the world, then you target not only people with a knowledge of American English, British English, and so on, but also <S> people like myself, to whom English is not a mother tongue but a foreign language. <S> If reaching these people is important to you, then you might want to write in a relatively simple English, avoiding not only regionalisms, but also: Idioms that are hard to understand; e.g., some sayings are not trivial or use unusual vocabulary. <S> As an example, I'd say that “a bitter pill to swallow” is rather straightforward to decipher, even if you have never encountered it before. <S> “An axe to grind”, on the other hand, is harder, probably because it refers to a situation that you is not part of daily life (for most of us) anymore! <S> Vocabulary that is out of the ordinary; for example, even though the many words describing different ways to hit or strike (something or someone) express different nuances, “hit” or “strike” is easier to read than “batter” or “thwack” or “clobber”. <S> Overall, providing a lot of context, and writing simple, concise sentences will help make your point clearer (and not only to “foreigners”). <A> That's what you'll communicate in most clearly, and everyone else will understand it from that domain. <A> English is broad church (British English bias intended :). <S> My preference in many circumstances would be to not unnecessarily burden yourself with removing any regional colour from your English writing. <S> Seeking to do so will eventually only make English into a more generic and less expressive language. <S> If the writing is online you can always make a helpful hyperlink or two. <S> It's important to be easily understood, but that's not the only important thing. <A> The answer to this is included in Postel 's Law : “be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others” . <A> My suggestion: go with what you are comfortable with. <S> For example, I'm an avid blogger, and I like writing, and I use British English (with a touch of our own Caribbean slang and other things) as my style/mood requires. <S> You need to be more concerned about using correct grammar and universally correct spelling ( there are some differences between American and British English, but those are not universal spelling/grammatical errors/issues ), than about whether you use American/British/Canadian/Martian English :). <S> In fact, you could more tend to find yourself in trouble <S> should you try to adapt to the variant of English that you are not accustomed to. <A> I once researched how the English Wikipedia handles this, because I figured it must be a real issue for them, too. <S> (On a much larger scale than for you — no offense. <S> :)) <S> It seems like they are pretty laissez-faire on it. <S> Basically, their Manual of Style says: [...] <S> the English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language. <S> They're just trying to stay consistent inside an article, and to focus on one national variety when there are 'Strong national ties to a topic'. <S> Not sure how much this is really helping you, but I thought it was an interesting (and for me surprising) approach. <S> I expected them to focus on one variety, but I think I started my research when I realized that I had just read two article using different spelling varieties.
| I would suggest writing in the version of English you are most comfortable with.
|
"it would take me 1–2 seconds" or "it would took me 1–2 seconds"? <Q> "It would take me 1-2 seconds" is correct. <S> It takes the infinitive. <A> Once in the past, it took me one or two seconds. <S> Previously, it has taken me one or two seconds (at most …). <S> So far, it has taken me one or two seconds (and may take longer to complete). <S> In the future, it will take me one or two seconds. <S> If I had done it yesterday, it would have taken me one or two seconds. <S> If I did it tommorrow, it would take me one or two seconds. <A> If you are wanting to indicate how long it would have taken you to complete a task that has already been completed: It took Stephen 10 seconds to get the right answer, but it would have taken me 1 or 2 seconds.
| Currently, it takes me one or two seconds (every time, to complete).
|
Differentiating between "written" and "writing" For some reason it is written and writing . It's confusing to me. How can I remember to write them differently? <Q> Writing is the right word; writting is the misspelling of writing . <S> Look at the pattern: <S> Write – pronounced <S> rIt <S> ( i is long) – single t . <S> Writer – pronounced rIt-u(r) <S> ( i is long) – single t . <S> Writing – pronounced <S> rIt-ing <S> ( i is long) – single t . <S> Written – <S> pronounced ri-t(u)n <S> ( i is short ) – <S> double t . <A> Google is not "unsure" about it; read the results of both: http://www.google.com/search?q=writting returns 7 million results, with the top results including "Writting is a shockingly common misspelling of 'writing'", "English teachers dread to see ...". <S> Most other results are amateur poetry or spam sites. <S> Google also asks "Did you mean: 'writing'?" <S> http://www.google.com/search?q=writing returns over 30 times as many results, with top hits references to authors and publications. <S> When Google (or any web search) turns up results, you have to actually read them to see if it's what you want. <S> Spelling is no different. <A> If you follow the Common Errors in English Usage , it is " writing ": <S> One of the comments English teachers dread to see on their evaluations is “The professor really helped me improve my writting.” <S> When “ -ing ” is added to a word which ends in a short vowel followed only by a single consonant, that consonant is normally doubled, but “write” has a silent E on the end to ensure the long I sound in the word. <S> Doubling the T in this case would make the word rhyme with “flitting.” <A> (pronounced |ˈrīti ng | in American English), while the past participle is written (pronounced |ˈritn| in American English). <S> Examples: <S> I am writing an essay. <S> I have <S> written the essay. <S> I have finished writing it. <S> It is written ...
| The present participle of the verb to write is writing
|
Does apologizing entail recognizing being at fault? Consider this example: I'm sorry if you got the impression that I meant to insult you. That was not my intention. Would it be correct to say that the above person apologized? All the dictionaries I have checked defined "to apologize" as admitting one's fault. However, in the above example, the person is not conceding he is making a mistake; he is merely clarifying his intent and, well, apologizing if he hurt the other person's feelings. Yet, based on my understanding of the verb, it would be adequate to say that the person apologized. So, does apologizing really require being at fault? <Q> The statement <S> I'm sorry if you got the impression that I meant to insult you. <S> That was not my intention. <S> is an apology of sorts, but it borders on the confrontational. <S> By saying "you got the impression" you are absolving your own communication of any fault, when in fact there is a chance you may have phrased your statement in a way that could be misconstrued by well-meaning people. <S> If you are really concerned that you have offended someone, it doesn't hurt to admit that possibility with something like <S> I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make my meaning clear. <S> It was not my intention to insult you. <S> This assumes some responsibility for the missed communication without losing your own dignity. <A> You can e.g. say "I'm sorry to hear that your house got washed away by the flood". <S> Your example uses a common "trick" to avoid the issue of fault. <S> Instead of feeling sorry for the action the he/ <S> she feels sorry for how it was received; leaving open if being insulted is a reasonable / foreseeable response to the action (and thus require apologizing). <A> This topic was addressed by The Idealistic Pragmatist back in a 2005 blog article : <S> Way back in the year of this idealistic pragmatist's birth, Searle laid out the criteria a statement has to fulfill in order to qualify as an apology, and in layman's terms, we can say that it requires two parts: 1) regret (the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" part), and 2) responsibility (some explicit statement that you were the one who did the thing that's being apologized for). <S> The statement "I'm sorry that I borrowed your jacket without asking," for example, meets both of those criteria. <S> She dubs the type of sentence you cited above as a "fauxpology", where an ersatz apology expresses regret but not responsibility: <S> Often, people will use a rhetorical trick in which they make a statement that has a lot of the superficial trappings of an apology, but without one or both of those basic criteria of form. <S> I call these statements "fauxpologies." ... <S> Another classic type of fauxpology is to say something like: "I'm sorry if I borrowed your jacket without asking. <S> " The responsibility criterion is similarly missing here, since the speaker is expressing regret only if a condition is true, but weaseling out of any admission that it is true. <S> The effect of statements like these, if used skillfully, is to make recipients feel as if they should feel apologized to, despite the fact that no actual apology ever took place. <S> They're not apologies, but rhetorical tricks for weaseling out of taking actual responsibility. <A> This may be an ethical issue more than a language use issue. <S> A meaningful apology does require admitting fault. <S> As others pointed out, saying "I'm sorry" often does not imply an apology. <S> Sometimes, it signifies regret that something happened, regardless of fault. <S> However, it can also be a mere prop, without even indicating a sincere wish that a fact was not so ("I'm sorry, but it had to be done."). <S> From an ethical standpoint, I think passing off a non-apology as an apology is sneaky, dishonest and patronizing. <A> Saying you're sorry doesn't necessarily imply admission of guilt and you say as much with "That was not my intention". <S> Sorry is often described in four flavours: <S> I'm sorry, it was my fault. <S> (I admit wrong and am asking for forgiveness). <S> I'm sorry, I regret it. <S> (I understand your offence and I'm asking you to understand that it wasn't intentional). <S> I'm sorry to hear that. <S> (I'm showing empathy, I had nothing to do with it). <S> I'm sorry you feel that way. <S> (I'm being falsely polite, I don't accept your reaction and <S> I'm not sorry at all) <S> Your apology is 2 with just a hint of 4. <A> In 2001, a US spy plan was forced down on China's Hainan Island . <S> The Chinese insisted that the US apologize, and they did, after a fashion. <S> The Bush administration issued a "Letter of two sorries," and the language included an apology that was ambiguous in both Chinese and English: Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot <S> Wang Wei <S> that we are very sorry for their loss . <S> (I couldn't find the reference, but I think the letter also said "It was regrettable.") <S> This language of diplomacy was more designed to save face than to actually issue an apology. <S> In a sense, it accomplished what it was designed to do: It sounded enough like an apology to appease Beijing, it facilitated the release of the 24 crew members, and it didn't say "The US was at fault."
| Saying sorry does not always imply admission of a fault.
|
When a word has both English and 'Latin' plurals, which style should I use? Many 'Latin' words in English have both Latin-style plurals and English-style plurals: referendum – referendums, referenda. minimum – minimums, minima. gymnasium – gymnasiums, gymnasia. aquarium – aquariums, aquaria. amoeba – amoebas, amoebae. antenna – antennas, antennae. formula – formulas, formulae. index – indexes, indices. appendix – appendixes, appendices. In technical language, generally, Latin-style is the only proper form of Latin plurals. In all other contexts where both Latin-style and English-style are proper, which style of plural should I use? <Q> In general, you can look to overall usage to get an idea of which to use. <S> Searches of COHA, COCA, and the Google Books Ngram Viewer are great sources of data for that. <S> However, one thing to consider is that for many of these words, I would personally use both of the plurals in different situations. <S> So consider using a context search on COCA for perspective when doing research. <S> For example, I would speak of <S> indices of economic decline, but of tracking major market indexes . <S> Similarly, array indices but database indexes . <S> I would use minima in a mathematical context, but I would never speak of needing to carry cash because all the restaurants have $10 <S> minima for using credit cards. <S> I would speak of “$10 minimums ” I would refer to a table of formulae in a math textbook but talk disparagingly of those looking for “magic formulas and shortcuts”. <S> A doctor who has performed many appendectomies I would say has removed many appendixes , but the last third of my calculus textbook consisted of nothing of appendices containing tables of integrals and values of trigonometric functions. <A> A very short, preliminary answer: <S> it depends on the noun . <S> Some nouns should always take the Latin plural, some can take either, and others should always have the English plural. <S> Even in academic writing, not all Latin forms would sounds proper. <S> If I have time I will look up examples and edit them in. <A> Unless you are absolutely, completely sure you know the correct classical plural, or <S> the classical plural is the normal plural, use the English plural. <S> Using the classical plural may have a nice ring to it, but if you get it wrong <S> it's so, so wrong. <A> Most generally, American speakers tend to use the English-style plural, <S> while British (and related) speakers favor the Latin-style. <S> Of course, there are those words whose Latin-style plural forms are non-negotiable on either side of the pond, such as bacteria and criteria . <S> And there are also those whose English-style plurals are universally preferred, e.g. moratoriums , apexes , etc. <A> As Cerberus said , usage differs between nouns. <S> Unfortunately, there are no simple rules that are completely effective at predicting which nouns tend to take which kind of plurals. <S> The use of one kind of plural versus the other also may depend on context, but the way you've put it is not quite accurate ("In technical language, generally, Latin-style is the only proper form of Latin plurals"). <S> There are many situations in technical language where English-style plurals are correct. <S> Some notes on specific nouns or categories of nouns: <S> For crisis and axis, people rarely use regularly formed English-style plurals ending in -sises/-xises. <S> You'll almost always see crises and axes instead. <S> Other nouns derived from Greek that end in unstressed -sis also tend to use the Latin-style plural in -ses to the exclusion of the English-style plural, such as basis, thesis, hypothesis, neurosis. <S> Nouns ending in -or have plurals ending in -ors in English, not in -ores as in Latin. <S> Thus, we say and write professors, vectors, operators, sectors, etc. <S> (These nouns have various origins; not all English nouns ending in -or <S> are words in Latin.) <S> Latin-style plurals are extremely rare for the following nouns (this is not a comprehensive list): simile, rationale, specimen, omen, regimen, ratio. <S> As mentioned in Andreas Blass's answer, some words, such as antenna, allegedly are or should be used with different plurals for different senses. <A> Per Cerberus: "Some nouns should always take the Latin plural, some can take either, and others should always have the English plural." <S> Give him a +1 for that <S> - it's correct. <S> There is no rule that applies to all Latinates; in usage they are case-by-case. " <S> Agenda" is plural but you never see "agendum." <S> "Symposia" is the plural but "symposiums" <S> is far more common. <S> These are all moving targets, largely depending on frequency of use and location or agency of that usage. <S> This is one of the most difficult areas of English because a sensitivity to "the usual thing" in any given context is critical to striking the right note. <A> On the basis of what I've heard people (in the Midwest of the U.S.) say, I have the impression that: (1) Mathematicians say "formulas" but philosophers say "formulae". <S> (2) Buildings and television sets used to have antennas atop them (before cable became common), but insects and little green Martians have antennae. <S> (3) It is indeed dangerous to form "classical" plurals carelessly; I've heard a university professor use "quora" as the plural of "quorum".
| As an actual classicist, I'd argue for the English plural in all but a few cases.
|
Is it “If money were not an object” or “If money were not an option”? The phrase "If money were not an option" is often used to mean "Don't worry about how much it would cost". However, I just noticed that the last word, option , makes it sound like saying "If spending money was not one of your options". Should I keep using this phrase? Or is it a mutation of the phrase "If money were not an object " ? Going by exact quote searches with Google, they're about the same: " if money were not an object " (32,400 results) and " If money were not an option " (27,500 results). Or would I be far better off using neither of these and just saying "If money were not an issue" ? <Q> I suspect that "option" is a newer variant, based on a mishearing of "object", since it doesn't make much sense when you think about it. " <S> Object" and "issue" are established idioms; I have my doubts about "option". <S> In books, "money is no object" is certainly the commonest form, as you can see in this Ngram : <A> I read If money were not an option as meaning <S> We have 3 options, A, B and Money. <S> Let's suppose we only consider A and B. <S> Perhaps a little old-fashioned, but i prefer <S> Were money not an object <A> I'd say that this is subjective: a matter of personal preference. <S> I prefer using "if money were/is/(was) not an issue...": I find it less ambiguous. <A> The most common phrasing, it seems (and the one I would think of as most correct) is <S> If money is no object… which gets 2,090,000 hits! <S> In general, whatever tense/mood of verb is used, the …no object form seems commonest. <S> The general form seems to be: <S> If money (is|was|were) (no|not an) (object|issue|option) . <S> Some ghits for each, though as Cerberus points out in comments, these numbers should be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt: <S> is <S> was wereno object <S> 2,090,000 <S> 1,670,000 <S> 1,200,000not an object <S> 102,000 <S> 44,400 32,400no option <S> 94,400 84,500 44,700not an option 163,000 51,000 27,500no issue 115,000 <S> 68,700 <S> 51,200not an issue 826,000 281,000 130,000
| I always say "money is no object" (well, I would if it weren't— sigh ), and I never say "money is not an option".
|
Is "Eskimo" a universally offensive term? I know that "Eskimo" is an offensive term in Canada; they use the term "Inuit". But I see the term "Eskimo" popping up regularly in news articles that I read; I hardly see the term "Inuit" being used. Why? Ignorance? Apathy? Is the term "Eskimo" offensive only in Canada, or in the rest of the world too? <Q> There are at least two different types of Eskimo: Inuit and Yupik. <S> In Canada and Greenland, the only type of Eskimo is the Inuit. <S> However in the United States, both types are present and in Russia, only the Yupik are present. <S> So, Eskimo couldn't really mean anything other than Inuit in Canada whereas in Alaska it could very well be referring to either. <S> In Russia, it could only mean the Yupik. <S> The point is that Eskimo is a more general word than Inuit. <S> All Inuit are Eskimos but not all Eskimos are Inuit. <S> The two words aren't synonyms. <S> According to Wikipedia , the term is offensive in Canada and Greenland and not elsewhere. <A> As a Brit with relatively little knowledge of English as it's spoken on the other side of the pond, I would use Eskimo. <S> It has no negative connotations in Europe <S> I've heard the term 'Inuit' and vaguely associate it with Eskimo, but I'd never use it actively. <S> To answer your question, at least from the British perspective, yes it seems that it's only derogatory in Canada; and this is due neither to ignorance nor apathy, to us <S> it's the correct word. <A> Having been born and raised in various parts of Alaska I can say, yes, the word is considered offensive there. <S> Its usage in the media is usually accurate, as most northern indigenous peoples can safely be referred to as 'Eskimos', but the term is a wide generalization - and most wide generalizations are offensive to those they encompass. <S> If you find yourself about to use the term in conversation, try a more specific replacement. <S> In Alaska, the most congenial would be 'Alaska Native'. <A> But I see the term "Eskimo" popping up regularly in news articles that I read; I hardly see the term "Inuit" being used. <S> Why? <S> Ignorance? <S> Apathy? <S> Is the term "Eskimo" offensive only in Canada, or in the rest of the world too? <S> The Inuit of Canada and Greenland find the word to be pejorative, so the Government of Canada and the media in Canada have understandably taken this into account and refer to them by their own name for themselves. <S> Many people in Canada don't realize the Inuit consider it a slur, and even less know this in the rest of the world, so you'll continue to see the word in print. <A> There is a nice explanation by the Alaska Native Language Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks: <S> Although the name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean "eater of raw meat." <S> Linguists now believe that "Eskimo" is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning "to net snowshoes." <S> However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names. <S> " <S> Inuit," meaning "people," is used in most of Canada, and the language is called "Inuktitut" in eastern Canada although other local designations are used also. <S> The Inuit people of Greenland refer to themselves as "Greenlanders" or "Kalaallit" in their language, which they call "Greenlandic" or "Kalaallisut." <S> Most Alaskans continue to accept the name "Eskimo," particularly because "Inuit" refers only to the Inupiat of northern Alaska, the Inuit of Canada, and the Kalaallit of Greenland, and it is not a word in the Yupik languages of Alaska and Siberia. <A> I strongly suspect that the claim that "Eskimo" means "eater of raw meat" is an urban legend, just like the "Eskimo words for snow" claim. <S> The term may be offensive if it's an overly broad or an exclusionary term, but that's a different kettle of fish. <S> As a random factoid, Esky is a genericized trademark for portable cooler in Australia. <S> Another brand of portable cooler/esky is Igloo .
| I would chalk it up to more ignorance than apathy, and also because there is no other generic shorthand word to refer to all the native peoples of northern Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Alaska.
|
Is it wrong to space en dashes and em dashes? How I use en dashes and em dashes En dashes : Sybrand Engelbrecht (1814–2177): Unspaced en dash. January–December: Unspaced en dash. Sybrand loved three things – soccer, jazz, and living forever (he unfortunately couldn't.): Spaced en dash instead of an em dash. Em dashes : I don't use em dashes; I use spaced en dashes. Is it wrong to space en dashes and em dashes? <Q> When I was learning typography--many years ago--the convention was that you did NOT use spaces around en- <S> or em-dashes. <S> If the type designer wants extra space for readability or aesthetics, they will build it into the slug for the type (or in more modern cases, program it into the font). <S> Because of the proliferation of letter-spaced fonts online, where there is no allowance for a typographer to make a character with a little extra space for aesthetics, the logic for the standard doesn't exactly apply anymore. <S> But that's still how I do it. <S> And as you can see, when dealing with the internet I tend to use double hyphens instead of em-dashes because you never know how a text editor is going to handle an em-dash, and those that handle them at all will often convert a double hyphen into an em-dash. <A> That seems the convention. <S> The difference between em and en dashes doesn't matter a great deal; the spacing does, because it makes it much clearer (especially to distinguish dashes - interjecting little notes like this - to a hyphen phrase, for example Anglo-Saxon). <A> It is technically wrong, but... <S> I think MS Word contributes to this practice. <S> You cannot get it to automatically make an em-dash from a single hyphen. <S> However, if you are typing along and then type space-dash-space followed by a word - like this - then it will convert the hyphens into an en-dashes. <S> It does not remove the space around them when it does this. <S> For that reason, I've gotten into the habit of doing it that way when I'm not writing something formal. <S> But the correct practice in Word would be to use '--' and '---' with no surrounding spaces. <S> (Assuming auto-dash is turned on, of course.)
| And as far as I know, substituting a spaced en-dash where you should use an unspaced em-dash is definitely out.
|
"in for a penny, in for a pound" What does this mean? I'm English and I've never come across the meaning! <Q> In for a penny, in for a pound (idiom): <S> "If something is worth doing then it is a case of in for a penny, in for a pound, which means that when gambling or taking a chance, you might as well go the whole way and take all the risks, not just some." <S> Americanized form : <S> "In for a dime, in for a dollar." <A> It's an idiom for indicating that you might as well commit fully to the venture being referenced. <S> That's my take on it anyway. <A> I've also heard the related proverb (with a slightly different twist, though): “he that steals an egg will steal an ox”. <A> Either way you're in as in in jail (or gaol , depending on which side of the Atlantic will be prosecuting you). <S> It obviously hails from a time when a penny and a pound were worth much more than they are today. <S> So if you've already violated a principle to any degree, it doesn't matter how far you go past the violation threshold, so you may as well derive maximum benefit.
| What it actually means is related to crime: if you steal a penny and will go to jail for it, you may as well steal a pound.
|
Is there a word meaning a problem that has to be solved in order to work on another problem? I work in the computer trade and frequently find that when I'm assigned a problem to solve, it invariably happens that other problems need solving before I can work on the real issue. Is there a word for these on-the-way problems? <Q> A prerequisite perhaps? <S> For example, I have the problem of adding a new transport protocol to a device. <S> A prerequisite of that is to make the segmentation threshold at the client end adjustable, and a prerequisite of that is to install the tools that will let me build the client. <A> One term I’ve heard used for this sort of thing is dependencies . <S> This comes from a common geekspeak etymological process: <S> imagine you were a computer program; then, what technical programming term would apply to this situation? <S> I’d imagine that most programmers would grok this pretty quickly, while most people without programming experience would need an explanation. <S> So whether it is appropriate would depend a lot on whom you’re trying to communicate with. <A> (If the problem is mathematical, there is a specific term for it; lemma .) <A> <A> My preferred term is a "threshold issue. <S> " You can't go through until you cross the threshold (resolve the issue). <A> I consistently use “ bottleneck issue” (or “bottleneck result”) to describe this: you have no way around it to reach your goal. <S> In particular, in technical reports and research planning, I commonly read references to “technological bottlenecks”, i.e. key technologies (or components thereof) <S> that need to be worked out for a full solution to be implemented. <A> <A> I use the term secondary problem. <S> Secondary work is often used to describe tasks in the way you are mentioning problems. <S> i.e. I want to wrap a package, but first I have to find the scissors. <S> Whether you are describing the thing as a problem to be solved, or a task to do, I find secondary, tertiary, etc. <S> useful to convey that Im <S> working on something, but one level removed from my ultimate goal. <S> Another term I use <S> is 'blocking' or 'masking'. <S> In dealing with computer programming issues, you often find yourself revealing layers of issues. <S> As you resolve issue, a second issue might arise because you a) got further into the program or b)there was some sort of ripple effect. <S> You could say issue1 was a blocking issue. <S> Issue2 was not found until Issue1 was resolved. <A> Taken to an extreme you get " yac shaving ", but that does not apply only one or two levels in, and may not be understood by non-hacker audiences without some explanation. <S> In more general managerial contexts you might use the phrase "critical-path issue", but it is a bit of a mouthful and sounds like it is wearing a suit. <S> This also carries some implication about timing requirements: not only is it required, but it needs addressing before any other absolute requirements. <A> Speaking metaphorically, your “problemettes” might be: hurdles to be crossed hoops to be jumped through obstacles to be cleared on your way to the finishing line. <A> There is a huge variety of "stuff that needs to be done in order to do other stuff". <S> Some of those very specific things (which are not at all synonymous with each other): trailblazing surveying researching planning documenting groundwork <S> legwork <S> prep work <S> capital acquisition <S> parts acquisition building a jig, building a stencil, building a template, building a skeleton sub-assembly <S> training <S> barn-raising sowing the seed watering the seed pruning setup "laying a foundation" <S> (Whether we pour cement to make a house foundation, or drive piles to make a foundation for a bridge across a stream, we use this phrase -- <S> I can't recall ever hearing "pouring a foundation" or "driving a foundation"). <S> scaffolding <S> dry run spike solution <S> splitting <S> (before burning a tree in a fireplace, it must be split into small pieces) "sharpening the saw" <S> While most of these words and phrases describe some specific literal task in the early stages of farming, roadwork, and building construction, many of them are also used as a metaphor for analogous tasks in other fields, or a synecdoche for all the preparatory work in general. <A> <A> The term I hear most often is showstopper . <S> EDIT <S> OK, after reading some responses and thinking of this question I'm going to coin a portmanteau. <S> These problems are prequirements . <S> ;-) <A> Not a single word, but this is at least related to a "Critical Event chain." <A> In [software] engineering, such a problem is called a Blocker <A> If I have to solve other problems before getting to the one I want to/have to focus on, I generally just call them steps: "step 1," "step 2," etc.. <A> In French they sometimes talk about "le ticket d'entrée" - but that's more to do with the up-front cost of learning a new technology (before benefiting from any - hypothetical - productivity gains). <S> Down-payment ? <S> Pinched from another domain, but it might fly. <S> Though it implies money more than work. <S> Meta-problem ? <S> (Meta as in 'before'). <S> I think there is probably a difference to be made between 'drudge/donkey work' (setting up IDE, etc.) <S> and a 'real' up-front problem (something that requires the same level of problem-solving as the actual problem to be solved). <S> Maybe that though will inspire some more answers... <A> See sine qua non , defined by Cambridge dictionary as a necessary condition without which something is not possible.
| I think I would simply call it a sub-problem . I like "roadblock" or "stumbling block" for that sort of thing. Besides the "prerequisite" I use "blocking step" and precondition I call them dominoes , as in there is always some other domino / problem to knock over / solve before you get to the main one.
|
Should there be a comma before "though" when it occurs at the end of a sentence? Consider I don't know how outdated it is though. Should there be a comma before though , as in the following? I don't know how outdated it is, though. <Q> Though is used as an adverb in this case, applied to the verb is , therefore no comma is strictly necessary. <S> Saying this, I can easily imagine a brief pauses between is and though when speaking the sentence, hence a vocative comma is acceptable. <S> In other words, take your pick. <S> If I can avoid a comma (as in this case), I usually will. <S> It's not wrong either way though. <A> I'd use the comma, but modern style would probably omit it. <S> There is a general tendency towards less punctuation. <S> Look at Victorian novels, and then compare with modern prose - there is much less punctuation now. <S> Or look at the King James Bible; that is rife with colons and semi-colons that would not appear nowadays <S> , often not even 'demoted' to commas. <S> Punctuation style has changed over time. <A> I strongly prefer the second form, with the comma. <S> Say out loud, without a pause <S> I don't know how outdated it is-though Nonsense-speak to me. <A> I believe both are correct.
| In general, you would use the comma if you would pause at that point if you spoke it aloud.
|
Does "develop" mean "upgrade"? In my native language, the English word "develop" is translated to "the process to make something/somebody large/strong/big, and etc.; for example: economic development." Does develop mean upgrade ? <Q> Develop has many different meanings in English. <S> There are many more specific meanings depending on domain. <S> Upgrade has a relatively more narrow definition, and means to improve something that's old or outdated, or to raise in value or esteem. <S> You could possibly find one where upgrade could be used instead develop , but it would be difficult, and it would be in only one specific meaning. <S> Develop has the sense of an ongoing process, upgrade <S> is discrete. <S> You upgrade something from one stage to another. <S> You develop something from a less advanced to a more advanced state in a gradual process. <S> To use your example, an economic upgrade would be a something (very specific) that happened to the economy that could be precisely measured as better. <S> An economic development would be something added to the economy that is new, or depending on context, you could be speaking of the economy made generally better through several changes. <S> Another way of thinking of the difference, when you "upgrade" something you are literally or figuratively replacing something with something improved. <S> When you "develop" something, you are changing something (usually improving it), or creating something new from scratch (not replacing anything.) <S> It's interesting when I was searching for usage, <S> one example I found of the phrase "economic upgrade" happens to be an obvious translation, so "economic development" would have been better… <A> No, the word "develop" <S> does not mean "upgrade" . <A> The words develop and upgrade are used quite differently. <S> Take for example computers. <S> If you work to improve the program then you develop the software, while the end-user then upgrades his system to the new version. <A> Latin is derrived from Phoenician and this from ancient Sumeric. <S> Arabic is also derrived from ancient Summeric, so as in Arabic, we can find roots in Latin. <S> To develop means something like "to bloom". <S> To rise or to add up.
| Mostly it could mean to bring to a more advanced state, cause to grow or expand, to elaborate or expand in detail, or to bring into being.
|
"Worse comes to worst" or "worst comes to worst" Which is correct: worse comes to worst or worst comes to worst ? The former seems more logical but the latter is what appears in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary . <Q> The expression should be: <S> If the worst comes to the worst, ... <S> It means "if the worst thing that can happen does happen...". <S> Contracting it without the definite articles doesn't seem to me to justify ' worse comes to worst '; it should still be 'worst comes to worst'. <A> According to the Cambridge Dictionaries Online , the following forms of the idiomatic expression are correct: British English: if the worst comes to the worst American English: if worse/worst comes to worst <S> I quote the relevant definitions of idiom and expression from my New Oxford American Dictionary to put things in perspective: <S> idiom: <S> a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words <S> expression: a word or phrase, esp. <S> an idiomatic one, used to convey an idea <A> It should be " <S> If the worst comes to the worst , then..." <S> Which means that, if a possible worst-case scenario actually occurs or if an already bad situation progresses into a catastrophic situation. <A> Traditionally it was 'Worst comes to worst'.
| Nowadays 'Worse comes to worst' is used as it seems more logical.
|
Why use "his" in association with the word "mankind"? The economist Keynes in a book wrote: The power to become habituated to his surroundings is a marked characteristic of mankind. I would have used "its" instead but since English is not my mother-tongue and Keynes was probably a good writer I am sure I am the one being mistaken. Can anyone please explain ? <Q> Mankind is generally referred to in this way, i.e. as a group of individual people, as opposed to a single, monolithic body, which would be suggested by using 'its'. <A> "his" (male pronoun) emphasises that it's a human. <S> "its" (neuter pronoun) would suggest a less human thing or entity. <S> Compare: <S> Jeremy the baker got used to his surroundings and Fido <S> the dog got used to its surroundings <A> This is an old conundrum. <S> English has no proper neutral pronoun to either a male or female person. <S> It is usually used to refer to inanimate or not-human things. <S> You could say: The power to become habituated to one's surroundings is a marked characteristic of mankind. <S> But the usage of one as a pronoun has come to sound a bit pretentious. <S> I believe there is a shift occurring in english where their is being used in the singular and becoming acceptable. <S> The power to become habituated to their surroundings is a marked characteristic of mankind. <S> Some would take it a step further. <S> The power to become habituated to their surroundings is a marked characteristic of humans. <S> But that's somehow less poetic. <S> Humans seems more clinical, and mankind more familial and grandiose somehow.
| The use of 'his' refers to each 'member' of mankind.
|
"to build meaningful relationships in important areas of my life" Should I have said "of my life" or "in my life" in this sentence: to build meaningful relationships in important areas of my life <Q> Of my life is the correct usage. <S> 'Of' means 'belonging to or connected with something or someone'. <S> In this case the 'important areas' belong to 'my life'. <S> This is the happiest day of my life. <S> ' <S> : You are the most important person in my life. <S> You would never say: You are the most important person of my life. <A> "Of" is the correct word there; "In (qualifiers) of (item)" is the normal construction. <S> To use "in", you would lead in with "at": " <S> At (qualifiers) in (item). <S> " (To give a concrete and relevant example, your sentence fragment is using the phrase "important areas" as the qualifier for the main item, "my life".) <S> Often, "in/of" is used for broader, sometimes vague groupings, whereas "at/in" is always used for more specific things: "in some parts of the world" vs. "at several points in the process." <S> Since your sentence uses the pretty broad and vague phrase "important areas", using the at/in combination would not be appropriate. <S> Another way to view it is that "in/of" is used to express containment, while "at/in" is used to express location. <S> Your life clearly contains several important areas, but they are not physical areas that you are trying to locate on a chart or diagram, so "in/of" is the appropriate construct. <S> On the other hand, if you are speaking of your life metaphorically as a timeline, you can certainly say something like "I was at a critical juncture in my life" to reference a specific, pinpointable moment. <A> Either is acceptable. <S> "Of" is probably more idiomatic, but I don't know on what grounds the other repliers have asserted that "in" is less "correct". <S> In the BNC, "of" gets 5 hits, and "in" 0; but in Google, "of" gets 6.74 million and "in" 1.1 million.
| In' (in relation to 'my life') refers to something or someone 'within' your life, but separate from it
|
Is verbing in "I medalled in volleyball" etc correct? Is “I medalled in volleyball” a grammatically correct sentence? According to OED, medal is a verb and a noun.I haven't seen any usage of the word as a verb, but I am assuming the above sentence is correct. <Q> You hear that usage every time you watch the Olympics. <S> "Medalled" is very much a verb in that community, and the announcers have picked it up wholesale. <A> An important means of creating new words in English is zero-derivation (aka conversion). <S> This is the process of converting a word from one part of speech to another without any overt morphological process. <S> The use of the noun 'medal' as a verb is an example of this. <S> There are many other examples—new forms are often created in this way, some coined once and never used again, others becoming familiar parts of the language. <S> It's worth noting that 'medal' as a verb is not a new coining as it was used by Thackeray ('Nil Nisi Bonum', 1860) and Byron (in a letter in 1822); however, both of these uses were transitive whereas the current usage is as an intransitive verb, making it a zero-dervation of a zero-derivation! <S> It seems to come to the public's attention every Olympics and raises the same complaints from people who have only just noticed it (this is the ' recency illusion '). <S> The process of zero-derivation dates back to Old English <S> so this sort of thing has been going on a long time. <A> It is also the most natural and concise way to state, simply, that you have been awarded a medal for an accomplishment. <S> I medaled at the qualifying event. <S> I medalled at the qualifying event. <A> Over twenty years ago, I asked the then head of the English Department at the secondary school where we both taught about the acceptability of various noun-to-verb conversions or claimed conversions. <S> He said that a visiting professor at a lecture he had recently attended had declared, "Oh yes - you can verb any noun nowadays." ' <S> She silvered in the 200' and 'She podiumed at the Nationals' <S> were two examples claimed to have been used in an Australian newspaper a few years back. <S> I'm waiting for 'He jugged in the Open.' <A> Yes, it's grammatically correct, though perhaps not very natural. <S> The verb medal is a relatively new introduction to the English language though, and is certainly not commonly used where I live (Britain). <S> See this analysis at Dictionary.com , which gives two accepted uses of medal as a verb: –verb (used with object) 3. <S> to decorate or honor with a medal. <S> –verb (used without object) 4. <S> to receive a medal, esp. <S> in a sporting event: He medaled in three of four races.
| Yes, it is grammatically correct.
|
Why one place on stack exchange is called "area51"? Why this place on stack exchange is called "area51"? Is it a special idiom in English for some places where things are being developed? Does 51 have some special meaning besides being just a number? <Q> From Wikipedia : Area 51 is a military base, and a remote detachment of Edwards Air Force Base. ... <S> The intense secrecy surrounding the base, the very existence of which the U.S. government barely acknowledges, has made it the frequent subject of conspiracy theories and a central component to unidentified flying object (UFO) folklore. <S> As to why StackExchange called that site Area 51? <S> From <S> the Area51 FAQ , " <S> We like the little aliens." <A> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51 for information about Area 51. <S> In a nutshell, it's a humorous reference to a place where strange, secret things happen. <A> 'Area 51' signifies the 'exclusivity'- in this case a group of people who are 'stakeholders' in shaping projects which may or may not see the light of the day, which are a 'secret' to the outside world until they become 'live' (public).
| Area 51 is a military base in Southern Nevada often found at the center of UFO stories.
|
Why do signs read "wet floor", not "slippery floor"? Every other time I see a "wet floor" sign the following idea comes to my mind. That sign forces me through unnecessary mental effort to deduce that wet floors can be slippery. I think it's like providing a set of differential equations that describe slippery floors and expecting that everyone recognizes them and deduces that there's danger of falling. The sign actually means "man, the floor is slippery, you can fall and break apart" and IMO it could just read "slippery floor" instead. Is there any reason why those signs use "wet floor" phrasing? <Q> The sign says "wet floor" because the floor is wet. <S> Wet floors are not always slippery; slippery floors are not always wet. <S> Some people might be more concerned about getting their pants wet when splashing through the water; should the sign say "splashy floor" for them? <S> Or "shoe-shrinking floor" if they're more concerned about their nice leather wingtips? <S> "Foot-discomforting floor" if they're wearing thin sandals that can be soaked through in one step? <S> The sign gives you all the information you need to take whatever action you deem appropriate for dealing with the situation. <A> Also, since "wet" is much shorter, it can be written in larger letters and consequently seen from further away. <A> I think the reason is more people in the world understand the meaning of "wet" than "slippery". <S> Its short and easier for non native speakers (perhaps there may be kids who understand wet but not slippery).Summary: <S> Wet is shorter and easier than slippery. <A> Here are several reasons why: Slippery floors could be hazardous, but not all slippery floors are wet, and wet floors could be hazardous in other ways besides causing slippage. <S> "Wet Floor" is easier to translate into other languages than "Slippery Floor". <S> Conciseness is desired in signage; wet is shorter and more direct than slippery "Wet Floor" is idiomatic; "Slippery Floor" isn't so much. <A> 'wet floor' is a cautionary notification & serves the purpose of alerting people, whereas 'slippery floor' sounds more 'panicky' and might induce unnecessary anxiety. <S> Its all about conveying the message in a relatively 'comforting' way. <A> People are used to seeing wet paint signs, so this is short and analogous to that. <A> Because it's politically correct. <S> Write 'slippery' and a gaggle of lawyers will fall on you, like the pox on the early Norman clergy, braying for a share of the spoils after protracted litigation.
| Thus, "Wet Floor" is a better caution than "Slippery Floor". The sign is giving you full and complete information about a condition of the floor that is not its normal state.
|
How should foreign words (with foreign characters) be written in English text? This question is not about italicisation or how to construct plurals. I wonder what are general guidelines for writing foreign words based on a Latin alphabet in English text. I know that, for languages written in completely different script systems, there exist more or less standard per-language “romanization” procedures (such as writing Japanse in rōmaji). My question is about words from languages with Latin script, where some glyphs are not found commonly in English. Examples of such characters include: accents of all kinds (é, ô, ñ, etc.) ligatures (æ, œ, ij, Å, ç, ķ, etc.) characters not found at all: thorn (Þ), eth (ð), german ß, How should these words be written in English text? Should they be copied entirely, normalized in some way (e.g., ß → ss, é → e), or transliterated so that they can be read as they should be spelt? My personal preference is to borrow them as they are, but I would like to know what style guides recommand and what is common usage in press. Added: data from some research is inconsistent: New Oxford American Dictionary has piñata , but Anschluss (vs. ß ) and oeuvre (vs. œ ). The Guardian uses the two variants of both Anschluß and œuvre I don’t know other languages well enough that I know what to look for :) 2 nd addition: I’m starting a bounty on this, because I style haven’t found any reference to actual style guides , or research from data in open-access corpuses /corpora (which I don’t know how to do myself). <Q> The Times (not to be confused with the New York Times) style guide says: foreign words <S> Write in roman when foreign words and phrases have become essentially a part of the English language (eg, elite, debacle, fête, de rigueur, soirée); likewise, now use roman rather than italic, but retain accents, in a bon mot, a bête noire, the raison d'être. <S> Avoid pretension by using an English phrase wherever one will serve. <S> See accents and accents <S> Give French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian, Irish and Ancient Greek words their proper accents and diacritical marks; <S> omit in other languages unless you are sure of them. <S> Accents should be used in headlines and on capital letters. <S> See foreign words, Spanish http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986724.ece <A> The ideal would be to preserve the word as it appears in its native language, but it is something that English-speakers are very lazy about. <S> Anything that looks orthographically odd (i.e. has glyphs that aren't part of everyday English) stands out and is usually thought of as pretentious, so there is a strong social pressure to normalize. <S> Ligatures in particular tend to unlink into their component letters (think of ß as a ligature in this respect), and missing characters translate in various slightly inconsistent ways. <S> If a word becomes common currency in English, it gets normalized over time. <S> In particular, the accents fall off: writing "café" is considered a bit affected these days, and "rôle" has pretty much died out, for example. <A> The Chicago Manual of Style (16 th edition), says that ligatures should be decomposed in Latin and transliterated Greek, as well as in words borrowed into the English lexicon. <S> However, æ and œ should be used for Old English and French words respectively, when respectively in an Old English or French context. <S> There’s <S> a whole chapter on foreign languages, but in general I’d preserve accents and “strange” letters when including words from foreign languages. <S> But it depends a lot on context as well. <S> What kind of text are you writing, who is your audience? <S> In an academic context the answer is usually pretty straightforward (just see how books and papers in relevant fields do it), but if you’re writing for a wider audience, simplifying may be prudent. <A> I am no expert in this matter, but as a native speaker of other languages beside English, I would like to contribute the following. <S> I have the impression that the OP is using the label "accents of all kinds" for things that fall in, at least, two very different categories: some are true accents, such as the one in "á", and some others are not, like the one on "ñ". <S> The "á" in Spanish is still an "a" to all effects, but an accented one. <S> However, an "ñ" is not an accented "n" but a totally different letter altogether. <S> They are not exchangeable. <A> The accents that are more likely to be kept in are the ones we're more familiar with. <S> British kids are taught French so French words are almost never changed. <S> Latin-based alphabets that the country is not familiar with, such as Scandinavian languages are more likely to be changed, either to french style or none. <A> Generally they should be written as they appear in their native language; this is the standard practice in the press, I believe. <A> I've often seen phrases or words in foreign languages italicized in text to signal to the reader that the word is of foreign origin, and may therefore be later explained to the reader at the author's discretion. <S> Be very careful about this, however. <S> For example, if the reader has no familiarity with the language in question and the author decides not to explain the text in question, the reader may start to feel excluded or left out of the story. <S> One extreme example would be the teachers in Charlie Brown cartoons (not text, I know). <S> Usually, the Charlie Brown characters will partially restate the trombone "wah-wo-whas" in their reply, so as to keep the intended audience included in the implied other half of the conversation. <A> The decision to transliterate or not depends on the original language. <S> Russian, Sanskrit, and Ancient Greek are Indo-European languages that are usually transliterated. <S> However, commentaries on original texts often do not transliterate. <S> Some writers use both original and transliterated texts <S> (Jacob Klein's A Commentary On Plato's Meno ).
| With Anglicised words, no need for accents in foreign words that have taken English nationality (hotel, depot, debacle, elite, regime etc), but keep the accent when it makes a crucial difference to pronunciation or understanding - café, communiqué, détente, émigré, façade, fête, fiancée, mêlée, métier, pâté, protégé, raison d'être; also note vis-à-vis. The author can include as many foreign characters as they feel is appropriate.
|
What is a "Mexican Ultimatum"? This is a term I read recently, but I didn't understand what it meant. I can't remember the exact context except that it had nothing whatever to do with Mexico. Edit: ElendilTheTall suggests this might be "Mexican Standoff". Which it could be, I suppose. So could anyone explain what either of these things are? <Q> Well, as far as I know there is no such thing as a 'Mexican ultimatum'. <S> The classic image is of a ring of gunfighters, all with pistols drawn, with none of them wanting to start shooting. <S> See Anderson Silva's link for more in-depth info. <A> Did you try Google? <S> I searched for "define Mexican Standoff" and the first result, as well as many that followed, said "a situation in which no one can emerge as a clear winner". <S> Mexican standoff has more in-depth etymology of the expression. <A> While written rather snarky, tvtropes' article gives a bit more insight and criticizes this trope: <S> A stalemate where everyone has a weapon pointed at someone else. <S> All the threats are equally balanced to ensure a Mutual Disadvantage; [...] <S> By the time your enemy realizes they've been shot, the bullet will have exited the back of their head, taking their motor cortex (and thus the capacity to shoot back) with it. <S> However, that wouldn't be nearly as tense and exciting.
| A Mexican standoff is a fraught situation of 'stalemate'.
|
Is "would" the past future tense of "will" or just a modal verb? What's the difference between the following sentences? Would you give me some advice? Will you give me some advices? <Q> Would can be either conditional or subjunctive, but it is often used (as your examples demonstrate) interchangeably with will . <S> Will is an inquiry after the consent of the respondent, whose inclinations comprise the sole issue at hand. <S> "Will you give me some advice?" <S> literally means it is up to "your" discretion either to give or withhold the advice. <S> "Would you give me some advice?" <S> on the other hand implies some other conditions may affect your decision. <S> Unstated but implied in this sentence may be some other information. <S> Or there may be a contextual linkage or even a direct statement. <S> I think of Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham : <S> Would you eat them in a box? <S> Would you eat them with a fox? <S> The terms of the conditional are clearly set forth. <S> The questioner is proffering various inducements to sweeten the deal for the recalcitrant hater of "Sam-I-Am". <S> In any case, asking either question in conversation will, in the vast majority of cases, be understood simply as a request for advice, without all the grammatical analysis. <A> To put it very simply, it is best considered past simple if you are looking forward from a past perspective in a story. <S> In that case, it is used in the middle of a narrative that is in the past tense. <S> Both the narrative and would are then simply a description of the past; what would be <S> will in a narrative in the present tense becomes would : <S> She said she would succeed. <S> (In direct speech it would be: <S> She said: "I will succeed" .) <S> He knew they would find him eventually. <S> (In direct speech it would be: <S> He thought: "I know they will find me eventually" .) <S> In most other cases, it is past subjunctive. <S> This tense can be used in several ways, of which the conditional is the most frequent: <S> If he were rich, he would still be abastard. <S> (The conditional is used to express that "he will still be a bastard" <S> is only true if the "if" condition is fulfilled.) <S> She would like some more tea. <S> (Herethere is some implied condition, suchas "if you asked her", "if it werepossible", "if she were permitted tospeak", "if it weren't rude", etc.;that is why conditional pastsubjunctives are often used to expresspoliteness.) <S> All the above generally applies equally to the other modal verbs, <S> can , shall , and may . <S> If you say "will you give me some advice? <S> ", this is a perfectly fine and polite request, though perhaps a tiny bit old fashioned. <S> It could theoretically be a question about the other person's desire, but context makes it clear that this is not what is intended. <S> "Would you give me some advice? <S> " is an attempt at even greater politeness, because the conditional makes the request even more tentative, as explained above. <S> Take your pick. <A> Either would or will work, but you wouldn't change the noun: <S> Would you give me some advice? <S> and Will you give me some advice? <A> Is “would” the past future tense of “will” or just a modal verb? <S> Would is the past tense of will in sentences like <S> He said he would be away for a couple of days. <S> He wanted out, but she wouldn't leave. <S> The difference between <S> Would you give me some advice? <S> and Will you give me some advice? <S> is that the first is considered a polite way to ask help, while the second (depending on the context) could be also understood as expressing desire, consent, or willingness. <S> Will you have a cognac?
| Conventionally, would can be either the past simple or the past subjunctive of will .
|
Differences between slang words for breasts What is the difference between “tits” and “boobs”? P.S. I'm not sure if this question is appropriate but as English is not my native language I really would love to know the difference. <Q> I think there is a slight difference in what you're emphasizing. <S> They both refer to female breasts, but tits emphasizes the nipples (pointy bits) whereas boobs evokes an image of the round parts. <A> From Word Net Search : Boob Noun <S> S: ( <S> n) dumbbell, dummy, dope, boob, booby, pinhead (an ignorant or foolish person) <S> S: (n) breast, bosom, knocker, boob, tit, titty (either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman) Verb S: <S> (v) drop the ball, sin, blunder, boob, goof (commit a faux pas or a fault or make a serious mistake) <S> "I blundered during the job interview" <S> (I was not aware of the verb form, but it follows from the first noun form) <S> Boob could also be used to refer to a person who is acting like a clown, or it could be used to refer to something that induces cluelessness. <S> We have a nickname for television in the US (although it's going out of fashion) called the boob-tube . <S> I assure you it's not because it shows porn. <S> Noun S: (n) breast, bosom, knocker, boob, tit, titty (either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman) <S> S: (n) nipple, mammilla, mamilla, pap, teat, tit (the small projection of a mammary gland) <S> S: (n) titmouse, tit (small insectivorous birds) <S> (I was aware of titmouse but not a small bird called tit) <S> Tits is generally the word for mammary glands, being a corruption from teat. <S> That's what @ghoppe was onto with his, where you emphasize the pointy bit of the end of the mammary gland. <S> It's more evident on a dog or pig, where there are a line of teats (or tits). <S> The fact that this usage has spread to also refer to women is likely from the fact that country/urban life has comingled more of late than of years past. <S> The usage to associate tits with boobs however, is purely sexist. <S> In polite society you should mention neither, referring instead to the bosom that @Robusto mentions, or breast, but only when you must. <S> Bosom indicates "that feeling of your grandmother wrapping her arms around you when you're scared" and breasts is generally seen as more clinical in nature. <S> Generally in polite society you would just avoid references to a woman's breasts, and let it go. <S> When breasts are being discussed (such as in the context of bra fitting), women will often use the word "boobs" amongst themselves. <S> With men and men alone, tits is fine. <S> NOTE: <S> I edited in response to a comment and decided I would give a little more attribution. <A> As others have said, both refer to a woman's breasts, but the main difference is actually in the connotation. <S> While both are euphemisms, boobs is a slightly more socially acceptable term. <S> Women, in my presence at least, use the term boobs; tits is more a term that men use and generally in a more lurid fashion. <A> They're both terms for female breasts. <S> Other (somewhat vulgar and borderline spring-break moronic) <S> terms are knockers , twins , <S> hooters , hoo-hahs , etc. <S> Puritanical people sometimes call them bosoms , which is strange because bosom refers to the upper chest in general and few people have more than one of those. <S> By the way, to reference a woman's breasts by any term in her presence is coming on pretty strong, and in a business setting it can be tantamount to sexual harrassment. <A> Tit refers to either the breast or the nipple, is usually considered offensive, and refers to a stupid person in British English. <S> Boob can only refer to the breast, is not usually considered offensive, and refers to a stupid person in American English. <A> I'm sure it varies by region, but in most of the US, the words "tits" and its diminutive, "titties," are used when referring to smaller breasts (A or B cup) and "boobs" is used in reference to larger breasts (C and especially D cup or larger). <S> As with most diminutives, the term "boobies" generally refers to smaller breasts. <S> While all four terms are used to describe human female breasts, there are variations used to describe other things: "Man-boobs" is used to describe the fatty tissue that accumulates on the chests of older and, usually, overweight men. <S> "Bitch-tits" can refer literally to the 'teets' of a female dog, especially while they are nursing pups, but in common slang it describes pointy male breasts. <S> This often happens to body builders when they stop exercising or stop taking steroids. <A> I would just add that it is common, in the UK at least, for mothers to reply with "Mummy's boobs" or "Mummy's boobies" when asked the inevitable <S> "What are those?" <S> question by their offspring. <S> I could not imagine a mother telling her child that they were "Mummy's tits"! <S> A small point, but one that perhaps illustrates the subtle social difference between the words. <A> I consider "tits" more offensive than "boobs". <S> Also, I am against the notion that tits emphasises the nipples. <S> That's misinformed IMO. <A> In the phrases "boob tube", "tit puller", "tit spanners", "get on someone's tits" and "tits on a billiard ball", the two words are not readily interchangeable. <S> Otherwise, I think they are more or less synonymous. <A> As a woman, I use the word "boob" when discussing bras, often more than the word "breast". <S> The word "tit" is almost never used in non-sexual contexts, with the notable exception of the phrase "itty bitty titty committee" which is used occasionally.
| Women tend to refer to these as "boobs" and not "tits"; with men it can go either way, but a good part of the time they'll use "tits".
|
Is it incorrect to say, 'Give me it'? Is it incorrect to say, 'Give me it' ? I am told that it is and one should always say, 'Give it me'? <Q> "Give me it" sounds very odd in Standard English, but so does "give it me". <S> If you want to be on the safe side, I would go with "give it to me". <S> There are, however, dialects <S> where "give me it" and "give it me" are acceptable or even preferred, see e.g. this BBC article : <S> Lancashire is a rich area in which to study accent, dialect and grammar as Willem [Hollman, an expert in linguistics and a lecturer at Lancaster University,] explains: "If I were say, playing with my pen in a very annoying way, and you were to take the pen away from me, I might tell you, "Hey, that's my pen, give it me!" <S> but there's also speakers who wouldn't say "Give it to me!" <S> but who would say "Give me it!" <S> and then there's also speakers who would say "Give it me!" <S> This last order "Give it me!" <S> is not very common in Britain in general, but what we find in Lancashire is it's actually the preferred pattern." <S> I also found this interesting quote on Google Books, in a book titled "The Edinburgh history of the Scots language": <S> [...] there is some indication as to what might have been happening to the serialisation of indirect and direct objects in the course of the Modern Scots period in Cheshire et al. <S> (1993: 74). <S> They point out that, in English, " give me it is a more recent construction than give it me , which in turn is a more recent construction than give it to me , where the prepositional group to me reflects the function of the Old English dative case". <S> They report that Hughes and Trudgill (1987) give the order <S> give me it as that most usually cited in descriptions of present-day standard English, but they also state that the reverse order is common among educated speakers in the north of England and is acceptable to many southern English speakers as well. <S> This would suggest that [...] <S> the order [...] give me it is gradually taking over from <S> give it me and the even older <S> give it to me . <S> No dates are given here for the introduction of the newer word order in England, but it would appear that Beattie and his fellows objected to give me it because it was an innovation rather than, or as well as, because it was a Scotticism. <A> Give the man a cigar. <S> However, I find it a bit awkward to do so when the direct object (the thing you are giving) is a small as the word "it", and would more likely say give it to me . <S> On the other hand, I find no problem with show me it . <A> The it should refer to something that is already known, as used to avoid repeating yourself. <S> Instead of: <S> That's my book. <S> Give me the book! <S> you could use: <S> That's my book. <S> Give me it! <S> You would hardly say "Give the book me", even if the special form "Give it me" is used in some places. <S> If both me and it could be understood by the situation, you could just say (but perhaps not write): <S> That's my book. <S> Give! <A> Give it me <S> (Gib es mir) and Give it here (Gib es her) <S> both sound like an Americanized version of how the (correct <S> , I should add) <S> German version is uttered. <S> I am a linguist also, and I would not be surprised if the origin of these two utterance was indeed <S> German (not Germanic <S> , I mean German, literally), spoken somewhere in the northern region of the east coast, most likely Pennsylvania. <S> It is common to encounter lots of sentences like these in areas such as Pennsylvania, where there has traditionally been a high number of settlers from Germany. <S> This is also where you would hear sentences such as "Can I come with?", which is a word-by-word-literal translation of the German version "Kann ich mitkommen?". <S> Many of these have been taken over by literal translation into English by settlers, and taken over into English grammar in that area, whereas one would not hear people say that further inland. <A> I don't know if this thread is still live <S> but I have encountered "give it me" in literature up until about the second world war in southern English, even though I would say it is almost exclusively a northern construction today. <S> I think perhaps it is an archaic construction, common in early modern Shakespeare, which carried through to what Mitford identifies as "U" (as opposed to "non-U") English, similar to expressions such as "wait at table" which omits the "the" before table. <S> "Give it me" occurs in E. F. Benson, for example, whose prose so carefully reconstructed the language of the upper middle class of the inter-war years. <S> Similarly I am sure it appears in E. M. Delafield's works. <S> "Give it to me" is certainly more natural and is more correct now that the old usage has fallen away, though I fancy in its day the other would have been favoured by linguistic pedants.
| The construction is perfectly good: in English, you can put an indirect object before the direct object, without a preposition, as Give the dog a bone.
|
When does a mistake become standard usage? We all know that word meanings and usage change over time (though not all of us are happy about it). How long does a word have to be used in a particular way for that usage to be "okay"? At what point does it become "correct usage" and what determines that? (It's hard to come up with an example that doesn't sound like peeving, so I'm making up a word.) If, for example, I started using the word "disregardless," most people would regard that as "wrong" or at least "not a real word." How many other people would have to use "disregardless" regularly for it to become an accepted word in the language? Does it matter if it's spoken or written? Does the "quality" of the speaker matter? (If the President uses the word, does that increase its "correctness" more than, say, when Bart Simpson uses it?) Is there a tipping point where a word goes from "made up" to "real" in the world at large, or is acceptance a gradual process throughout? <Q> It depends on how useful a hole in the language the neologism is filling. <S> If something becomes urgent as a topic of conversation and there was no word before, then it can quickly be accepted. <S> If a word is misspelled, people are more likely to resist the change, especially if the the old spelling is deeply entrenched, and it can take many years for the change to be accepted. <S> In the internet age, the process takes place much more rapidly. <S> 'Weblog' gave way to 'blog' in almost no time at all. <A> A silly answer although it's probably true: "When Google returns meaningful results without suggesting an alternative spelling" <A> That's an interesting question, but it doesn't really have a well-defined answer. <S> The useless but essentially correct answer is "when enough people think it's correct". <S> The thing is that, no matter how hard people try to argue otherwise, prescriptivism doesn't really work that well. <S> Language changes are slow and amorphous, so it's hard to draw a definitive line in the sand where something goes from right to wrong. <S> You can probably find points in time where it's pretty clear-cut if it's one or the other, but there's no exact point in time where it makes the transition. <A> It depends how common the word is. <S> A very obscure technical term may only get a handful of mentions in print by a couple of authors <S> so it's very easy to change - while a common word will remain unchanged for centuries. <S> The most famous recent one is "a flange of baboons" made up for the Gerald the Gorilla <S> sketch on "not the nine O clock news" which made it in the OED "askoxford" site and is now used in scientific literature
| It tends to go by critical mass; when enough 'respected' sources use a word - which used to mean broadsheet newspapers or literary magazines or novels or other books - then the lexicographers would pick it up and add it to the dictionaries, and the word would start to be accepted.
|
When do I use a question mark with "Could you [please] ..." A sentence like Could you please pass me the pepper shaker is not really a question. Should I use a question mark or a period to end this sentence? What about: Could you let me know when the meeting begins Could you tell me when the meeting begins Could you let me know if you are attending the meeting ... Any guidance? Is there a general rule? <Q> Actually, sentences that begin with 'could', 'should', or 'would' are questions and should have a trailing question mark. <S> Your original quote, "Could you please pass me the pepper shaker?", could be answered with a "yes" or "no." <S> Although we usually use this syntax as a command it is not the same as the command <S> "Pass me the pepper shaker," or "Please pass me the pepper shaker." <S> Etiquette tells us that it is more polite to ask for a response than it is to command a response. <A> According to "Basicwriting" course on Coursera: https://class.coursera.org/basicwriting-002/ there should be a period instead of <S> question mark: <S> Use a period to end (1) declarative sentences, which state facts and opinions; ( <S> 2) imperative sentences, which give commands and directions; (3) indirect questions; and (4) polite requests that are stated as questions. <S> ... <S> Requests that are stated as questions <S> : Would you please point out Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, on the map. <S> Could you translate that sign over there for me, please. <A> According to my dictionary*, question is defined thus: a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information <S> Also, one of my dictionary* definitions of could is: a modal verb used in making polite requests <S> Thus, all "Could you…" sentences are really questions because They are requests, indicating something is being asked for A response or reply (verbal or not) is required of the person being asked Examples: ' <S> Could you please pass me the salt?' <S> ' <S> Sure! <S> Here you go.' <S> 'Professor Calculus, please could you give me an extension on this assignment?' <S> 'I'm sorry, Isaac, but you will have to turn it in at the same time as everyone else.' <S> ' Could you hold this for a sec?' <S> Eric asked his brother. <S> (Response: <S> Brother extends hand to hold item for Eric.) <S> ' <S> Thanks, bro.' <S> 'Here's the form.' <S> ' Could you sign here, sir?' <S> 'No problem!' <S> (Man signs in indicated box.) <S> 'All set. <S> Thank you!' <S> * New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition) <A> It's useful to have a typographical way of distinguishing two types of utterance which are otherwise graphically identical, e.g.: Type 1: Can you raise your hand? <S> (Inquiring about ability, perhaps a physiotherapist to a patient).Type 2: Can you raise your hand. <S> (Making a request, perhaps a teacher trying to forestall dissent or chatter.) <S> Type 1: <S> Would you pass the test? <S> (Asking about the consequent of somecondition.) <S> Type 2: <S> Would you pass the test. <S> (Actually requesting thecompletion of a physical action on a physical object.) <S> In Type 1 sentences, what the speaker wants is a verbal response; in Type 2 sentences, the speaker is asking for a non-verbal action, conformity with a rule etc. <S> Type 1 sentences are distinguished by a rising intonation in speech, and it would be useful to have a mark to do the same in writing. <S> Now, in general, context also supports semantics and will make things clear regardless of whether we follow the pattern described above. <S> Thus, it is very easy to find fact-based arguments both for and against the use of the question mark in requests. <S> But if we're pragmatists about grammar, I'd argue that it's not especially important either way. <S> If a sentence is clear, it's good. <S> On the other hand, some other languages have far clearer, and often broader, criteria for the use of the question mark. <S> In Chinese, for example, people tend to use a question mark whenever they want to elicit a response , e.g.: <S> "I don't know when you'll be coming tomorrow?" <S> I.e. <S> I want you to tell me when you'll be coming, and I use the mark to show this. <S> Of course, comparisons with other languages are not reasons to adopt the conventions of those languages (otherwise, if we followed the Greeks, this thread would actually be about the use of the semi-colon to indicate questions). <S> But I think it's useful to bear in mind that other human communities have made different uses of superficially identical linguistic tools. <S> Language varies across space and through time. <S> Whatever conclusion we come to is provisional and contingent.
| Hence, you should always terminate any sentence beginning with "[Please] could you" with a question mark.
|
What is the best way to punctuate a list of questions in a declarative sentence? In my report a need to write a list of example questions that someone might ask, but I would like to do it in a sentence rather than a separate list. Here is an example: This poses questions such as "How should I punctuate it?", "Are the quotes necessary?", "Are the commas in the correct place?", and "Should I have used a colon, or a semi-colon?" <Q> I'd use a bulleted list and drop the quotation marks, like so: <S> This poses questions such as: <S> How should I punctuate it? <S> Are the quotes necessary? <S> Are the commas in the correct place? <S> Should I have used a colon, or a semi-colon? <S> Such formatting would look out of place in a novel or other prose, but would look very natural online or in some technical document. <S> While I may be a product of my time, I think bulleted lists are an excellent way to break up a list of items and does so without a bunch of cluttering punctuation. <S> In cases where a bulleted list would be out of place, I'd suggest using a colon and ditching the quotation marks, like so: <S> This poses questions such as: How should I punctuate it? <S> Are the quotes necessary? <S> Are the commas in the correct place? <S> Should I have used a colon, or a semi-colon? <A> Here's how I would write it: <S> This poses questions such as “How should I punctuate it,” “ <S> Are the quotes necessary,” “Are the commas in the correct place,” and “Should I have used a colon, or a semi-colon?” <S> I would say that the more important punctuation mark here is the comma, and you can't have both. <S> Since the questions are obviously questions even without a question mark, and since you are referring to the questions as objects rather than invoking them as queries, it's OK to lose the question marks. <S> For example, you could imagine The interview consisted of the usual "Where did you go to school" kind of question. <S> There is no need for a question mark here because you are using "Where did you go to school" as the name of a question to which you are referring, rather than as the question itself. <S> To some extent, though, your choice here is going to depend on what tone and cadence <S> you want the reader to imagine in their head. <S> Putting in the question marks will cause the reader to pause and raise their inner voices as if reading a question, which will have the effect of putting more emphasis on the specific question. <S> Leaving out the question marks will cause the reader to rush through the list without pausing or imagining a question, which will have the effect of de-emphasizing the questions. <S> So it's up to you what kind of melody you want the prose to have. <A> Rhetorical, self posed, or internal questions only require a question mark. <S> For example: She thought Shall I go to work? <S> To the mall? <S> Home? <A> There is a rule that says if a question appears in direct quotation and this immediately ends in a sentence, the question mark should be preserved and the period omitted. <A> The way you have it is good. <S> But if you're supposed to be following some house style, then read the manual.
| Quotation marks are not required in lists of questions within a sentence unless they are a direct quote.
|
What does "high-capacity magazine clip" mean? Washington Post (January 19 issue) carried an article reporting the latest results of Washington Post / ABC News poll, in which I came across the phrase high-capacity magazine clips . My understanding of magazine clip was just a piece of article or its excerpt cut out from a magazine, like a tearsheet. What does high-capacity magazine clip actually mean? Poll shows high marks for Obama on Tucson, low regard for political dialogue. Like similar violent events in the past, the Arizona shootings did not generate greater support for tougher gun-control measures in general. But a majority — 57 percent — said they support a nationwide ban on high-capacity magazine clips such as the one the shooter in Tucson used. <Q> Here magazine and clip refer to parts of a gun that contain bullets. <S> They are not used in the same sense as a clip cut out from a magazine for reading. <A> A magazine is the (often detachable) part of a firearm that stores the ammunition. <S> A clip is a slang ( and technically incorrect ) term for a removable magazine. <S> In this context, high-capacity means "holding more ammunition than some people think is acceptable", not "holding more ammunition than normal", since the magazines this term is used to refer to <S> are the normal size for many firearms. <A> I love the word "magazine" because of its origin (From Online Etymology Dictionary ): <S> 1580s, "place for storing goods, especially military ammunition," from M.Fr. <S> magasin "warehouse, depot, store," from It. <S> magazzino, from Arabic makhazin, pl. of makhzan "storehouse" (cf. <S> Sp. <S> almacén "warehouse, magazine"), from khazana "to store up. <S> " <S> The original sense is almost obsolete; meaning "periodical journal" dates from the publication of the first one, "Gentleman's Magazine," in 1731, from earlier use of the word for a printed list of military stores and information, or in a figurative sense, from the publication being a "storehouse" of information. <S> The intended use in the quote is a container for bullets attached to a gun, which carries a greater than usual number of bullets. <A> The magazine clip holds ammunition for a gun. <A> Some guns use "magazines," which hold cartridges for the gun and, with the aid of a spring, feed them into a chamber. <S> A "high capacity" magazine holds many cartridges; the number that is considered "high capacity" is fixed by law in some places. <S> A "clip" is something completely different. <S> It is used to store cartridges in such a way that they can be rapidly fed into magazines. <S> There are many pictures on the internet that explain the difference between a magazine and a clip. <S> There is a good picture here: http://miaanstine.com/2012/12/18/clip-vs-magazine/ . <S> People who are not familiar with guns sometimes say "clip" when they mean "magazine." <S> Accordingly, they call for regulation of "high capacity clips" when what they really want is regulation of magazines. <S> Newspapers make this mistake on a regular basis, and the White House has done it also. <S> A "magazine clip" is a newspaper's awkward attempt to refer to gun magazines while continuing to misuse the word "clip. <S> " There is no such thing as a "magazine clip." <A> A "high capacity magazine" is an arbitrarily large magazine. <S> Some of the states in the US limit magazine capacity to 5 or 30 rounds, so anything that holds more than 30 rounds would likely be considered "high capacity", and a magazine with more than 5 rounds might be considered "high capacity" as well, depending on the speaker. <S> The magazine that the Tucson shooter used held 31 rounds, so it is definitely "high capacity", though there was no reason to refer to it as a "magazine clip" rather than "magazine".
| High-capacity refers to the ability of the magazine to store many bullets. The phrase "magazine clip" is redundant, rather like referring to a bicycle as a "bicycle scooter".
|
What does "hit me like a two-by-four" mean? What does this sentence mean? This observation hit me like a two-by-four Source . <Q> 2×4: <S> Image courtesy of Wikipedia . <S> Edit: Wikipedia has since corrected itself that this is indeed a 2×6, but you get the idea. <A> <A> A length of sawn wood of cross section 2 inches by 4 inches, most often employed as structural framing lumber (dimension or dimensional lumber). <S> "It hit me like a two-by-four" means that you've been hit pretty hard. <S> In this context, the author uses it as a simile to convey his state of shock after reading the analysis he quoted. <S> He felt that it explained so well why Asians were often stereotyped as good in science and math that it stunned him. <S> He explains this further down the page: <S> I hadn't known about the 1965 Act, and its existence and the above analysis just instantly explained so much so well and without reference to Asians somehow being magically different <S> In other words, he was really surprised by the quality of the explanation. <A> From Word Reference forums : "Two-by-four" is a standard size ofwood used in the UK building trade. <S> So it means a piece of wood with sides of two inches and four inches. <A> This may have derived from the story about how to handle Mules. " <S> First" (clobbering mule with 2x4), "you have to get their attention." <A> Expression comes from a very old joke: about a farmer with a stubbron mule who would not go forward or backward let alone respond to owners comand. <S> So the old man picks up a 2x4 and smacks the mule right between the eyes. <S> Then the mule responded to command. <S> Onlookers were outraged that the man punished the animal harshly. <S> The farmer explained that "first he had to get the mules <S> attention". <S> I suspect over the years people have become more sensitive to this type of 'animal abus jokes' and it has died a just death, the source of this saying , lost.
| A two by four is a common format for a piece of wood : Oh, and the sentence as a whole means that the observation was a big surprise or a great shock; an aha experience or a eureka moment ; an eye-opener .
|
What is the correct word for a person whom I am interacting with? I need to program computer agents that interact with each other (for example they play a computer game with each other). Sometimes it happens that two agents are interacting with each other. I need to find a word to describe who they are to each other. I have the following options: opponent companion partner My main requirement is that the word should be neutral (since the interaction can be of different kinds: cooperation, competition, fight). I am afraid that opponent is a bit "negative" (in the sense that it assumes that two agents are enemies, that they are fighting). Partner , in contrast, seems to be positive to me (assuming that agents cooperate with each other). What about companion ? Or may be you can propose other words? <Q> Companion also suggests friendship. <S> This is tricky as the agents will have the possibility of being in 2 opposite situations. <S> Perhaps peer or contender ? <S> I'm not sure where you'll be using the word, but of course if you're using it in the program you can simply code it so the word changes depending on the situation; a simple IF statement. <A> Maybe “ interlocutor ”, which NOAD defines as “ a person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation ”, depending on the type of interaction they are having. <S> Otherwise, if they do not really speak to each other, but play in the same team, you could use “ teammate ” (but that's strongly positive). <S> If they are just playing together, then “ fellow player ” might fit the bill. <A> How about participant ? <S> I think it's as neutral as it gets. <A> Counterpart . <S> It can have positive, negative or neutral sense. <S> It is relative, that is, one can be counterpart only of someone else, not in an absolute sense. <A> If you're engaging in a specific activity, you might also be able to put "ee" and the end of that activity's name, and thus it becomes the person with whom you're engaging in said activity. <S> For example, if you're training someone, you might naturally call them your "trainee". <S> Of course, this makes the term less general, which may not work for you in this case, but it might for others. <S> Additional alternates of the more general variety might also include: equal (feels strongly neutral to me) <S> associate cooperator collaborator <A> One word I can think of is complement . <S> Since two objects are involved, when you already have one the other complements it to make the complete set. <S> Complement is also used in mathematical set theory to denote the remaining objects which make up some set. <A> How about co-competitor? <S> This implies they they might not be acting against each other, but toward some common goal. <S> Co-competitors in a relay race, trying to get their teammate across the finish line first. <S> It also implies they could be acting against each other, such as co-competitors in a tennis match would. <S> They are both in the same match, but on opposite sides. <S> All Olympians who attend the same games are co-competitors, even if they compete at different events.
| Companion sounds positive just like partner , while opponent is negative as mentioned.
|
Asking for feedback on a meeting summary I've got to write a meeting summary, and amongst the recipient will be my boss. To ensure that I was accurate, I would like to ask for feedback from my recipient. I've got the following sentence: In case of omission or mistake, please contact me. The problem is that this sentence doesn't quite please me. I would have liked to use the word correction instead of mistake , but then it wouldn't have been in the same level, as there is omissions but there is a "need for corrections". Furthermore I don't like the "please contact me" although I don't have a better way to say what I want. I don't want to be contacted as much as I want any mistakes to be pointed to me. It's at that point that I thought to myself, that there could be a standard formulation for such request. So first I would like to now, in a formal and polite context, would my sentence fit with my intent? And second, is there any standard formulation? <Q> A more positive way of communicating the same message would be something like: <S> Let me know if you have any questions or comments. <S> "Questions or comments" sounds more positive because these words do not necessarily relate to mistakes. <S> It shows that you expect questions or feedback in general - positive or negative feedback. <A> Of course, that's a one-size-fits-all no-brainer, and comes off as such. <S> But then again, I know that if I start thinking about it, I will start overthinking, and writing a simple three-sentence email will take forever . <S> That being said, I can certainly think of a few variations. <S> For the first part of the sentence, I might write: If there are any omissions or mistakes,.. <S> If something's wrong or incomplete,.. <S> If you have any suggestions or corrections to make,.. <S> And for the second part, I might write (depending on the level of formality): <S> ... please do not hesitate to let me know. <S> ... please let me know. <S> ... just let me know. <S> ... just drop me a note. <A> Assuming you want to keep your sentence rather short, here are a few suggestions: I welcome comments, suggestions and corrections. <S> Please send me any comment, suggestion or correction you may have. <S> Please feel free to relay your comments, suggestions or corrections. <S> If you find errors or inaccuracies in this summary, please report them to me. <S> A revised summary will communicated if any error or inaccuracy is reported to me. <S> “ Report ... to me ” might be a solution to your dislike of “ contact me ”, as it makes the purpose of the contact more explicit.
| What I don't like about your sentence is that it sounds a bit negative - as if you expected omissions or mistakes to be found. My standard phrase is: If you have any questions or comments, just let me know.
|
Mixing up "quiet" and "quite": spelling or grammar error? Look at this sentence: It wasn't quiet what I wanted And this one: The music was too quite for me Obviously quiet and quite are mixed up. Is this considered a spelling mistake? In both cases the words are valid, but used in the wrong place. Is there a special name for these mistakes? Or are they simply grammatical errors? <Q> They are not grammatical errors since the sentence structure is correct once you replace the erroneous word with the one the author obviously intended. <S> So I would categorise those mistakes as spelling mistakes influenced by homophone confusion. <A> The writer would no doubt have pronounced it right in speech. <S> In fact, I suspect that the most common spelling mistakes are those in which a writer subconsciously confuses two similar-sounding words or parts of words, even though he probably knows better, as in * negligable , <S> * interchangible <S> , * percieve <S> , *retreive <S> , * their crazy , * they’re house , * <S> it’s body , * its mine , etc. <A> There's no special name for it beyond: typo. <S> 'quiet' and 'quite <S> ' mean two very different things; one is an adverb meaning 'very', the other is an adjective mening 'silent'. <S> their pronunciations are different enough; in GenAmE, they are not homophones (I don't know about other varieties). <S> Transpositino of two characters, especially at teh end of a word, is a very common typing error. <S> surely the writers didn't intend the words as written, so they are neither grammatical error or spelling errors. <A> Quiet/Quite might be considered a homophone depending on your accent. <S> Other common homophone (heterograph, specifically) mistakes are: <S> Their/They're <S> / <S> There Your/You're to/too/two <A> Since it's the person's intention to use it in a certain context, it is a misspelling. <S> If they were convinced that that was the way it was spelled, however, and spelled it that way, it would be a lexical error. <A> Semantic error. <S> Meaning is not logical.
| I’m not sure whether there is a special name for this kind of spelling mistake, but I’d definitely call it a spelling or typing mistake.
|
Is "to" really part of the infinitive? Consider this: I like to eat here. vs I would eat here. It appears to me that "to" has nothing to do with the infinitive form of the verb that follows. It is, in this example, an integral part of like to , not of to eat . Is my thinking flawed? If you think it is, could you please explain which form of the verb "eat" is used in the second example, if not the infinitive? <Q> It is probably a matter of definition, not of true inherent "belonging to". <S> I believe the etymology of this kind of "to" is the usage of a preposition before the infinitive, in order to indicate a relation of direction or purpose between a finite verb and the infinitive: <S> I went to school; I went to pick him up . <S> This probably originated in predicates with verbs that have a direction. <S> But that was long ago, <S> when the infinitive still had a distinctive form in English or Proto-Germanic; I think it was something like * eatan <S> (don't pin me down on this, I haven't looked it up). <S> Later, when the infinitive became indistinguishable from other forms of the verb, this to evolved into a more general marker of the infinitive. <S> So the most precise definition would probably be to say that to belongs neither to the finite verb ("like") nor to the infinitive. <S> That said, you could say " like often goes with to <S> , so we say to belongs to like ", or " to often introduces or links to infinitives, so we say it belongs to the infinitive". <S> In lists of phrases, educational books often tend to emphasise the connection with like ; in passages that describe the infinitive, they tend to treat it as part of the "full" infinitive, as opposed to the "bare" infinitive in "I will go". <S> I believe this is the most traditional way to describe it. <A> Here are the two main bits of positive evidence that to is part of the infinitive. <S> 1. <S> It doesn't show up with nouns in the same situations. <S> I like to dance. <S> I like pizza. <S> Notice that to is not an inherent part of like , because even in the exact same sense of the word, if it is followed by a noun there is <S> no to . <S> 2. <S> It shows up without another verb. <S> In phrases without a verb in front of the to , you can see it appearing: <S> To live is to dance. <S> For modals, as others have explained, the modal verbs do something special with the verb, as do the helper verbs "to be" and "to have". <S> But they are a special case. <S> Modal verbs also don't allow a gerund after them in any situation, e.g., you can't say " <S> *I would walking" like you can with a verb that is usually followed by to . <S> But with "like" you can say "I like to dance" and "I like dancing". <S> Only the form of the verb is changing, from the infinitive to the gerund. <A> The second sentence does use the infinitive, but would is a modal verb, so it kicks out the to . <S> Wikipedia explains : The main verb that is modified by the modal verb is in the infinitive form and is not preceded by the word to <S> (German: zu , Dutch: te ). <S> There are verbs that may seem somewhat similar in meaning to modal verbs ( <S> e.g. like , want ), but <S> the construction with such verbs would be different <S> Note how you wouldn't say "* <S> I can to eat here" or "*I must to eat here", either. <A> No, it is not. <S> This is probably one of the biggest misconceptions in all of English grammar/linguistics. <S> The bare infinitive IS the infinitive. <S> When the infinitive is used as an adjunct or a complement of another word, it cannot be used alone. <S> It's needs the grammatical particle in between to "bind it", so to speak, to the word that it's complementing. <S> This has parallels in many other languages: something to eat quelque chose à manger. <S> algo <S> para <S> comer <S> etwas <S> zu <S> essen <S> In the example you gave above, you are correct. <S> To, in that context, is part of the phrase "like to", which is an auxiliary with the same grammatical function as 'would'. <S> In compound verbs with modal auxiliaries the bare infinitive is used.
| It's better to say that "to" accompanies the infinitive depending on how it is used, but it's not part of the infinitive nor does it complete the infinitive.
|
Is there a word for a person who is able to focus on multiple tasks at same time? I thought of the word 'multi-tasker' but is there a better word which can express focussing on multiple tasks with equal efficiency? For instance, it is said that Leonardo Da Vinci, a polymath, was able to write and draw at the same time. <Q> There must be a word, however it doesn't make sense. <S> A person, as many studies and research suggest, is only capable to concentrate on one task at a time. <S> I found some interesting information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking <A> Someone able to do remarkable feats of intellect or creativity, like Leonardo writing and drawing at the same time, is often called a prodigy. <S> That doesn't necessarily imply doing multiple things at once, but it's the sort of thing that a prodigy might be able to do. <A> " Multi-tasker " is probably the most recognized descriptor. <S> But in reality, one is time slicing and diverting attention from one task to another in bursts. <S> It's perhaps noteworthy that a study of college students found that most were overall less effective when " multi-tasking " than when they focused their attention for longer blocks of time. <S> Unfortunately, the students also underestimated the detrimental effect of shifting focus too often. <S> It actually makes some rational sense because the older pejorative descriptor of attempting this used to known as " scatterbrained! "
| Multi-tasker is probably the most widely recognized English phrase for this.
|
When do I use the comma? The monitor being ill, we'd better put the meeting off. The river having risen in the night the crossing was impossible. In the above two sentences, one uses the comma and one does not. So, when do you use the comma? Are there any rules? <Q> The others are correct that in those examples the comma makes the meaning clearer. <S> I would add that using the gerund clauses as you have sounds somewhat stilted. <S> Perhaps you could try more straightforward ways to express the same ideas: <S> The monitor is ill, so we'd better put off the meeting. <S> Because the monitor is ill we'd better put off the meeting and <S> The river rose overnight, making the crossing impossible. <S> The crossing was impossible because the river had risen overnight. <S> There are obviously other ways to construct the sentences; these are just a couple to give you the idea. <A> It is certainly correct to write each of the two sentences with a comma. <S> Here the comma serves as a bracketing comma which introduces the monitor being ill and the river having risen in the night to add to the meaning of the complete sentences <S> We'd better put the meeting off and <S> The crossing was impossible. <S> The bracketing comma may be omitted if the meaning is clear without it, and this happens when what is added by the comma is short . <S> In these two examples, it is not wrong to omit the comma, but it seems better to include it. <A> It's generally a matter of style. <S> The only hard and fast rule with commas is that they should be used to separate items in a sentence. <S> I would put a comma in the second sentence, after 'night'. <S> The thing to remember is that commas make things easier to read. <S> They are a courtesy to the reader. <S> Read that second sentence as it is, then read it again, but this time, pause for the length of time it takes to say 'comma' in your head after 'night'. <S> Sounds better, doesn't it? <A> A simple sentence: <S> I swam across the river. <S> A simple sentence with an introductory phrase: Since it was a sunny day, I swam across the river. <S> The acception to this rule is: if the introductory clause or phrase is very short, you can leave the comma out--or not, it's your choice. <S> Both of these are okay: <S> On sunday I swam across the river. <S> On sunday, I swam across the river. <S> Both your examples require a comma: <S> The monitor being ill, we'd better put the meeting off. <S> The river having risen in the night, the crossing was impossible.
| The rule that applies for your two examples is: Use a comma after introductory phrases and clauses.
|
Is it wrong to say "very almost"? I hear phrases like I very almost fell over! often and to me they sound awkward. Is the word, "very", wrong, just superfluous or completely valid? Should this wording be avoided? <Q> You can say "I very nearly fell over!" <S> but to say "I very almost fell over!" <S> will brand you as very nearly a beginning speaker of English. <S> This is a bit harsh for English learners, since nearly and almost mean almost the same thing. <S> But that's how it goes sometimes. <A> Consider the relevant definitions of the adverbs, very and almost , from the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition): very — in a high degree almost — not quite; <S> very nearly Now, it is standard to modify one adverb with another. <S> Examples: <S> very : He dragged the chair very slowly across the room. <S> so : Why must she leave so soon? <S> almost: <S> We are almost there. <S> too: By the time we got there, we knew we'd come too late. <S> In your example, however, <S> very and almost modify over . <S> There are certainly several instances in English where two adverbs (modifiers) modify a third. <S> Examples: <S> so very: <S> Why must she go so very fast? <S> almost too: She hit me almost too hard; I nearly passed out. <S> far too: <S> You went far too easy on her. <S> Some other constructions, especially those containing <S> very <S> and so , could be considered colloquial and not suitable in formal writing: <S> so very: <S> That was so very good! <S> way too: His speech was way too boring! <S> (Actually informal) <S> Now, the construction, very almost is probably the most unidiomatic of these informal expressions, especially considering the fact that very is already in the definition of almost : <S> I <S> almost fell over. <S> I very nearly fell over. <S> I <S> very almost fell over. <S> [?] <S> I very, very nearly fell over. <S> [Better, but overly informal] <S> These days, the overuse of very is rightly frowned upon. <S> Certainly, use very as often as you want, but note that very almost is quite unidiomatic in regular formal and semi-formal usage. <S> It may well be more of a regionalism than anything else. <A> I have never heard "very almost", and would find it odd. <S> Which makes me wonder <S> if you are in another part of the world, where perhaps it is more common? <A> yes!! <S> It may be accepted colloquially in informal conversations but it is not correct <S> In general "very" would add value to the noun/ action in question. <S> She runs very fasti like her very muchHe is very talented <S> "Almost" would more appropriately describe the "status" of the current action/ noun <S> She almost made it to the list of WinnersI <S> almost have him the money before i realized something was wrong... <A> I would consider the use of 'very' as shown in these examples to be superfluous and redundant. <S> Certainly the use of 'very almost' together not only sounds wrong but is grammatically incorrect. <S> In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary which I use for my students, various examples are given; one has to be extremely careful in the use of 'very' and one should note that 'very' should not be used with adjectives and adverbs that alrady have an extreme meaning although 'very' can be used to emphasise superlative adjectives however, the inclusion of 'much' or 'very much' would be preferable. <S> This perhaps is where the confusion lies.
| It is not a bad idea to stay away from very and try to use more descriptive language. it is wrong to use "very almost" together.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.