source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
"-ee" and "-er" word endings There are a few examples of pairs of words ending with -ee/-er like employee and employer or advisee and adviser . What I was curious about is if there was any rule that would describe the relationship of the objects in a pair like this and situations when it's appropriate to create a counterpart for a given word. I'll give you an example. It's relatively common in the computer programming world to see the word dragee , which describes an object that is being dragged with a mouse. I understand that this is a relatively new word and could not be found in any dictionary (I've tried). Is that acceptable to make up words like this one or is it just bad English? <Q> In general the suffix "-ee" is productive, and usually has the meaning of "person to which xxx is done" - I find "dragee" a little strange because it is not a person. <S> But beware: there are a few words where the "-ee" denotes the person who does rather than the person who is done to. <S> A prominent example is "attendee", but also "returnee". <S> I think this use arises only where there isn't a prominent object for the verb, because then that meaning would compete for xxx-ee. <S> ("Attend" is transitive, and has as its object the meeting or event; but there is no need for a word "attendee" to mean the meeting or event, which is why I think it has come into use for a person attending.) <S> From a linguistics point of view this observation is interesting because the words that take "-ee" seem to be grammatical patients - those who undergo an experience as opposed to those who perform actions. <S> English has a nominative-accusative system, in which this role is expressed by different grammatical constructs for different verbs; but in ergative languages, this is generally the role marked by the absolutive case. <A> You can use the -er/-ee combination on pretty much any verb, as long as it's easily understood. <S> The example dragee is perhaps not very well suited for this form, as it can be confused with an existing word, and <S> because the result isn't so clearly understood as drager ( dragger ?) isn't a well know usage either. <S> My favorite usage of this is in a conversion from Buffy . <S> The -ee suffix is quite elegantly used to express <S> "You are the vampire, and I am going to kill you just like I have killed all the other vampires. <S> That's what I do." <S> in a single word: <S> Vampire: -- Slayer! <S> Buffy: -- Slayee! <A> Actually dragee is in the dictionary: it's a fruit or nut wrapped in sugar (a peanut M&M is a dragee). <S> But anyway! <S> After all, if no new words came along the language would never evolve.
| I would say that if there are no existing words that fit the purpose (as in the case of a dragged object in computing), and the word 'sounds right', then there is no problem with neologising.
|
When are "if" and "whether" equivalent? Are if and whether equivalent in sentences like the ones below? How to determine if my saddle is too high? How to determine whether my saddle is too high? We should check if everything is okay now. We should check whether everything is okay now. <Q> In general, if you're turning a question into a noun, whether tends to be preferred in formal use. <S> So this includes your example plus, e.g.: <S> The discussion was about [ whether climate change was an important issue]. <S> The issue is [ whether we need to act now]. <S> In informal usage, if is also possible in these cases. <S> The word whether only has the meaning of "if ... or not" (though you can still use the formula whether ... or not for emphasis), so for example you can't use whether in this case: If/*whether you decide to come, give me a call. <S> Another key difference is that whether can introduce an infinitive, whereas if can't (they're different parts of speech): <S> They couldn't decide whether /*if to come. <A> Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: 1. <S> archaic : <S> which one of the two 2. <S> archaic : whichever one of the two In the saddle example, there are three alternative results: too high, too low or just perfect. <S> It doesn't make much sense to check the saddle for being too high and not caring about too low. <A> Both are used to introduce indirect questions. <S> To expand further, whether is also used to state a certainty: <S> 'I'm marrying Zooey Deschanel whether or not my girlfriend likes it!' <S> for example. <A> Let's make it simple and clear: Whether - use this word for indicating 2 options <S> If - use this word to establish a condition for an action. <S> Informally, "if" is sometimes used when "whether" is the better word, and in many cases this doesn't lead to confusion. <S> This means that, informally, "if" is used in more than one way. <S> However, "whether" only has one meaning, so using "whether" when indicating options is preferred. <S> THUS: 1 <S> : How to determine whether my saddle is too high. <S> (as in whether the saddle is too high or not--two options) <S> 2: We should check whether everything is okay now. <S> (as in whether everything is okay or not--two options) <S> Note: <S> In both examples, the 2nd part of the expression "whether...or not" is implied. <S> This is quite common and quite acceptable when doing so doesn't reduce clarity. <S> This leads us to the next point. <S> You can correctly say "Whether you decide to come or not, give me a call." <S> The shortened form, with the implied part 2, is "Whether you decide to come, give me a call." <S> (I wouldn't write this because it reduces clarity. <S> I would use the complete expression.) <S> One last comment: "Whether" doesn't need to be followed by a stated or implied "or not." <S> The 2nd option could be any thing, as in "I don't know whether to buy cake or pickles." <A> If is suggesting a condition , like "if it would be OK for you the RB to run with the ball behind the Tight End" <S> "Whether" is for an alternative with only 2 exclusive options <S> not 3."Whether the QB will throw or give the ball <S> , you shall sack him down !" <S> The use of "if" would be stupid... <S> But we also have "whatever the QB does <S> , you sack him : ie. <S> even before he moves or tries to pass... <S> " This has 3 options for the QB you target anyway. <S> We may also understand "Whether the Guard wants to stop you, goes backward or to the side, you rush & blow him". <S> Here : 3 options which are in fact 2 : The Guard runs toward you or not, you are instructed to get him, so we can use "whether" to charge you to deliver to the guy the kind of clear message we want. <S> "IF" you really have more than 2 options, try to do it without "whether". <S> "Whether the field will be dry, wet or snowy we shall play our game" sounds very bad. <S> So put it in an other way... <S> "If" could work, for a coach at least ! <S> But we also have the mix <S> Whether <S> /If :"Whether/If I can jump over the Center, I'll run to the End zone"."Whether <S> " because there are 2 scenari (yes or not) <S> ; "If" because there is a condition to run. <S> Am I clear ? <S> So let's go back on the line boys <S> , we have the grammar to play :)
| It's important to understand that 'whether' and 'if' are not always interchangeable. Whether is used to emphasis that one has two alternatives to pick from. Short answer is, yes, they are equivalent, simply because 'if' and 'whether' essentially mean the same thing in this regard.
|
Is it "bear the shame" or "bare the shame"? Google returns results for both variations of this common phrase. bear the shame bare the shame What is the meaning of this phrase, and which one is correct? Is the speaker carrying their shame or are they exposing it? Or is this just a case of two separate meanings? <Q> First of all, it helps to enclose the phrase in quotes when googling: "bear the shame" — 607,000 "bare the shame" — 83,400 <S> Secondly, having looked through the first 10 pages of the Google results for "bare the shame", exposing would not work in most of those contexts at all, it's quite obviously carrying . <S> And quite a few of those contexts feature extremely poor grammar and punctuation. <S> Lastly, while the British National Corpus has 1 cite for "bear the shame", and the Corpus of Contemporary American English has 10, neither of them has a single cite for "bare the shame". <A> The common phrase is 'bear the shame', as in carrying the shame. <S> The prevalance of 'bare' on Google is probably a result of misspelling. <S> You would probably say something more like: <S> He laid bare the shame of corruption. <A> Something interesting to note. <S> I don't have any verification of this, but I'm pretty sure the original root for this phrase is from the Bible. <S> When Cain killed Abel and G-d chastised him, he (Cain) says "גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי, מִנְּשֹׂא" (gadol avoni minso) <S> - My sin is too great to bear. <S> The word מִנְּשֹׂא (minso) literally means to carry.
| So, to me, the answer is pretty clear: "bare" is simply a common misspelling of "bear", whether in the context of this expression or elsewhere .
|
Why do we say "to boot"? Here's an example of the phrase "to boot": My wife made a disgusting looking dinner, and it tasted awful to boot! The implication of the "to boot" is that the fact that the dinner tasted awful was as disappointing (or perhaps more so) than the fact that it looked disgusting. It's a colloquial, possibly slang phrase, but I'd like to know what it's origin is, and whether it perhaps has other more esoteric uses. <Q> Nowadays, "to boot" is simply an idiomatic way of saying "moreover, on top of that" (see e.g. Wiktionary ). <S> Originally, it comes from Old English to bote . <S> As Etymonline explains, in Old English bot meant "'help, relief, advantage; atonement,' literally 'a making better,'" from Proto-Germanic * boto , which is also where the word better comes from. <A> It seems that to boot simply meens in addition . <S> My wife made a disgusting looking dinner, and it tasted awful too! <S> phrases.org: to boot thefreedictionary.com: to boot <A> "Boot" also has a legal meaning. <S> In commercial law, it means something additional that the seller gives, something not required by the contract. <S> Example: "When I took my car for an oil change, the dealer washed and waxed it, to boot." <S> A synonym is "lagniappe", used mostly in the southeastern USA.
| The origin would be bat meaning useful, so the original meaning would be used only in a positive sense.
|
How to pronounce "favicon"? Yesterday my boss called our design person on the phone and asked her about designing a / fave-eye-con /. She asked him to repeat it a couple of times, and then finally (after a convoluted explanation about favorites and icons), the lightbulb came on and she said, "Oh! you want a / fav-ee-can /!" Now, presumably the design person is the one more likely to have encountered the accepted pronunciation of favicon - she gets to actually make the things, while the rest of us only notice them if they're missing. However, / fav-ee-can / just... doesn't work for me. Is there any sort of consensus on how this word ought to be pronounced? <Q> Consensus also seems to be / fav -ih <S> -con/ : <S> http://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/american/favicon http://www.forvo.com/word/favicon/ <A> I definitely say "fav-ick-on", the a like in family. <S> I guess the emphasis is on the first syllable, but it's slight. <S> As this is a recently coined word I don't think you're going to find a canonical answer yet. <S> This is good, because it means YOU get a chance to contribute to the language by promoting YOUR favorite pronunciation until there's finally a widely accepted norm! <A> I presume the etymology of the word is the combination of the words "favorite" and "icon", since a website's favicon.ico file is the icon that appears next to a bookmark (which, in Internet Explorer, resides in the Favorites menu). <S> Consequently, I've always pronounced the word as / fav- eye -con /. <S> That being said, I can understand how someone who is unaware or unfamiliar with how the file name was decided might pronounce it more in line with how it would be pronounced as a single word given its spelling. <S> I have to wonder about all of the other computer phrases that are nothing more than two terms squished together - how are these terms pronounced? <S> For instance, the program to edit the Windows Registry is named regedit . <S> Since it's a combination of the words "Registry" and "edit" I pronounce it / redge-edit /, but I am now curious if the layperson would pronounce it as / ree-gedit / or / ra-get-it / or something else entirely. <A> When in doubt stick with good old fashioned phonics: pronounce the first syllable with a long "a" and the second syllable with a short "i" third syllable as "con" (as in "icon"). <S> " <S> Fave-ih-con"
| I usually pronounce it /fav- eye -con/ or / fav -ih-con/ , but I've never heard anyone else pronounce it (at all).
|
Did I go to the "fair" or the "faire"? Which one's correct? I've seen both claiming to be correct... <Q> Fair is the standard word in modern English, and is usually what’s appropriate. <S> Faire and fayre are older spellings, used in specific names but not widely used as generic terms today. <S> So a fair might call itself <S> The Cottesloe Village Faire to evoke historical associations; <S> but except when referring to it by name, it would still usually be called a fair . <S> (Just as one would write “Jayne’s Ye Olde Gifte Shoppe is a very nice shop.”) <S> There are a few exceptions: faire and fayre get used as generic terms within some historical re-enactment subcultures—most notably, for Renaissance faires . <S> If someone writes “I’m going to a faire next weekend”, I would assume they mean something like that. <A> Fair. <S> 'Faire' would is an old-fashioned spelling and would be somewhat pretentious nowadays. <S> You also sometimes see 'fayre' in the context of food, normally something like 'We serve traditional home-cooked fayre'. <A> "Fair" is the common, modern usage. <S> Thus one goes to is going to a modern event, it might be the state fair , and <S> if one it attending something more old-fashioned, it might be a renaissance faire .
| "Faire" is the old-fashioned (pretentious) spelling, but it's not out of usage.
|
Is there a reason behind the ordering of letters in the English alphabet? Is there a reason behind the ordering of letters in the English alphabet? i.e. why are we taught “A,B,C,D,E,F,...,Z”? Why not “L,A,S,U,I,Z,...,C”? I am asking this because, in some of the languages I know, I am told that the ordering of the letters in the alphabet is based on the ease with which they can be pronounced or the frequency with which they are used or depending on the part of the vocal cord that needs to be stressed to pronounce the letter. Is there a similar rationale? EDIT You can see a couple of references for arrangement of letters in Sanskrit here and here . <Q> The ABC order already existed in some form about 1400 BC , in the Ugaritic script, from which our alphabet is descended. <S> From Wikipedia : It is unknown whether the earliest alphabets had a defined sequence. <S> However, a dozen Ugaritic tablets from the fourteenth century BCE preserve the alphabet in two sequences. <S> One, the ABCDE order later used in Phoenician, has continued with minor changes in Hebrew, Greek, Armenian, Gothic, Cyrillic, and Latin; the other, HMĦLQ, was used in southern Arabia and is preserved today in Ethiopic.[16] <S> Both orders have therefore been stable for at least 3000 years. <S> The English alphabet comes from the Latin alphabet (it is even often still called the Latin alphabet), which in turn comes from the Greek alphabet. <S> All modern alphabets are most probably in some way descended from the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet , which probably originated around 2100-1800 BC, but whose ordering is unknown. <S> The Greek alphabet developed from Proto-Sinaitic through Phoenician. <S> Many times in between Proto-Sinaitic and English, letters have been added and removed. <S> W, U, and J are among the most recent additions, which did not exist in classical Latin. <S> The first letters or proto-letters were taken by the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet from non-alphabetic Egyptian hieroglyphs, which were mostly ideograms, small depictions of objects. <S> Note that these hieroglyphs were used in an entirely different way—the Egyptians didn't use them as alphabetical letters—, and so the order in Egyptian doesn't tell us much about the order in alphabets. <S> Perhaps there was a logical sequence in those earliest forms, but that is unknown; it might very well be an arbitrary order. <S> For all practical purposes, the modern order is best considered meaningless, though fixed. <S> Note that the Arabic script is also descended from Phoenician, and its alphabet uses the same order similar to our own. <A> The ancient Greek Ionian numerals used the position of a letter in the Greek alphabet for its value, i.e. αʹ = 1, <S> βʹ = 2, γʹ = 3, etc. <S> This is evidence Greek letters had a fixed sequence as of the 4th century BC. <S> As @Cerberus pointed out, the sequence was carried into the Latin, and hence English, alphabet. <A> Egyptian hieroglyphs were narrowed down to less than 30-ish, and other people like the Greeks narrowed it down even further as they did not use some letters. <S> Z used to be next to G (or instead of), so when it was re-added it was added to the end. <S> This may be of interest.
| Some alphabets today, such as the Hanuno'o script, are learned one letter at a time, in no particular order, and are not used for collation where a definite order is required.
|
Are there any rules on the positioning adverbs should take in a sentence? For example: Ever wish you could share information broadly Could it be rewritten to: Ever wish you could broadly share information Are there any rules for the position of the adverbs. <Q> When an adverb modifies a verb, you can usually put it either before, between, or after: Adverb = 'often', verb = 'go' Before: <S> Often, I go for long walks. <S> Between: <S> I often go for long walks. <S> End: <S> I go for long walks often. <S> These aren't all equally common; you would probably find the between position used the most. <S> In your example, you are asking a question, so the 'before' position can't really be used. <S> Broadly, ever wish you could share information? <S> Just doesn't work. <S> But the between and end position are equally valid. <S> I would say that, again, the between position sounds best. <S> Ever wish you could broadly share information? <A> The first sentence: <S> Ever wish you could share information broadly? <S> This would be more effective when used to catch the readers' attention, probably an advertisement/headline where the idea is to make all readers imagine "broadly". <S> The second one: <S> Ever wish you could broadly share information? <S> This probably has more stress on the "information" rather than on "broadly". <S> It would sound more apt in a paragraph, rather than in a headline. <S> Again, it depends on how the message needs to be sent across. <S> Both options are correct. <A> I always think the adverb should be placed as closely as possible to the word it modifies. <S> See how I did it in this sentence, with "as closely as possible"?
| The positioning of the adverb should be based on the type of impact our sentence/question needs to make.
|
Choosing between "100%" and "cent percent" I am a non-native English speaker. I am applying for the USA university for management studies. While writing the essay I came across the sentence, "I was 100% confident." My query: Is it appropriate to write 100% or should I write cent percent ? Does it sound professional? <Q> I would substitute an adjective that means the same thing: totally, completely, absolutely, etc. <S> As it stands, though, your question makes no sense: "cent percent" is meaningless. <S> Are you asking whether you should spell out "one hundred percent" instead of using numerals? <S> If so, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference. <S> Still, in the context I would use one of the adjectives I suggested here. <A> I would use 100% when it was an actual measurement, and one hundred percent when it's an expression. <S> After counting, I saw that 100% of the visitors wore hats. <S> At the time, I was one hundred percent sure of my observation. <S> Later I found out that most were not actually hats, but pets. <A> Use "one hundred percent" when you are stating non-mathematical thought like a story. <A> Late to the party. <S> I am from India. <S> I suspect the OP is from India. <S> This is a local usage here. <S> I have heard many people saying " cent percent " in place of " 100 % " but not aware of the origin/cause of this usage.
| Use 100% when you are stating mathematical thought like statistics.
|
How should this sentence structure be interpreted? I'm playing an online game in which I came across a message in the form of a sentence of which the structure is new to me. It read: You do not have a hatchet which you have the level to use. The weird part for me start after the word 'which'. Specifically, how can 'the level' be put there? Without 'the level' it is a regular sentence in my opinion, but the sentence as it is now seems inscrutable for me. Could someone shed some light on this sentence structure please? <Q> Replace "level" with "ability" or "skill" (which is what levels simulate in RPGs), and it doesn't seem at all remarkable to me. <S> If you speak American English, perhaps you're being tripped up by the use of "which" where you would use "that". <S> Addendum: from your comment, it seems I missed the point, so I'll try again. <S> "A hatchet which you have the level to use" is a single noun which contains a restrictive relative clause . <S> Consider "You do not have a blue hatchet". <S> There are two possibilities: <S> either you have no hatchets; or you have hatchets, but none of them are blue. <S> A "which" not separated from a noun by a comma has a similar function to "blue" in that example: it specifies the noun more precisely, or restricts it. <S> So your sentence is equivalent to saying that either you have no hatchets; or you have hatchets, but you don't have the level to use them. <A> To break it down:weapons such as hatchets require certain amounts of skill or ability, which as Peter Taylor points out are expressed as "levels" in an RPG. <S> So the game might say "you need 3 levels in hatchet-wielding to use this Hand-Axe Of Anhur." <S> (Often, the word 'level' is one of the most overloaded words in a role-playing game; it can refer, in different contexts, to your character's overall ability rating; what floor of a building (or dungeon) you are on; the difficulty ranking of a skill, spell, or action; or a measure of the toughness of a monster. <S> See <S> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html for a humorous take on the multiple meanings of the word.) <S> So the game is saying that "There is not a hatchet in your inventory where your character's abilities meet or exceed the requirements we impose in order for you to make use of such a hatchet." <A> You seem to be reading it as 'You don't have a hatchet, and you need one.' <A> You have the level. <S> You don't have the hatchet. <S> Go find one and continue playing.
| It specifically means 'You have a hatchet, but your character isn't at a high enough level to use it.'
|
When and how did "fail" become a noun? Does anyone know when and how fail became a noun? I'd love to see one of those charts that shows the date of origin and subsequent growth of this usage. <Q> "Fail" has existed as a noun and has been part of our lexicon for a long time , such as in the phrase "without fail." However, it gained a new meaning in the recent years with the fail Internet meme, where it started as an interjection first, capable of standing on alone in a sentence. <S> In fact, the first entry for "fail" to arrive on Urban Dictionary described fail as "an interjection used when one disapproves of something, or a verb" and one of the two examples cited was: <S> You actually bought that? <S> FAIL. <S> If the "FAIL" above was a noun, that sentence would not be syntactically correct. <S> Nouns cannot be used in that manner. <S> It would be like saying: You positioned your lips to form an upward curve? <S> SMILE. <S> We understand what is meant <S> but it's not syntactically correct. <S> No one with a good command of English would ever say such a sentence. <S> A correct way to articulate the thought while keeping "smile" as a noun would be to say: You positioned your lips to form an upward curve? <S> That's a smile. <S> Therefore, the fail in the Urban Dictionary example is an interjection. <S> It's only afterward, probably through misinterpretation of the meme, that it came to be used as a noun. <S> When you look at an image with only "FAIL" written on it, it's impossible to tell whether fail is being used as a noun or an interjection: <S> From that point on, the meme evolved - as memes often do - and started to be used as a noun , as an adjective , and as a noun modified by as an adjective . <S> As for the origin of the meme itself, which I assume is your original question, the origin most often given (by Know <S> Your Meme , Slate , and the New York Times ) is that it comes from a poor Japanese-to-English translation of the game Blazing Star. <S> Ben Zimmer of the New York Time says: <S> This punchy stand-alone fail most likely originated as a shortened form of “You fail” or, more fully, “You fail it,” the taunting “game over” message in the late-’90s Japanese video game Blazing Star, notorious for its fractured English. <S> For reference, here's Blazing Star's game over message: <A> Online Etymology Dictionary says: <S> Fail: <S> The noun (e.g. without fail ) is from late 13c. , from O.Fr. <S> faile "deficiency," from falir . <A> adding to Mr Mehper's answer, people use it in the stock and security market too. <S> to mean: Failure to deliver securities to a purchaser within a specified time. <S> Failure to receive the proceeds of a transaction, as in the sale of stock or securities, by a specified date. <A> The recent uprise in incidences of non-verb fail is due to its being an internet meme, possibly from a Japanese video game with poor translation to English. <S> Know your meme . <A> Although "fail" has been used sparingly in the past as a noun (e.g. "without fail"), there is evidence that the word is creeping toward ordinary usage as a noun to replace the word "failure. <S> " <S> I just read the following headline in Bloomberg Businessweek (6/6/11-6/12/11 issue): "How Stephen Elop is trying to lead Nokia past its epic fail. <S> " <S> My first reaction was that perhaps the word is only used to draw attention in headlines, but that it would not breach the body of the article. <S> Well, the word did appear once inside the piece. <S> "Fail" (as an ordinary noun) is coming into our campsite, ladies & gents. <S> Hey, compared to "refudiate," it's a gem! <A> Some hypotheses are listed and briefly analyzed in this Slate article. <A> Fail has been used as a noun with a quite different meaning by Rev John Davidson,DD in his book 'Old Aberdeenshire Ministers and <S> their people' 1895.He describes a parish school built in a day with dry-stone walls topped with FAIL or divot and a roof of open rafters covered by thatch.
| The Anglo-French form of the verb, failer , came to be used as a noun, hence failure .
|
Could you help me to do a syntax analysis of this sentence? The more I use Froyo the more new stuff I discover. Does it mean: I more use Froyo, I discover more new stuff. <Q> This is a parallel comparative. <S> It shows up in a lot of languages: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. <S> [French: The more things change, the more they stay the same.] <S> Je größer desto besser <S> [German: <S> The bigger the better.] <S> If you were to express this mathematically, it would be something like: a + n <S> ~= b <S> + <S> n <S> where a , b , and n are positive numbers. <S> It's a common way of expressing how two things are related from an experiential perspective. <S> In your example, the sentence expresses that using Froyo (currently, the latest Android operating system for smart phones) is a very rich experience, and the speaker learns something new practically upon every encounter with it. <S> It is here used to express approval of the new OS. <S> More positive examples: <S> The more I get to know you, the more I like you. <S> [The speaker's relationship with "you" is growing in a positive direction.] <S> The more I see Fellini films, the more I understand how film can be used expressively. <S> [The speaker has learned a lot about movie-making from watching Fellini.] <S> It doesn't have to be an approving comment, however. <S> Here are some negative examples: <S> The more I eat liver, the more I like steak. <S> [In other words, the speaker really doesn't like liver.] <S> The more I go to class, the more bored I get. <S> [The speaker really doesn't like going to class.] <A> No, it means the amount of 'new stuff' you discover increases the more 'Froyo' is used. <S> I more use Froyo, I discover more new stuff. <S> Makes no sense I'm afraid. <A> This is sort of a logical rephrasing, without any subjective emphasis in it. <S> The original puts more emphasis on how useful doing the first action is. <S> Mathematically, this is expressed that the second thing is proportional to the first, or that the second linearly (as opposed to, say, logarithmically) increases with the first: b ~ a <S> * x. <S> So if x is 2, meaning that I double my efforts in doing a, then b will also double. <S> If I use Froyo twice as much as I do it now, I will learn twice as many new things. <S> It also emphasizes that the experience continues to be fruitful to me. <S> The benefits won't decrease in time, which is to say that I won't reach a point where using Froyo as much, I will not learn anymore, because I've learnt everything. <S> I always learn more and more, in direct correspondence to how much I use it. <S> Of course, this might not be true in real life, but phrasing it this way, I point out how very useful using Froyo is to me.
| The sentence can be rephrased to: If I use Froyo more, then I discover more new stuff.
|
What does "I’ve had a little bit too much" mean? I don't understand this sentence: I’ve had a little bit too much. What does it mean? PS. My native language is Ukrainian (Russian) <Q> Little bit suggests to me the image of exceeding your limits. <A> As Jeanne Pindar and Jasper Loy say, the intended meaning is "I've had a little bit too much to drink." <S> But the phrase isn't usually heard until the speaker has had a great deal too much to drink, and so has a euphemistic quality about it. <A> It usually means the person drank slightly too much alcohol, that is, they are slightly drunk. <S> A similar phrase is "I've had a few too many." <A> (a) I've had too much to drink ----- <S> > <S> I have drunk too much (b) <S> I've had a lot too much to drink <S> ----- <S> > <S> A frank admission that too much has been consumed. <S> (c) <S> I've had much too much to drink ----- <S> > <S> Exactly the same as (b) except that it is harder to pronounce when you are drunk and so makes the effect even worse. <S> (d) <S> I've had far too much to drink ----- <S> > <S> The same as (b) or perhaps even worse. <S> (e) <S> I've had a little [bit] too much to drink <S> - hic! <S> ----- <S> > <S> I have exceed the proper quota by a smidgeon. <S> However this phrase is usually ironic and really means the same as (d)
| It usually means you have had too much of an alcoholic drink, though it can be used to refer to too much of other things as well.
|
Can one be uninnovative? Can one be uninnovative , or un-innovative ? I'm looking for a direct antonym of the adjective innovative . I see an entry at Dictionary.com , but nothing at Merriam Webster ( innovative , * uninnovative ). <Q> I'm going to go against the grain and suggest that if 7-Up can create the Un-cola , you can pretty much attach the un- prefix to whatever you like, so long as you recognize that you may be stretching the boundaries a little. <S> But, hey, boundaries are meant to be stretched, right? <S> This doesn't seem to me like an egregious violation of any particular rule. <S> And if I were to see uninnovative applied in a sentence, I would instantly understand what the writer meant and my reading flow would be uninterrupted. <S> Short answer: If uninnovative isn't a dictionary word (yet), I hereby nominate it as a useful innovation. <A> Neither the OED nor Wiktionary have anything listed on uninnovative either, nor does the COCA have any entries listed. <S> The BNC has one entry listed for 1991. <S> Based on that evidence, I would conclude that uninnovative is not a word. <S> I would suggest unimaginative as an alternative. <A> No. <S> Depending on the context, any of the following could work: <S> conventional uninspired unoriginal stale <S> tired trite <A> How about conservative or reactionary (depending on how pejorative you want to be)? <A> Bureaucratic if its an organization. <S> Inflexible <S> if a person.
| Indeed, * un[-]innovative does not exist, at least in formal usage.
|
Should an adverb go before or after a verb? For example: The word rarely turns up outside of those contexts. The word turns up rarely outside of those contexts. Which one is correct and why? <Q> Positioning adverbs is a complex affair. <S> There are some rules of thumb , but for many adverbs, it is quite acceptable to place it before or after the verb. <S> In this case, I think either way is acceptable, though I would probably find the former more natural, i.e. <S> The word rarely turns up outside of those contexts. <S> but the following is also acceptable, if a bit less natural: <S> The word turns up rarely outside of those contexts. <S> Two side notes: a) <S> you want <S> those (the plural of that ), since contexts is plural, b) of is required in both cases here, as it belongs with the word outside . <A> Both correct, I don't think it's supposed to be limited here. <S> Maybe the creative usage "turns rarely up" would also be used in some cases. <A> Other examples of frequency adverbs are seldom, occasionally, often, sometimes . <A> In the first version, the word "rarely" seems to be the subject, rather than "The word," so the meaning is ambiguous. <S> As in: The word "rarely" turns up outside of those contexts. <A> "Turns up rarely" appears to describe the way it turns up rather than how often. <S> "Rarely turns up" shows how often.
| Frequency adverbs such as rarely go before the verb or divide the verb phrase, as in "I have seldom seen such outrageous behavior."
|
Different pronunciation between Thomas and Theodore Disclaimer: I'm no native speaker. Thomas gets pronounced with a starting "T" (the "h" is silent), while Theodore with a "Th". What rule is followed here? <Q> There is no rule at all. <S> As Robusto mentioned, there isn't really any rule for pronouncing th, and even if there were <S> it's common for names not to follow rules. <S> Thomas comes from the Aramaic t’om’a , while Theodore comes from the Greek Θεόδωρος (Theodōros) , which is probably the reason for the difference in pronunciation. <S> Eventhough <S> the th in Thomas comes from the later Greek spelling, it's likely that the pronunciation remained from the original form. <S> Thomas Theodore <A> Especially for proper names. <S> Even then it won't help if you work with two women named Thalia, one of whom insists on her name being pronounced Talia and the other <S> wants the lithpier version. <S> Oh, and by the way ... Theodore's nickname is Ted! <S> And you thought English pronunciations ought to make sense. <S> That's just ... adorable! :) <S> P.S. <S> I'm not poking fun at you, but at our silly, unreasonable language. <A> From the great poem on English pronunciation <S> The Chaos : <S> The th will surely trouble you More than r, ch or w. <S> Say then <S> these phonetic gems: Thomas, thyme, Theresa, Thames. <S> Thompson, Chatham, Waltham, Streatham, There are more <S> but I forget 'em- <S> Wait! <S> I've got it: Anthony, Lighten your anxiety. <S> It was actually written by a Dutch teacher of English. <A> I once had an English trainer who taught us that proper nouns that start with <S> Th should be pronounced with a silent h . <S> Like Thomas = <S> Tomas or Thailand = <S> Tai-land . <S> I don't know if it's really how it should be. <S> I kind of adapted it <S> but it doesn't really apply to all such words. <A> In Australia and the US over the last 30 years, the written language seems to have trumped traditional UK pronunciation. <S> Standard Aus. <S> and US, in my experience, is 'th' fricative, like the 'th' in 'that'. <S> Older UK speakers, on the other hand, seem to be sticking with a clear 'T' plosive pronunciation. <S> Note that shorter version used sometimes to be written 'Thom' but always, to my knowledge, pronounced 'Tom', with a clear plosive 'T'.
| Unfortunately, the rule is pretty much that you have to know how it it is pronounced for every single word in the English language that begins with th- .
|
Are these kinds of sentences considered proper English? Often, I come across expressions like 'I can't have no money', 'I don't want no help', 'Do you want them tomatoes', 'Be careful with them toes' when watching cartoons, movies and shows. Does anybody consider these to be proper English? <Q> They're definitely improper, but they're often considered acceptable in very informal situations. <A> These particular examples are often used by Cockneys (people from east London), where double negatives are common, often for comical effect (in the form of irony or sarcasm) or to emphasise. <S> I can't have no money <S> , I don't want no help <S> More frequently "I ain't got no money". <S> Negating the fact reinforces the speaker's lack of money / complete refusal of help. <S> In a sarcastic vein, a Cockney would say: D'ya see Andy's new bird? <S> No slim chick! <S> Andrew has a new girlfriend. <S> She's very fat. <S> Do you want them tomatoes? <S> Be careful with them toes <S> I don't know the origin of these deliberate errors (them instead of those), but I suspect that they are a way to identify oneself as a member of the community. <S> Another common deliberate mistake is to decline the verb "be" as if it were regular: <S> We was waiting for the bloke, an' 'e never came! <A> "I can't have no money" - This is an example of negative concord which is common in African American Vernacular English. <S> Its meaning is not emphatic, the extra negative words actually agree with the first negative (n't in this case) just like "any" in a standard English sentence: "I can't have any money" <S> I don't know about "Do you want them tomatoes" specifically <S> but it seems like "them" is replacing "those" which isn't too crazy. <S> The important part is that there's no such thing as speaking "incorrectly" if you're a native speaker. <S> Native fluency is the definition of your language, anything a native speaker says intentionally (not mistakes) is acceptable. <A> The first two aren't grammatically wrong, they just don't say what people typically mean when they say them. <A> They aren't proper English, no. <S> If you think about: I don't have no money. <S> it actually means 'I have money'; it's an example of a double negative, and as such means the exact opposite of what the speaker wanted to convey.
| None are correct English, but they are typical in the vernacular.
|
Which one is more appropriate to use: "send you" or "send to you"? Are both of the following sentences correct? Let me know if there is still something I need to send to you . Let me know if there is still something I need to send you . Which one is more appropriate to use? <Q> Both are semantically correct as they are. <S> But compare I'll send it to you. <S> and I'll send it you. <S> The second sentence wouldn't make sense in formal writing, but is found to be understandable in northern England spoken usage. <S> There is also the case of I'll send you this thing <S> Which flow much better without the to . <S> In this light it might be more prudent to use send to you , as it is more formal, but send you in your context would also be accepted. <S> EDIT : I precised my conclusion and added one example following precisions made in the comments. <A> In addition to what others have said, You can simply find out the difference comparing two sentences:send somebody something <S> We sent Mom flowers for Mother's Day. <S> send something to somebody/something <S> I'll send a copy to you. <A> Send you is fine: You is an indirect object. <A> The first sentence is more correct at any time, I will send it to you, send followed by the object to who? <S> I will send the dog to school, I will send him to you. <S> But saying I will send you, sounds I will send you to school, I will send you out. <S> So saying "I will send you books", "you books" (also your books) sounds like a possessive noun phrase and as a whole becomes direct object to the verb "send". <S> according to the aforementioned rule, let us give it a destination (you) and medium of sending (via email), constructively the statement will be I will send you books via email to you. <S> It does not sound good, with following the rule it will be I will books via email to you.
| The verb send must give room to destination, medium of sending and object to be send, and if destination should be specified, it comes at end of the statement.
|
"At" or "in" the office? When do you use at the office ? And when do you use in the office ? What's the difference between the phrases? <Q> "Where's Bob?", said Jim. <S> "At the office.", replied John It can also refer to an object being at said place of work: <S> "Where's your briefcase?", said Jim. <S> "I left it at the office.", said John. <S> ' <S> In the office' refers to someone or something physically being in a specific office, e.g. "Where's Bob?", said Jim. <S> " <S> In his office.", said John. <S> This would usually be used when the office in question was in close proximity to the speakers, for example if Jim and John were in another office in the same building as Bob. <S> "Where's the telephone?", said Jim. <S> "It's in the office", said John. <S> However, in and at are often interchangeable. <S> Take the briefcase example. <S> John could have said: "I left it in my office." <S> To summarise, 'at' is a more general, vague term, whereas 'in' usually refers to a specific location. <A> John is at home. <S> John is at work. <S> John is at the shops. <S> John is at the office (meaning his office building). <S> I think "in" is more often used with specific rooms. <S> John is in the kitchen. <S> John is in the meeting room. <S> John is in his office. <S> This theory falls apart somewhat when I consider John is in France. <A> You're "in" the office if you mean to emphasise your physical location, inside a room where one works. <S> You're "at" the office if you are at a place of work, but not emphasising a specific room. <S> So, "I need to have a printer in the office", but "I'm at the office, but I'll come home to see you soon." <A> A close call. <S> In my opinion, 'at' is used when one is correcting an implied absence I shall be at the office tomorrow implies the existence of doubt that I would have been there. <S> Either I had previously said I would be away, or something led you to believe so <S> and I am contradicting that belief. <S> I shall be in the office tomorrow <S> confirms my presence, as was anticipated (probably by both of us).
| 'At the office' refers generally to the state of someone who works in an office of some kind being at work, e.g. I suspect "at" is more often used with buildings or non-specific locations
|
To add someone "to" Facebook or "on" Facebook Which one is correct and why: It was the first time a girl asked me to add her on Facebook Or It was the first time a girl asked me to add her to Facebook <Q> Adding someone on Facebook is generally accepted as a shorter way of saying "While on Facebook, I added someone to my friends list. <S> The statement is meant to express what site you were on (visiting) when you added the new friend to your friend's list. <S> Furthermore, when you "add someone on" a site, it's understood that you are adding the person "to your friend's list", which is why that part of the statement is not said explicitly. <S> Adding someone to Facebook implies you are creating a new account for her on the site. <A> The first sentence <S> She asked you to add her as a friend on <S> the Facebook website: <S> It was the first time a girl asked me to add her [as a friend] on [the] Facebook [website]. <S> The second sentence <S> It was the first time a girl asked me to add her to Facebook is not absolutely wrong. <S> If you happened to be the sole administrator of the Facebook website and had the authority to add and remove people, then the sentence would be correct: <S> It was the first time a girl asked me to add her to [the] Facebook [website]. <S> In reality, however, this is not the case. <S> You are both already on Facebook, you and the girl. <S> That's the preposition that Facebook usually takes (also off in some cases). <S> Thus, whether someone is sending a message, friending you/adding you as a friend, writing on your wall, etc. <S> , it's all on Facebook. <S> Examples: <S> I am being cyber-bullied on Facebook. <S> I practically live on Facebook. <S> I'm on Facebook every single day. <S> Can you believe she sent a message on Facebook?! <S> Can't you just get off Facebook for once? <S> I need to get that creep off my Facebook [wall]! <S> How many friends do you have on Facebook? <S> Add me on Facebook now! <A> If you mean Facebook from facebook.com , you'll add someone on Facebook, since it is a website (or social network site). <A> I prefer on , but think either one would work. <S> What we're really saying is, It was the first time a girl asked me to add her to my friends list on Facebook. <S> To and on are both part of the idea and we have two different approaches to making the friends list implicit. <A> The idiomatic sentence would be neither of the options, but rather "It was the first time a girl asked me to friend her on Facebook". <S> I believe that the verbing of friend is still restricted to contexts where Facebook is in the forefront.
| It was the first time a girl asked me to add her on Facebook is correct.
|
Why is the "ph" pronounced like a "v" in "Stephen"? Is this the only word like that? While I know how my name is pronounced, I've run into many non-native english speakers who have stumbled over this unique exception to English. Even in the female name, "Stephanie", the ph is pronounced as f . What is the etymology of "Stephen" and is there any other instance of ph being pronounced as v in either American or British English? <Q> The source of Stephen is the Greek name Stephanos. <S> This is a regular sound change that was also responsible for some other f~v alternations in English, such as loaf~loaves . <S> However, in the name Stephen <S> the spelling "ph" remained (or has been restored) due to the influence of the Greek original. <S> In other words, Stephen and Steven are exactly the same name, but the former merely has an anachronistic spelling. <A> I always found interesting that both "phial" and "vial" exist in English, having a common origin but different pronunciations. <S> OED lists "vial" as an alteration of "phial"; the "ph" is originally Greek. <S> Does this count? <A> Is there any other instance of "ph" being pronounced as "v" in either American or British English? <S> In British English, nephew can be pronounced nev -yoo . <A> The ph is unusual in its v pronunciation. <S> The only possibility I can think of is that it arrived in English via Spanish, where it is spelt 'Esteban'. <S> The Spanish pronunciation of 'b' is somewhere between English 'V' and 'B'. <S> In Hungarian it is spelt 'Istvan', so there's another possible source. <A> Born in London, I have always pronounced nephew with a 'v' sound. <S> Locals in Essex (England) also pronounce the village name of Bulphan as 'Bulvan' rather than 'Bulfan', even though the second syllable is derived from the word fen. <A> "STEVEN" is the canon pronunciation because Old English make-shift gender phonetics are applied to the E-PH. <S> However in common rumor, a user of the name may be required to know the two pronunciations presented by text key models in probable instances rendering it differently pronounced than that of the "V" spelling. <S> http://babynames.net/names/stephen
| This name was borrowed into English long enough ago that the intervocalic [f] sound was voiced to become [v]. Stephen is of Greek origin (Stephanos).
|
What does the word "shipping" mean? What does word "shipping" mean?I've seen this word in many Internet shops. <Q> There's two possible meaning in the context of an internet "shop": <S> "Completion" -- if you're developing software, then completing a version of the software and releasing it to customers is often referred to as "shipping". <S> This is a reference to sense #1, going back to the day when a new software version had to be physically delivered to customers on disks. <A> The usual use of the word shipping on internet stores is for anything to do with packaging, dispatch and transport to your location. <S> Wikipedia has an article on it. <S> If it appears as a cost, on an invoice or bill, then it is the cost to package and deliver the goods. <S> If it is the name of a section, or used generally, then it can refer to any aspect of the process of getting the goods to the consumer. <S> The word obviously derives from the process of using a ship to transport goods, the present participle of the verb ship, in its meaning "to convey goods by water borne transport (a ship)". <A> name -shipping means to put name in a relationship with a different character. <S> (This is used for relationships that do not exist in the original work)
| "Delivery" -- shipping is the cost that you have to pay in order to have the item sent to you via the postal service. In fan-fiction, shipping is also used as a verb form of the word "relationship".
|
What does "pass it on" mean? I love the song Pass It On by The Coral , but I can't understand the meaning of this sentence: Just find the feeling, pass it on. What does pass it on mean? <Q> I don't know the song, but pass it on normally means to share something with another or others, whether keeping it for oneself also or not, especially something received from a third party. <S> Thus, for example, if someone smiles at you or greets you, you could be said to be passing it on if you smile at or greet someone else. <S> If someone gives you a platter of chicken, you can take one piece for your plate and pass the platter on to the next person. <A> I think in spanish you would say pásala . <S> It means to give something you have received (usually something you have appreciated) to someone else. <S> It's also used as a phrase in the game Chinese Whispers to mean relay what I said to the next person . <S> Have you had a kindness shown? <S> Pass it on; ’ <S> Twas not given for thee alone, Pass it on; <S> Let it travel down the years <S> , Let it wipe another's tears, ’ <S> Til in Heaven the deed appears — Pass it on. <S> ~ Henry Burton, Pass It On <A> We are all put on this earth to help one another. <S> It does not always mean giving money or property,a simple smile while opening the door for someone else while wishing them a good morning is the same
| The term "pass it on" means to share the blessings that you have been given to another person.
|
What are the differences between "shop," "shoppe," and "store"? What are the differences between shop , shoppe , and store ? <Q> While I like @Jigar Joshi's answer, I'll provide some American Connotation, if I can. <S> (Caveat, not a professional culturist) <S> Shop <S> I would say that a shop is somewhere you go to have a service preformed, or only provides a single or narrowly focused good. <S> Usually contains a workshop of some kind where the goods are made on-site for the customer. <S> Body Shop refers to an auto repair facility (autobody shop) <S> Wood Shop refers to a place where you can go to get custom woodworking done <S> Coffee Shop <S> a place you can go to get hand-made drinks <S> Butcher's Shop a place to get custom cuts of meat <S> Store <S> I would say that a store is the more common American term for a place you go to buy something. <S> They usually have many different sections and offer a wider variety of goods than a shop . <S> The goods you purchase are usually made off-site and only stored on location. <S> Department Store buy furnishings and clothes for each room of the house Grocery Store <S> buy food and many other consumables Online Store <S> buy anything! :D <S> Shoppe <S> Generally a fancier term, as @Jigar Joshi mentioned, to give an air of authenticity and aristocracy. <S> Coffee Shoppe <S> here you can buy even more expensive fancy coffee. <S> But where ever you go, you'll end up shopping regardless of the store . <A> I'm presuming you're referring to these words used as nouns to mean a mercantile business of some sort. <S> Historically, stores were businesses which kept inventory to be sold and shops <S> where businesses where items were manufactured or repaired. <S> Nowadays, shop and store are generally synonymous, but each has slightly more typical uses depending on what is being sold. <S> In my part of the world <S> (Canada) <S> you would generally refer to most commercial places of business as a store (grocery, convenience, clothes, book, furniture) while shops are reserved for repair, flowers, or gifts ( gift shop is quite idiomatic.) <S> Thus, you would typically hear bicycle shop, rather than store, because repairs are done there. <S> It would not sound that strange to hear shop when referring to clothes, book or furniture stores, however. <S> Shoppe is an archaic spelling of shop and is used only in proper names of places wanting to sound quaint and old-fashioned. <S> The Pop Shoppe and The Medicine Shoppe are a couple canadian examples. <A> In England and Australia a shop is what North Americans refer to as a store. <S> As pointed out above, some retailers may brand their shop as a Megastore because the term store has become trendy in advertising but it is nevertheless still a shop. <S> Store only applies to a 'department store' (a shop with several departments) or a 'general store' in a village or small community which sells a variety of essentials. <S> Another international curiosity: <S> I notice in the spread of English in German websites, they have online shops rather than stores. <A> In American English: Store - A place to purchase things. <S> Shop - I think primarily is used as a short form of 'workshop' . <S> I don't hear it being used very often as a synonym of 'store', although it is a valid usage. <S> Shoppe - Used on stores to make them sound medieval.
| A shop is a place for conducting retail business.
|
Correct way to express "'worthy of falling in love for" Please evaluate this sentence for its correctness. I'm concerned about the use of of in front of falling . However, you're utterly off in your assessment about failing in love for someone else. I haven't found anyone worthy of falling for , and I will not compromise my feelings to just try. <Q> You can "fall for someone", but the parallel phrase is not "fall in love for someone", it is "fall in love with someone". <S> The text "you're utterly off in your assessment about falling in love for someone else" is incorrect in context since you fall in love "with" someone else. <A> Other than the couple quibbles I had with the preamble, noted in my comment, I believe the phrase found anyone worthy of falling for sounds fine in the context presented. <S> You wrote about falling in love in your first sentence, so the phrase seems unambiguous and understandable to me. <A> How about <S> I haven't found anyone worth falling for , and I will not compromise my feelings to just try. <S> or I haven't found anyone worthy of my affection , and I will not compromise my feelings to just try.
| The text "haven't found anyone worthy of falling for" is awkward, but acceptable English.
|
Was the N-word an offensive word in Mark Twain's day? Was the word "nigger" a deliberately derogatory and offensive word in Mark Twain's time, or was it just a normal word to describe an ethnicity in those days? Background : I'm curious as to whether Twain could have anticipated the use of the word being so controversial nowadays (though discussing the Bowderlization of Huckleberry Finn is off-topic for this web site). <Q> The Daily Show recently did a bit on this issue, and the interchange between John Stewart and Larry Wilmore explains the tension around the "N word" and the US tendency to indulge in revisionist history. <S> Here is a partial transcript: ... <S> JON STEWART: <S> Well, the editors of this new version are trying to make the book more accessible, they say, so that it can be taught without making students in the classroom, who may be uncomfortable, repeat the word nrnrnnrnrnrnr…. <S> WILMORE: I’m sorry? <S> STEWART: <S> Just so that the children don’t have to say, in the class, say nnrnrnrnernnnrr…. <S> WILMORE: <S> I’m sorry <S> , what word were you… STEWART: Nnnnnuuuuuuu…. <S> WILMORE: <S> Say it, Jon! <S> STEWART: <S> Nnnnniiiuuuuuuu…. <S> It’s uncomfortable! <S> WILMORE: <S> And it should be! <S> Look, Mark Twain put that word in for a reason. <S> The n-word speaks to a society that casually dehumanized black people; “slave” is just a job description. <S> And, it’s not even accurate! <S> In the book, Jim is no longer a slave. <S> He ran away! <S> Twain’s point is he can’t run away from being a nigger. <S> ... <S> Many people in the US feel extremely uncomfortable with the "N word" because of its checkered history and negative connotations, though the word was much more commonplace at the time that the story was written. <S> The common term for African American ethnicity was derogatory and dehumanizing, so Twain went with the common term as a sign of the times. <S> Another item of note is that the term "Injun Joe" was changed to "Indian Joe", and that appears to have garnered considerably less attention, despite being a similar switch. <A> Etymology Online has this quote : From the earliest usage <S> it was "the term that carries with it all the obloquy and contempt and rejection which whites have inflicted on blacks" [cited in Gowers, 1965] and then goes on to state that <S> I will refrain from speculating what Mark Twain was indending when he used the word, as I'm no expert on things Twain. <S> ;-) <A> Based on several articles I read in the aftermath of the "n-word translating to slave" issue, it seems that it was indeed a derogatory epithet chosen deliberately by Twain for the way it reveals southern prejudice, but it was apparently a common, uncontroversial word in everyday speech. <S> See <S> Prof. Thomas Glave's reaction While Twain would undoubtedly reject efforts to whitewash his works of controversial words, he would undoubtedly be proud of a society that has progressed enough in racial tolerance to have become uncomfortable with a word with such negative history. <A> As I think you suspect, the offensiveness of "the N word" has indeed increased . <S> It may always have been that offensive to black folk. <S> The difference is that back in Twain's day, white folk didn't really care how they felt about it. <S> Today they (for the most part) do. <S> I'm actually old enough to have personally seen a certain amount of this transition. <S> Until about the mid 70's, white folk had very little problem saying the "N-word". <S> It was considered derogatory, but only in the way similar words like "Jew" are. <S> I went to an integrated school, and used to hear it regularly when someone got upset with a black schoolmate. <S> In the mid-70's things started to change. <S> I think I heard the word from the lips of a white person exactly once (and in a whisper) between 1977 and 1980, and never since then. <S> This process can be seen in popular culture. <S> Mel Brooks made a hilarious movie satirizing race relations in 1974 called Blazing Saddles . <S> As such, naturally the evil or ignorant white folk in the movie casually used the "N-word" throughout directly at the black protagonist. <S> Today it is very difficult to find a copy of that movie that doesn't alter the dialog, and watching such a copy is very uncomfortable. <S> Three years later another comedy named Kentucky Fried Movie was released. <S> This was right when the transition was happening, and a skit in there captures it perfectly. <S> It was meant to satirize the change in the acceptability of the word by showing a white person commiting suicide by merely walking into a rough neighborhood and shouting the word . <S> When watched today, it doesn't seem funny at all, and one's first reaction is that the jerk deserves whatever he gets. <S> But clearly things with that word were different (and in transition) when it was written, because somebody thought it funny. <S> The joke is just "dated" to a time when everybody remembers the word being more acceptable.
| But as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in English-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without deliberate insult
|
Why is the pronunciation of 'colonel' different than its spelling? Why does the word colonel (as in military rank) have such a strange spelling compared to how it's pronounced (or vice versa, although I don't know how you would pronounce that)? <Q> It comes from Italian military manuals, and the English spelling preserves the Italian form, colonnello . <S> Two pronunciations coexisted; the r prevailed in English. <S> Spanish took both the spelling and pronunciation: coronel . <S> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=colonel <A> As reported from the NOAD: <S> ORIGIN middle 16th Century: from obsolete French coronel (earlier form of colonel ), from Italian colonnello (column of soldiers) from colonna (column) from Latin columna . <S> The form coronel , source of the modern pronunciation, was usual until the middle 17th Century. <S> The word is pronounced in a strange way because it kept the old pronunciation, while the word changed spelling. <A> Colonel is written with <S> l <S> but pronounced the same as kernal (BE: <S> /ˈkɜː.nəl/ <S> , AE: /ˈkɝː.nəl/). <S> How did this happen: From borrowing the same word from two different places; <S> Italian colonnello and French coronnel . <S> In the 1500s, English borrowed a bunch of military vocabulary from French, words like cavalerie, infanterie, citadelle, canon , and also coronel . <S> French had borrowed coronel from Italian: <S> Coronel: From Middle French coronel, from Italian colonnello (“the officer of a small company of soldiers (column) that marched at the head of a regiment”), from compagnia colonnella (“little column company”), from Latin columna (“pillar”), from columen, contraction culmen (“a pillar, top, crown, summit”), o-grade form from Proto-Indo-European *kʷel- (“going around”). <S> [Wikitionary] <S> Why did colonnello change to coronel in French: <S> It's because of a phenomenon called Dissimilation . <S> Dissimilation is a phenomenon whereby similar consonants or vowels in a word become less similar. <S> It's particularly common in words that have liquid consonants <S> (/r/ and /l/). <S> Dissimilation of /l.. <S> l/ <S> to /r <S> .. <S> l/: <S> An example where a relatively old case of phonetic dissimilation has been artificially undone in the spelling is English colonel, whose standard pronunciation is /ˈkɝnəl/ (with the r sound) in North-American English, or /ˈkɜːnəl/ in RP. <S> It was formerly spelt coronel and is a borrowing from French coronnel , which arose as a result of dissimilation from Italian colonnello . <S> Dissimilation of /r.. <S> r/ to /l.. <S> r/: <S> The opposite process of the above happened with the Latin word <S> peregrinus (pilgrim), <S> when the first r was changed to an l . <S> Now it’s peregrino in Spanish and Pellegrino in Italian. <S> English inherited the l version in pilgrim .) <S> How the spelling 'colonel' prevailed: After the dissimilated French coronel made its way into English, scholars of late 16th century started producing English translations of Italian Military treatises. <S> The spelling colonel had been standardised by the middle of the 17th century but the pronunciation with r was still popular and it prevailed eventually. <S> (French switched back to ' colonel ', I don't know why. <S> Probably because of dissimilation.) <S> The 'o' in the second syllable was once pronounced but later on, the second syllable got syncopated . <S> That's how we got the idiosyncratic spelling and pronunciation.
| Under the influence of the originals, people started spelling it colonel to conform with the Italian form .
|
Does it sound weird to say " I hope I can be of any use (help) to you" in a cover letter? Which one is better? Are they acceptable or do they sound weird in English? <Q> No. <S> Any in the phrase of any use to you is a negative polarity item ( NPI ), and therefore it must occur within the scope of a negative trigger. <S> There is no negation in the sentence, so it's ungrammatical. <S> Both predicate nouns would be grammatical, however, in a sentence with a negative trigger, like <S> I didn't think I could be (of) any use to you. <S> I didn't think I could be (of) <S> any help to you. <S> and in both cases the (of) could be dropped, as well. <A> Your sentence is fine, although it telegraphs too much begging. <S> Employers do NOT like beggars, nor desperation. <S> Take charge, and make a confident statement, stating that "I am confident that I am the best fit for the job" or "Please let me know if this opening is available because it's the best fit for my career" <A> First, it's "cover letter," not "covering letter." <S> Second, in American English (can't comment on British English in this case), we would never say "I hope I can be of any use to you" or "I hope I can be of any help to you." <S> Third, Anderson's advice regarding what you might want to write in your cover letter is good advice. <S> You'll need to come up with a lot more than just the couple sentences he recommended, though. <S> Fourth, there are professionals who help people create cover letters and résumés. <S> You might want to invest in that. <S> It could make the difference between getting that better job or keeping the lame one (or staying unemployed).
| It doesn't matter whether you say help or use ; both sentences are ungrammatical, because of any .
|
Is using "have" better than using "got" in the following sentence? Take a gander at the following two versions of the same sentence: "I got an mp4 video file" vs. "I have an mp4 video file" Someone 'corrected' me by changing the first form to the second form. Is there a difference, other than the fact that the former can also be used in past tense? Maybe it's too informal? <Q> I possess/hold/etc. <S> the file. <S> "Got" can be two things: <S> I've got the file: has the same meaning as "I have the file", but is somewhat informal; if you leave out "have/'ve", it is very informal (in this case, "got" is the past participle of "get"). <S> I received the file (in this case, it is the simple past of "I get"). <S> My guess is that your corrector either found "got" confusing, or took it as "have" but considered that too informal. <A> Both are correct grammatically, but mean entirely different things. <S> "I got X" means "sometime in the past, I came into the possession of X". <S> "I have X" means "I currently posses X". Consider an extended version of the same: "I got an MP4 video file for Christmas". <S> Some might argue that there are better ways to express the idea, but there's nothing terribly wrong with this one. <A> Perhaps not as useful an answer, but I still recall my English teacher told my class in no uncertain terms that there's always a better word than "got". <A> You can not use got on its own as a present tense meaning 'have' or 'has' in standard English. <S> Say that someone has something or has got something: <S> We've got (NOT We got) some ideas.
| "Have" is correct and can be only one thing:
|
How come 'ou' was reduced to 'o' in the US? Americans write color and favorite , when others say colour and favourite . How/why did this happen? <Q> The pronunciation is the same, so you can't really say that some "say" this while others "say" that. <S> It's strictly a spelling difference. <S> These are among the reforms introduced by Noah Webster in his dictionary, with a view towards (a) simplifying the spelling, and (b) creating a distinct American English. <S> (The root forms of many of these words indeed lack the u - for example, Latin color , Italian favorito - so that may have been another motivation of his as well.) <S> So these forms prevailed in the United States, while in the rest of the English-speaking world they kept the original spellings. <A> Not sure how to post a comment, but this is an interesting use of Google's Ngram Viewer. <S> We can see that between <S> 1840 and 1850 color overtook colour (using their American English dataset ). <A> (my accents on the stress): <S> cólour, flávour, hónour, néighbour, rúmour, lábour, húmour <S> but not when it is stressed contóur, velóur, paramóur, troubadóur <S> This is very well explained (surprise) in Wikipedia <A> I have heard an alternate explanation - Newspaper reporters would telegraph their stories to the main office for inclusion in the paper. <S> Saving space and reducing the cost of the transmission was important so editors issued a decree to drop 'useless letters' from spelling. <S> I have some problems with this - for one <S> I've had a hard time verifying it, for another - I thought telegraph operations were charged by the word - not the letter. <S> From some experience (now 30 years ago - who sends telegraphs now ??) <S> there was a 10 character limit on a word - over 10 characters you got charged for 2 words. <S> Was this the case in the mid 1800's - who knows. <S> I would image the actual answer <S> is some compound of all of the formal attempts to simplify, common usage and general evolution. <A> Looking at the graph posted by William , considering that the US-Mexican war started about 1845 and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848 (with occupation by US of some Mexican lands, with Mexicans included), and given that "color" and "favorito" are the Spanish spelling for color and favorite, I would say that Spanish had an influence in the current American spelling of those words.
| Since newspapers were the most distributed mass written product to all levels of American society the spellings they used became the standard. The reduction of 'our' to 'or' happens when the ending is unstressed
|
What does ‘Break out the corsages’ mean? Further to my question I posted yesterday about the meaning of ‘Good hair’ of Sanate dignitaries who show up at the State of the Union occasion, I came across another strange phrase, “Break out the corsages” in the following Washington Post article (January 23) . I checked this phrase with a couple of dictionaries at hand in vain. What does it mean? Who’s your date? Pairing off for the State of the Union: Lawmakers on the Hill haven’t quite broken out the corsages — yet — but the high school level drama is on as senators and representatives scramble to find suitable across-the-aisle seating partners for Tuesday’s State of the Union address. <Q> From Wikipedia : <S> Corsage refers to a bouquet of flowers worn on a woman's dress or worn around her wrist. <S> The use of this expression is because of the topic of legislators having to pick partners, which can draw a humorous comparison to a prom. <S> The State of the Union address had traditionally been a time of strong partisanship. <S> The idea to pick partners from "across the aisle" is an attempt to show the supposed bipartisanship of the current legislature. <S> An article explaining the details of this plan is available here . <S> Quoting from the article: <S> In a letter to his fellow lawmakers, Udall said the partisan seating arrangement has become a negative symbol of the divisions in Congress - and among the American people - with one side of the chamber cheering and applauding loudly throughout the President's speech, while the other often sits silent. <S> He urged them to bridge the partisan divide by sitting together as a symbolic gesture signifying unity and better reflecting the communities they represent. <S> The term "break out" is often used colloquially for "getting out" or "taking out" something. <S> For example, "Let's break out the champagne" could be used to express the appropriateness of celebrating some event (although this particular term is often used sarcastically). <S> A search on Google reveals some interesting use of this syntax. <S> YourDictionary.com has a definition as well: 1. <S> Develop suddenly and forcefully. <S> For example, A fire broke out last night, or He broke out in a sweat. <S> [a.d. 1000] 2. <S> Be affected with a skin eruption, such as a rash or boils, as in A teenager's face often breaks out in pimples. <S> [c. 1300] 3. <S> Prepare something for consumption, action, or use, as in <S> Let's break out the champagne, or It's such a fine day— <S> let's break out the fishing rods. <S> [Early 1800s] 4. <S> break out of. <S> Force out by breaking; also, escape from confinement. <S> For example, The hurricane broke the glass out of all the windows, or He broke out of prison but was soon apprehended. <S> [Early 1600s] 5. <S> Isolate a portion of a body of data, as in Please break out the sales figures from the quarterly report. <S> [Mid-1900s] <A> "Break out" in this context refers to getting out of storage something long kept, as in 'Break out the champagne, I'm getting married!". <S> So if a prom (or other dance) was announced, the girls might break out their best dresses and corsages. <S> The Washington Post thinks this is a suitably humorous comparison for the Senate. <A> Since a corsage is an article of extremely formal women's clothing, I suppose that combines the idea of forward-looking preparation (they're making plans, but not yet getting dressed for the occasion since it's still some time in the future), combined with an insult to the masculinity of the predominantly-male congress. <S> The latter aspect could have been avoided by using a word such as "tuxedo" instead.
| A corsage is an item typically worn at a prom or similar event.
|
"Give me one half of that" Vs. "give me half of that" I can't remember when and where I had this discussion, but I remember being corrected when I was speaking by a stranger saying that it is never correct to say give me half of this ; instead, the grammatically correct phrase would be give me one half of this . I've never been a pro at where numbers fit in with the English language, so maybe someone here could shed some light on this. <Q> It is perfectly acceptable to say "give me half of that". <S> In English, "half" in understood on its own to mean " one of two equal parts of something ". <S> To put it another way: It would make no sense to say "give me no halves of that". <S> You would just say "give me none of that". <S> It would make no sense to say "give me two halves of that". <S> You would just say "give me all of that". <S> Saying "give me one half of that" is redundant. <S> It's equivalent to saying "give me one of one of those two equal parts of that." <A> Comment posted as answer - as requested In idiomatic usage, you would seldom say 'one half of this'. <S> You might say 'give me one half-pound pack of sugar' but the hyphen shows that it is a different construct. <S> You might say 'give me one third of that' (as opposed to 'two thirds of that'), but with halves, the alternatives are none and all. <S> However, even with thirds, it would be more usual to say 'a third' than 'one third'. <S> So, whoever 'corrected' you was actually misleading you. <A> There is no need to say "one half" there. " <A> I had this situation recently. <S> It was so embarrassing when the saleslady told her co-workers about what I said. <S> I asked her to give me one half kilo (1/2 kilo) of prawns and 3 pieces of fish. <S> She ended up giving me one and one half kilo of prawns. <S> When she asked for the payments and I asked the amount, i freaked out. <S> I was not expecting that she actually gave me 1 1/2 kilo of prawns. <S> I told her I asked for one half not one and one half kilo. <S> She got angry and her co-workers started to laugh. <S> They were all telling me <S> I was wrong. <S> They said it's half not one half. <S> In my understanding, "one half" and "half" are both correct <S> it depends on how you use it with other supporting words. <A> If you are discussing arithmetic, it is always correct to stipulate a numerator and a denominator. <S> "Give me half an apple" is fine, but "what is half plus a third?" is incorrect and should be "what is one-half plus one-third?" <A> You don't need the 'one' in expressions like 'give me half a cookie'. <S> Where you do need the 'one' is in when units of measurement are involved, like "please give me one half pound of sugar". <S> You can use 'a' instead of 'one', but leaving out any determiner is wrong. <S> Correct: <S> Give me one half pound of sugar. <S> Give me a half pound of sugar. <S> Give me half a pound of sugar. <S> Wrong: <S> *Give me half pound of sugar. <S> *Give me one half a pound of sugar. <S> ? <S> Give me a half a pound of sugar. <S> (You do hear the last quite a bit in the U.S., although not in England; this came up in another question here.)
| Give me half of that" is sufficient.
|
Should punctuation surrounding italicised words be italicised? This might be a tad off-topic, but I am looking for an English-specific answer. When I’m using italic text to denote emphasis or a quotation, should the italicisation extend to the punctuation surrounding the italicised words? If the punctuation marks are not italicised, in most digital fonts the italic letters will crash horribly—or at least intrude awkwardly—into the Roman punctuation. It’s especially problematic with parentheses, and lowercase Fs. Since I don’t have the luxury of typesetting all of my documents in lead, I’ve taken to either italicising the punctuation, or inserting a thin space (for lowercase F) or a hair space (for other letters) before the closing punctuation. Examples: What is that ? ⇒ What is that? ⇒ What is that ? Solid (or fluff ). ⇒ Solid (or fluff). ⇒ Solid (or fluff ). ( Good times !) ⇒ (Good times!) ⇒ ( Good times !) I know this is a nitpicky thing (hell, even I think so, and I’m the one asking), but is there a standard way to address it? Just because this is the internet, it doesn’t mean we need to totally disregard the typesetting facilities that are available. <Q> The Chicago Manual of Style (14th Ed.) has this to say about it: 5.4: <S> Generally, punctuation marks are printed in the same style of font of type as the word, letter, character, or symbol immediately preceding them. <S> 5.5: <S> A question mark or exclamation point that immediately follows an italicized title and that is not part of the title should be set in roman to avoid misreading. <S> 5.6: <S> Parentheses and brackets enclosing italic material may be set in italic to avoid such common typefitting problems as overlapping ascenders or descenders or visually uneven spacing within enclosures. <S> When the enclosed material begins and ends in italic but contains roman text in between, italic enclosures may be used. <S> If only one end of the enclosed material is italic, however, the parentheses or brackets should be roman. <S> Looking at your examples, therefore, I think option 2, then option 1 or 3, then option 2 are the best choices. <A> In some traditional typesetting contexts, you would never italicise parentheses even within italic text (and I'd recommend doing this yourself if you have the luxury). <S> I must highly recommend not to only italicise one of the parentheses! <S> (As in your example ‘(or fluff) ’.) <S> Otherwise I agree with the other comments on ‘it depends’, according to aesthetics and ambiguity of the text. <S> Just make sure you're consistent. <S> Finally, your use of the thinspace is to be highly commended. <S> Keep it up. <A> I realise this is an old post, but I was searching for guidance on this issue myself, and, unfortunately, things have changed. <S> The Chicago Manual of Style , 16th edition, now says (§6.2) <S> that punctuation surrounding a word or phrase should be in the font of the surrounding text, unless the punctuation is part of the text in question (e.g., the movie title Help! ). <S> Section 6.4 further says about italicising adjacent punctuation: <S> According to a more traditional system, periods, commas, colons, and semicolons should appear in the same font as the word, letter, character, or symbol immediately preceding them if different from that of the main or surrounding text. <S> [...] <S> This system, once preferred by Chicago and still preferred by some as more aesthetically pleasing, should be reserved—if it must be used—for publications destined for print only. <S> Sigh. <S> This style looks like crap to me, but I suppose there's no fighting it. <A> Logically, it depends on whether the punctuation belongs to the italicized text or to the rest of the sentence. <S> He asked, " Why? ". <S> He asked, " Why ! <S> Because it is not obvious to me why." <S> (And yes, we can debate the presence of the full stop in the first example - where 'full stop' gets translated to 'period' in American English.) <S> If you are going for publication, then 'House Rules' probably take precedence over 'logic'. <A> The Chicago Manual of Style seems to disagree with Bringhurst’s The Elements of Typographic Style , but I tend to agree with Bringhurst. <S> He recommended using upright parentheses all the time, and noted that this rule ‘has been broken more often than followed . . . <S> but it was followed more often than broken by the best of the early typographers who set texts in italic’. <S> I guess we should follow the masters wherever possible, even if it means more trouble. <S> (Here comes the advantage of LaTeX: it has semi-automatic italic correction!)
| The typographic treatment of punctuation adjacent to a variant font (italic or boldface within roman text, for instance) should be governed by both appearance and meaning.
|
Should the X in "X-ray" be capitalized? Should the word be written as X-ray or x-ray ? <Q> Wikipedia capitalizes <S> the X. Wiktionary says that x-ray is the alternative spelling of X-ray, not the other way round. <S> Merriam-Webster capitalizes the noun but not the verb , noting that the verb is "often capitalized", too. <S> Looking through the first 250 cites in the Corpus of Contemporary American English , the capitalized version is preferred by a factor of 2:1; looking through the first 250 cites in the British National Corpus, it wins by a factor of 11:1. <A> According to the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, x-ray is not capitalized. <S> Not when it's a noun, a verb, or an adjective. <S> This is the standard for fiction writing. <S> I am both a speech-language pathologist and a fiction writer. <A> The confusion arises from the origin of 'x-ray' (or X-ray). <S> Wilhelm Röntgen, a German, discovered and named them. <S> In German, however, all nouns are capitalized and other parts of speech are not. <S> This is the origin of the capital 'X'. <S> Ironically x-rays in German are now called 'Röntgenstrahlen', and the verb is 'röntgen', 'to x-ray'. <S> Compare x-rays to other wavelengths of light, gamma rays, radio waves, infrared rays, ultraviolet rays, etc. <S> The others are lowercase in English. <S> Pay special attention to 'gamma ray', which gets its name from a letter in another language (lowercase Greek γ). <S> It's still lowercase in English. <S> Therefore, use the lowercase form; it's one fewer time you have to grab the shift key on your keyboard or smartphone! <A> I work on veterinary journals and our go-to dictionaries are Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (30th Ed.) and Saunders <S> Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary <S> (2nd Ed.) <S> Neither of these capitalizes x-ray (as a verb or a noun), and both dictionaries show that a hyphen is used. <S> I am not sure where the OP is using the term, but it seems that in medical literature the word radiograph is preferred over x-ray . <S> Also, our authors rarely, if ever, use x-ray as a verb. <A> When used as a noun or a modifier, the "X" in X-ray is capitalized. <S> The doctor looked at the patient's X-ray. <S> Do you think all superheroes have X-ray vision? <S> Your chest needs to be X-rayed. <S> However, the entry on Merriam Webster Online for X-ray as a verb lists it with a small "X". <S> It does say, though, that the verb is often capitalized.
| When it is used as a verb, the "X" is usually capitalized.
|
Enjoys his fair share to work hard and smart to meet commitments Received a resume lately. One of the sentence, in summary section, doesn't look right to me. It may be not a very obvious mistake, or may not be a mistake at all. But I can't say anything for sure, as I am not a native speaker and neither I find myself eloquent in writing English. .... blah blah. A reliable team member who gets work done and enjoys his fair share to work hard and smart to meet commitments. blah blah .... Now, if you tell me to correct it, because I think it's not well written. Then I would make something like below, using the same words without trying to make it spiffy, .... blah blah. A reliable team member -- very smart to meet commitments, who gets work done and enjoys his fair share in working hard. blah blah .... What do you folks think? Is there something wrong with the original sentence structure? <Q> A reliable team member who gets work done and enjoys his fair share to work hard and smart to meet commitments. <S> This sounds terribly like a direct translation from another language. <S> It bothers me on several counts: <S> "his fair share to work hard" should be something like "his fair share of hard work" "and smart to meet commitments" (methinks Google Translate?). <S> Does he smart <S> (go red in the face) when he meets commitments? <S> Is he smart (clever) enough to meet commitments? <S> Did he smartly (quickly) meet (encounter) <S> a commitment on his way to work? <S> Or, almost ridiculously, he's smart (clever) enough to meet (face to face) commitments rather than delivering what's promised? <S> Stringing more than two phrases together with ANDs ( and enjoys, and smart) is clumsy. <S> We all get the jist of 'meeting a commitment', but here commitment is nothing but waffle-speak for a deadline or an objective. <S> Let's analyse what he's trying to say: He's a reliable team player <S> He meets his commitments (in some, yet to be understood, positive fashion) <S> From which we can cobble something more concise and distinctly more palatable, for example: <S> John is a reliable, hard-working team player who consistently meets his objectives. <A> Two things: enjoys his fair share to work hard <S> sounds weird to me <S> ; I expect people to do their fair share <S> the sentence doesn't have a verb (nominal sentence); while it's becoming more common, especially in informal writing, I don't consider it writing good style unless you're describing a process of thoughts, for example. <A> Here's my suggestion: <S> So and so is a reliable team member and does his fair share of hard work to meet commitments. <S> I haven't used 'gets work done' because 'reliable' carries the connotation that he will get the job done. <S> Others may disagree, saying that reliable means other things, like getting to work on time, etc. <S> However, you can still include that phrase if you want to. <S> If you want to include 'smart' in there, you might have to rephrase things because in English usage people usually work hard or work smart; 'working smart' carries the connotation of not having to work too hard to achieve something. <S> So, you could write: <S> So and so is a reliable team member who works hard and has shown aptitude and diligence in meeting commitments. <S> Aptitude replaces smart and diligence replaces hard(-working). <S> The above sentence is more formal (or stuffy), depending on how you see it. <S> If it's not quite what you're looking for, then how about: <S> So and so is a reliable team member who works hard, works smart and meets commitments. <S> Or: <S> So and so is a reliable team member who works both hard and smart to meet commitments. <S> The bottom line is that your example can be rewritten in several ways, but perhaps to simplify matters, think about what you want to say and the tone you wish to convey it in, then write the sentence as correctly as you can. <S> It's always best to write simply, after which you can embellish your sentence, if you wish. <S> Thanks and hope this helps.
| He works hard and takes his fair share of the workload
|
Can "paper bag" mean any bag? Being Swedish but living in Kenya for many years I initially reacted when at the local market I was offered a paper bag (verbally) but given a plastic bag (physically). This is always the case and was not a single incident. I thought paper bag had become a common word for all kinds of bags in Kenya but it seems like this is also common in other English speaking countries? Can anyone confirm and maybe add a bit of history to explain? For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_bag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shopping_bag Edit: A US citizen living in Kenya has made the observation as well and claims it to be British English. http://chattynicol.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/fun-facts-about-kenya/ <Q> I have lived in various cities throughout the US, and I have never heard anyone use "paper bag" to refer to all types of bags when shopping. <S> If I went to the supermarket and asked for a paper bag and were given a plastic bag (or vice versa), I would assume that the person was not paying attention to what I was saying. <S> This type of extension or generalization of the semantic domain is not unheard of, of course. <S> For example, I can call any chalkboard a blackboard , regardless of its color. <S> However, I have seen no evidence of anything like this in regards to paper bags. <S> It seems to me that this would be a difficult transition, as there is usually a need to distinguish between the two, and plastic bags are the more common option (i.e. if paper bags are available somewhere, then plastic bags are almost certain to be there too, but not the other way around). <S> Edit: <S> It might also be worth adding that this could be a feature of the dialect of English in Kenya. <S> Most Kenyans speak both English and Swahili, if not another local language. <S> It is possible that the Swahili word for "paper bag" is also the general word for bag in Swahili, which caused this term to be used in their dialect of English as well. <S> I am only speculating about this particular case, but this sort of thing certainly does happen in bilingual communities. <A> In the UK a paper bag is unambiguously† a bag made of paper. <S> In supermarkets, shoppers and sales assistants usually refer to carrier bags or just bags. <S> The ones provided free are usually made of plastic. <S> The home decorating trade sell wallpaper, sometimes this is not made of paper. <S> For example: vinyl wallpaper. <S> You can see that the word paper is not solely associated with thin sheets of dried crushed wood-pulp but can be used with similarly thin continuous sheets of material that gradually replaces, or supplements, traditional paper. <S> † <S> Sometimes it can mean a bag, constructed of any material, used by newspaper deliverers to carry newspapers <A> I Australia, a bag given at the checkout is referred to simply as a "bag" regardless of the type of material it is made of. <S> The only time someone would go to the effort to specify that it was paper would be if they were trying to make some sort of environmental point. <A> i think paper bad would generally imply a bag made of paper. <S> But the answer could be different based on geography
| Here, "paper bag" definitely only refers to bags made of paper.
|
When to use "GOP" versus "Republican Party" I've read lots of professional articles that use the two terms interchangeably, sometimes within the same paragraph. Are the two terms really semantically identical? In formal writing, are there any situations where it would be recommended to use one or the other? <Q> However, in general discussion or news reporting, you'll find it used interchangeably. <S> GOP (Grand Old Party) is a nickname for the Republican Party that dates back over a century. <S> The use of the word 'old' is ironic in that the Democratic Party was founded before the Republican Party. <S> Also, some of the alternate meanings of the word ' grand ' cause members of opposing parties to use the term GOP sarcastically, or not at all. <S> It is favored in news headlines due to its shortness. <A> Wikipedia mentions : <S> The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party, and the initialism "G.O.P." (or "GOP") is a commonly used designation , and refers to the OED: <S> The first reference to the Republican Party as the "grand old party" is dated to 1876; the first use of the abbreviation "GOP" is dated 1884. <S> Both terms are fairly interchangeable, and while GOP is mainly used in headlines, it is interesting to know that, as detailed in the article " What Does 'GOP' Stand <S> For? ", in 2002 The Wall Street Journal actually had decided to stop(!) <S> using the acronym to refer to the 148-year-old political party. <S> In an internal memo issued to staffers last week, Journal higher-ups said the term GOP will be dropped because not all readers know what the letters mean, and some may not realize that they are a reference to the Republican Party. <S> Titles like " Democrats Aim to Curb GOP Donors " (on the online Wall Street Journal site) show that this resolution didn't stick. <A> When writing for an international audience, use Republican Party. <A> "GOP" stands for Grand Old Party ( dating from 1876 ), and is used as a somewhat informal synonym meaning the Republican Party. <S> Its usage is mainly in the press, as its size makes it ideal for headlines and news copy. <S> Example headline: <S> GOP blasts Dems on spending <S> If you were writing a formal paper on politics, you might prefer to say "the Republican Party" or "the Republicans" or just "Republicans" — but there is nothing preventing you from salting in references to "the GOP" as well. <S> About the only places you aren't likely to see it at all are on formal invitations or legal documents. <A> Disclaimer: I am not American.
| GOP is an acronym standing for Grand Old Party, a nickname for The Republican Party, and as far as I know is synonymous. In more formal writing, it's slightly proper to use the phrase "Republican Party".
|
Is 'hair' singular or plural? When one says I was washing my hair , is it singular or plural? What is the singular for hair ? <Q> This seems to be one of those plural issues where a different plural is used when referring to the large uncountable group. <S> "I found 3 gray hairs this morning" is proper <S> but so is "I washed my hair this morning". <S> In the second case, your entire head covered with individuals hairs is treated as a single object or group which is why it is referred to in a singular form. <A> The word hair in some cases is a collective noun, and in other cases is not a collective noun. <S> As reported from the NOAD, the meaning of the word is: <S> Any of the fine threadlike strands growing from the skin of humans, mammals, and some other animals. <S> Such strands collectively, especially those growing on a person's head. <S> In most of the phrases, the word used is hair ; in some cases is hairs ( to split hairs ). <A> It all depends on the context of the sentence. <S> In your sentence, I was washing my hair. <S> the noun hair is the collective. <S> It is also the case in: I have my hair cut. <S> She brushed her long red hair. <S> It is singular in following sentences. <S> I found a hair in my soup. <S> I just pulled out one of your white hair <S> It is plural in the following sentences. <S> There are dog hairs on the sofa. <S> I lost a lot of hairs after the operation. <A> Neither, it is collective, meaning that 'hair' in this context refers to all your hair. <A> I think 'Hair' is Material noun . <S> Brick, wood, skin, muscle, oil, glass, paper, paint, gold etc. are all Material Nouns . <S> So, if wish to refer to a particular number of Hair , we should say 3 or 4 strands of hair . <S> Consider the sentences : "The other was Della's hair". <S> (not 'hairs') <S> My hair is turning grey. <S> (not 'hairs are') <S> My hair is black and his hair is brown. <S> (not 'hairs are') <S> He caught my wisp or lock of hair. <S> (not 'hairs') <S> He plucked 10 strands of grey hair from my head. <S> ('10 strands', but not 'hairs')
| The noun hair is a singular, plural, or collective noun.
|
Somebody has posted a link to my profile in twitter. Could you tell me what he wants to say? This guy posted a link to my profile on Twitter , could you tell me what he wants to say? <Q> I think BoltClock is pointing out that it's kind of a strange thing to say. <S> For other readers, this is your profile text reposted: <S> I'm an advanced typist. <S> I can type in many languages, including Chinese, English, c++, php, javascript and SQL. <S> When you say "typist", it means the action of actually typing -- pushing the keys that make the words come out on the screen. <S> The only way someone becomes an advanced typist is by being a faster typist. <S> This is because the word "typist" used to refer to a clerk or secretary who was paid to operate a mechanical typewriter . <S> For example, you don't be a typist by knowing C++, just as you don't know C++ by being a typist. <S> Being a typist means you can type quickly, while knowing C++ means you can program in that language. <S> (Granted, any good C++ programmer is also going to know how to type, but that doesn't mean you can't know the language and still be a hunt-and-peck person)\ <S> What you probably want is "Advanced programmer", because "programmer" specifically indicates a computer operator who knows one or more programming languages, which seems to be the message you want to convey with your list of languages. <A> Your Stack Overflow profile currently says: I'm an advanced typist. <S> I can type in many languages, including Chinese, English, c++, php, javascript and SQL. <S> Your Stack Overflow profile used to say: I'm a advanced typist. <S> I can type in many language, including Chinese, English, c++, php, javascript and SQL. <S> It should really be: <S> I'm an advanced typist. <S> I can type in many languages, including Chinese, English, C++, PHP, JavaScript and SQL. <S> In fact, it's usual only to mention your typing skills in natural languages, and only if you really mean the physical skill of typing at a keyboard. <S> It might be that you want to say your an advanced speaker of these languages. <S> And for programming languages, you'd more likely talk about your programming skills . <A> "A advanced typist" is bad English, which he assumed to be bad typing, and so funny where you claim to be a good typist. <S> (Your joke is not relevant to his joke).
| He's pointing out that an advanced typist should know how to type, spell and capitalise properly.
|
Style Question: Use of "we" vs. "I" vs. passive voice in a dissertation As I'm not a native speaker and just finishing my dissertation in Computer Science, I wonder what style I should be using.In German (my native tongue) most dissertations, school-books and scientific writing use third person or passive voice to sound 'objective'. I know that passive voice in English should be avoided.In most of my publications I use "we" (e.g. "we can improve the recognition rate by ..."). For the dissertation, as it is my work, should I prefer "I" over "we"? I don't like the idea too much, as it sounds pretentious to me.Currently, I want use first person singular for the contributions section and first person plural for the rest. I try to avoid passive as often as possible.Is this acceptable? <Q> You should probably consult a faculty member, or look at papers in your own field, in order to decide anything definitively. <S> These kinds of conventions can vary within fields and subfields, so you should see what your peers do. <S> In my field, using <S> I in a paper is something to be avoided whenever possible, by using the passive voice, the pronoun one , or by restructuring the sentence so that the author doesn't need to be referenced. <S> We is more common than I , although it is normally restricted to papers with more than one author. <S> You are right that German generally favors passive voice much more than in English. <S> However, the main place where I have found that passive voice is more accepted in English is in formal academic writing. <A> I do not know why. <S> In my language (I am a native speaker of Arabic) <S> we use less passives. <S> Nevertheless, whether in English or Arabic or any other language, I do not think we should be prescriptive about this structure. <S> Just let's use it when we feel it is appropriate. <S> I am a student of Engineering and I am writing my project soon. <S> I asked many graduates students about the use of passive, and they said it is a must in our field. <A> One uses the word "one" to avoid both the first person and passive voice. <S> One improves the recognition rate by… <S> It isn't clear to me whether it is your aim to avoid to the first person or to use it, but in an unpretentious way. <S> If the former, you can use "the researcher." <S> For the latter, I think "we" sounds better, but you might do well to look at some similar dissertations in your field and follow what you find in those. <S> You could also ask the advice of your dissertation sponsor/adviser. <A> Most of the responses to such questions are based upon tradition, or what someone else has told them. <S> Just as with much other English usage, this can and has resulted in some weird conventions. <S> I believe people defer to "we" because it is predominant in modern scientific literature, but only because most articles are the joint work of more than one person. <S> I think much depends upon the context. <S> If something can be said generally, "we" or "one" seem most appropriate: "One can find many instances of dogmatic conventions in the literature". <S> For a multi author paper it is easy to choose "we" when describing the work or opinions of the authors. <S> But in a single author publication (especially a thesis) it seems perverse to use "we" instead of "I", and can lead to confusion over they author's actual contributions. <S> The one downside is that using "I" can draw attention to the fact that only one person was involved in the work. <S> In many scientific disciplines this is a bit of a red flag: unless the author has a strong reputation the work of a single person is evidence of insufficient collaboration with other experts. <A> I have been told that my writing style is "not good enough". <S> My understanding is that, to write my PhD thesis in Engineering, I should describe my work using a gramatical style such as <S> "Two novel methods … are proposed ... <S> we then propose two … techniques". <S> I need to start thinking of myself as "we"; as though I had an imaginary friend; or as an independent observer of myself.
| Many English speakers, especially in North America, do not prefer using the passive style.
|
Is a whole cake still a "piece" If someone eats an entire cake, is it correct to say that he ate just a piece of cake? Can a whole cake still be considered a piece of cake if consumed in one sitting? <Q> If you want to go by the dictionary definition, I think you will find agreement that piece is not the whole cake. <S> In fact, thefreedictionary.com actually uses this phrase as an example of that definition of piece : <S> A portion or part that has been separated from a whole: a piece of cake . <S> Aside from the "official" definition, intuitively I think most native English speakers would agree that "I ate a piece of cake" <S> necessarily implies that you did not eat an entire cake, because of that additional information, "a piece of". <S> Otherwise, you would have said "I ate a cake" or "I ate cake". <S> The line between piece and whole is not completely clear though; for example, if someone scoops a bit of frosting with their finger, and then you eat everything else, technically you have not eaten the whole cake — does that mean you have eaten a piece? <S> Again, I think most people would say no, but at what point, then, does it make the transition? <S> I imagine if you took a large group of people, and showed people pictures of cake (a full cake, 90% of a cake, 75%, half a cake, down to a sliver of cake), you would have disagreement over when you could call it a piece of cake starting from 100% to 50%, but the smaller you got, the more you'd see it called a piece. <S> By the time you got to 50% of the cake or less I would imagine that nearly everyone would be willing to call it a piece (but as far as I know, nobody has run this experiment). <A> No. <S> Not even a very small cake, like a cupcake. <A> A whole cake would not normally be considered a piece of cake, which has the implication that the cake was divided into slices. <S> If, however, eating the whole cake was very easy (perhaps the cake was of excellent quality, or not very large), then eating it could perhaps be described as a "piece of cake" in the idiomatic sense. <S> See here, meaning 9 ... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piece+of+cake <A> I think this boils down to the mathematical distinction between subset (which can be the whole set) and proper subset <S> (which must be smaller). <S> In common usage, the word "piece" as well as the word "subset" implies a non-empty, proper subset. <S> People are surprised when this is not the case, even if the word is technically correct. <S> Confusingly enough, some items are called "piece" in common usage, even if they're not separated from a whole. <S> For instance, "piece of candy", "piece of chocolate" (both individually produced not cut out). <A> As it happens, I ate a cake just last night. <S> My wife called from work later. <S> "How many pieces did you have?" <S> she asked. <S> " <S> Just one," I said. <S> I couldn't have said otherwise because the cake was in one piece when she left the house, and I didn't cut it into smaller pieces. <S> This is the kind of thing that sitcoms are made of. <S> Most human languages, English included, are rife with ambiguity. <S> They know it, too. <S> But you also know what game they're playing, and they know that you know. <S> So there's not much use in arguing about whether it's technically correct to say that the portion consumed was a single piece. <A> A piece is usually defined as A portion of an object or of material, produced by cutting, tearing, or breaking the whole. <S> So the short answer is <S> No <S> it's not a piece, not in the usual sense of the word anyway. <S> But it shouldn't matter. <S> It's Cake! :D <S> Refer to dbkk's answer. <S> Your question basically boils down to whether or not the canonical meaning of piece implies a proper subset or simply a subset. <S> For the actual distinction between a proper subset and a subset refer <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset . <S> I assume in my answer that the day-to-day usage implies a proper subset.
| If someone eats an entire cake and claims to have eaten just one piece, you're right to be surprised because you know that "a piece" doesn't normally refer to an entire cake.
|
What is the correct usage of “vis-à-vis”? I hear people use the term vis-à-vis all the time in place of what I believe should more correctly be for example or that is . What is the most generally accepted correct and appropriate use of vis-à-vis , and what are its origins? <Q> When the English picked it up in the 18th century, they started using it to describe a type of horse-drawn carriage wherein there are two seats, allowing occupants to sit across from one another in a face-to-face fashion. <S> Usage eventually extended to include the alternate meaning of with regard to , and in modern-day discourse it is accepted to use with regard to and vis-à-vis interchangeably. <S> In fact, many people will get confused when you use it to convey its original meaning since the alternate meaning has overshadowed it. <A> As a complement to the other answers, as to the origins, here are the ways the phrase is used in French , which maybe helpful to gain a better insight of the various usages in English. <S> In French , 'vis-à-vis' can be used as a preposition, an adverb or a noun. <S> Preposition. <S> Facing, in the presence of: She sat on the other side of the table, vis-à-vis <S> John. <S> (archaic, regional Canada) <S> Compared to : He found it shameful to lose his temper vis-à-vis the old man. <S> Relative to, figuratively: Jack swore me to secrecy, even vis-à-vis his daughter Adverb <S> To be facing: If the windows are vis-à-vis, the ventilation is improved Phrasal adverb, qualifier: Leaning against the door jamb vis-à-vis, dressed in a grass skirt, she... Noun Person facing someone else: <S> By chance, my eyes fell on Edwin, my vis-à-vis <S> The opposite facade: <S> The windows had curtains, so there was no vis-à <S> -vis, only the blank wall To be facing: She was vis-à-vis <S> her husband, a pretty little thing she was too, ... To be facing, reflexively: <S> The café and the church were vis-à-vis <S> Adverb <S> To move into a facing position: They sat down vis-à-vis, each in his corner, .. (rare) <S> To be facing (in English this renders no differently to the above) : <S> They were seated on chairs, ( en ) vis-à-vis the altar Carriage with two facing seats: <S> I could see myself arriving at midnight, in my olive vis-à <S> -vis, at the Opera gate. <S> Small sofa, where two people can talk conveniently: <S> The two women sat down on the vis-à-vis and nattered endlessly <S> (adapted from cntrl.fr ) <A> IMO, these days the expression vis-à-vis is often used in sentences where a comparison is being made. <S> Examples: <S> Let's say I am enumerating features of iPhone. <S> I could then say, The choice for applications is certainly much higher in the iPhone OS (125,000 vis-à-vis 20,000 for the Android) (example extracted from internet) <S> Canadian dollar vis-à-vis selected currencies (when talking about exchange rates perhaps?) <S> (Example title of a research paper as extracted from the internet):Comparative Competitive Aspects of Japanese Use of Human Resources vis-à-vis United States and Canada ---- and so forth. <S> It is mostly used to paint a picture of something "pitted against" or "in the face of" or "as opposed to" something else. <S> Hope <S> this helps. <A> I guess the face-to-face metaphor can mean the opposing opinion. <S> Whether or not that is correct usage is slightly arbitrary, just my observation of how people seem to use it. <A> Accepted English usage in the military and in corporate meetings <S> I have personally been a part of are "in relation to" or "concerning". <S> They can be used to refer to a geographic location, opinions, or two or more items.
| According to The Phrase Finder , the term is French and literally meant face-to-face . When I hear/see people use it, I usually find they are using it to mean "as opposed to" .
|
What is the difference between engagement and promise? If I have a previous appointment, what can I say instead of appointment? Previous engagement? Promise? And I wonder exactly what they both mean. (I thought they were similar.) <Q> Besides the expression already discussed above, here are a few alternative expressions I tend to use in the situation: <S> I already have plans for the evening(or day) <S> I have prior committments for the afternoon <S> If you plan to use "promise" in a more informal manner, you could. <S> But then you'd have to probably be more specific on what's keeping you occupied at the time. <S> For eg., I tend to say: I would love to, but I already promised to run an errand for my mom <S> Ah - but I've promised my friend <S> I'd volunteer for the charity eventon friday. <S> Hope <S> this helps. <A> Previous engagement is more correct. <S> In this context, it refers to a specific time of promise: a promise to be at a particular place at a particular time. <S> You can promise not to eat someone else's lunch, for example, but you wouldn't refer to that kind of promise as previous engagement . <A> The definition given for promise from the NOAD is the following: <S> promise <S> |ˈprɑməs| noun a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that guarantees that a particular thing will happen. <S> - What happened to all those firm promises of support? <S> - [with clause] <S> He took my fax number with the promise that he would send me a drawing. <S> - [with infinitive] <S> I did not keep my promise to go home early . <S> • the quality of potential excellence <S> _: he showed great promise even as a junior officer. <S> • [in singular] <S> an indication that something specified is expected or likely to occur: the promise of peace . <S> For engagement <S> the definition is: <S> engagement /ɪnˈgeɪdʒmənt/ /ɛnˈgeɪdʒmənt/ <S> noun 1. <S> a formal agreement to get married. <S> • the duration of such an agreement: a good long engagement to give you time to be sure . <S> 2. <S> an arrangement to do something or go somewhere at a fixed time: a dinner engagement . <S> • a period of paid employment. <S> 3. <S> the action of engaging or being engaged: Britain's continued engagement in open trading . <S> 4. <S> a fight or battle between armed forces. <S> Promise is not the correct word to replace appointment <S> (the fact you went to an appointment doesn't implicate you did a promise to go); engagement is a better choice, but who listens could understand you are using the meaning 1 or 3.
| Promise is a general commitment made by someone.
|
Definite article before schools, colleges, and universities Is the always used before the name of a school, college, or university? <Q> My personal rule of thumb would be that if the school name includes an "of", use "the": The University of Minnesota, The College of St. Catherine, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, etc. <S> (And when abbreviating one of these names, use "the" only if the "of" is present in the abbreviation: " <S> I attend the University of California at San Diego" → "I attend UCSD"; but "I attend the University of Minnesota" <S> → "I attend the U of M".) <S> But if the school name does not include an "of", and especially if its name consists of a proper noun prepended to a school type, do not use "the": Carleton College, South Dakota State University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, etc. <S> (Naturally, as pointed out by Shaun in his answer, there will be exceptions.) <A> Not necessarily. <S> I have come across several colleges/universities/schools (some starting with proper nouns and some not),not preceded by "The". <S> Some examples below: Singapore(Asia): National University of Singapore Singapore Management University SIM Nanyang Technological Universityand many more UK: King's College London (KCL) University of Strathclyde, Glasgow UK Courtauld Institute of Art Goldsmiths, University of London (GUL) <S> Heythrop College (HEY) Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) <S> Institute of Education (IoE) India(Asia): <S> All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi, India Indian Institute of Technology and many more. <S> There are perhaps more examples across the world as well. <A> Yes, when saying the school's full name. <S> However abbreviations exclude the "the." <S> He goes to The University of Illinois <S> He goes to U of I <S> He goes to Illinois <A> Short answer : <S> Yes. <S> Long answer : <S> I did a little research on this and the results actually surprised me. <S> Intuitively, I expected this to follow the same rule as most businesses: you would use <S> the before the name of a university, such as The University of North Florida , except if the first word was the name of a person or geographic place. <S> However: The Johns Hopkins University is the accepted formal name for that university, even though it is named after a person. <S> The Florida State University , which I expected to be called Florida State University , is labeled with the definitive article before its name in the logo. <A> We used to get snotty memos saying that it was "The University of Cambridge" not "Cambridge University" whenever we published anything. <S> Don't think anybody ever cared - other than those employed in the snotty memo office. <A> pretty much none at all. <S> You just have to memorize it. <S> For instance, most state universities in the USA don't use "The" in the title, but a few do. <S> For example, we have Oregon State University, Oklahoma State Univeristy, and The Ohio State Univeristy. <S> You could try Hellion's rule, and put "The" in there if there's also an "of", but doubtless there's an exception to that waiting to bite you too. <S> The safest thing is to just call it what everyone else calls it. <S> If you're unsure, hit its website.
| The use of "The" in front of schools and universities makes about as much logical sense in English as "the" does in the rest of the language...
|
Is the expression "may or may not" semantically void? I personally have a hard time accepting the use of "may or may not." To me, it seems as if "may" and "may not" effectively cancel each other out, so the semantics of the sentence in which it appears are no clearer: I may go to bed early tonight. This seems to indicate that it is likely I will not go to bed early tonight. I may not go to bed early tonight. Contrariwise, this seems to indicate that it is likely I will go to bed early tonight. I may or may not go to bed early tonight. This seems to leave me with absolutely no clarity as to which eventuality is likely to occur. Am I missing something obvious here, or is this particular expression just a rhetorical device for saying, "I'm on the fence?" <Q> It's not meant to give a clear indication that one option is more likely than the other. <S> For what it is worth, you're not alone in your difficulty accepting the phase. <S> I usually follow up use of "may or may not" with one of two statements: <S> My understanding of the situation remains unchanged. <S> Let me know when you figure that out. <A> You could say you may or may not do something if you wanted to emphasize your undecided state of mind. <S> I may or may not go to bed tonight. <S> This lets people know that you have a decision before you. <S> It is not a "nothing" statement. <S> It is commenting on your state of mind. <S> I may go to bed tonight. <S> This announces that you are considering going to bed. <S> It may also be said ironically, if you are being kept up quite late and think you may never get to bed given what you are doing. <S> I may not go to bed tonight. <S> The announcement here is that you are considering staying up all night. <S> This would probably not be used ironically, since it is unremarkable to consider the opposite of not going to bed. <A> What you are missing is that logic and language are separate domains with a smaller overlap than many people would like to think. <S> Logically, "I may or may not go" is, of course, a tautology, and conveys no information. <S> But pragmatically, the fact that it is said, and that it is chosen against other possibilities, does convey meaning. <S> (Others have suggested some of the possibilities for that meaning). <A> In addition to all the correct answers, here is another rather ironic use that I encounter quite often. <S> I may or may not have to use the bathroom really badly. <S> The speaker has to use the bathroom really badly and felt it necessary to add feigned subtlety to his declaration, most likely for the sake of humor. <A> I use may to mean that something is a possibility, i.e it may not be fair. <S> This does not mean that I conclude that it is unfair; rather, that I am considering the possibility. <S> According to my 1990 Oxford English Dictionary, the first meaning of both might and may is "possibility". <S> However, for me, the usage of may is slightly more positive than might . <S> So I think that one could be said to be sitting on the fence; but leaning slightly towards the positive side! <A> I'm not a native speaker but these are my two cents: <S> Language and logic are, indeed, deeply woven when it comes to formal speech. <S> Tautologies, redundancies and contradictions are not necessary and can be paraphrased. <S> The word "may" connotes a possibility, and it's negation "may not" is in essence equivalent; selection between expressions may be preferred to better suit region, readers or to keep the running sentence in tone with the its idea. <S> I may let you go. <S> I may not let you go. <S> Depending on the context or your own personal preference, one may sound more negative than the other. <S> With that said, I think "may or may not" is an important literary resource when attempting to make a character seem indecisive or unsure.
| "May or may not" is used to indicate that the point is under thought or scrutiny.
|
What does "pray" mean in phrases like "pray proceed"? Is this an archaic form of "please proceed"? I have never heard in in speech but sometimes it appears in novels. My version of "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is full of it, apparently in place of "please". <Q> The NOAD installed on my Mac Mini <S> reported the following definition for pray . <S> adverb formal or archaic used as a preface to polite requests or instructions: <S> pray continue . <S> • used as a way of adding ironic or sarcastic emphasis to a question: and what, pray, was the purpose of that? <S> In the first example, you can replace <S> pray with please . <S> Similar definition is given by the Oxford Living Dictionaries . <A> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pray pray late 13c., "ask earnestly, beg," also "pray to a god or saint," from O.Fr. preier (c.900), from L. precari "ask earnestly, beg," from *prex (plural preces, gen. precis) "prayer, request, entreaty," from PIE base <S> *prek- "to ask, request, entreat" (cf. <S> Skt. <S> prasna- <S> , Avestan frashna- "question;" O.C.S. prositi, Lith. <S> prasyti "to ask, beg;" <S> O.H.G. frahen, Ger. <S> fragen, O.E. fricgan "to ask" a question). <S> Parenthetical expression <S> I pray you, “please, if you will,” attested from 1510s, contracted to pray 16c. <A> Therefore, the phrase "pray proceed" could be interpreted as "Please, I beg of you, proceed". <S> In modern English, we often think of the term "pray" in a spiritual context, but the meaning is the same: to ask something of someone. <A> See also the version I like enough to consider using in conversation to stage a come back: Prithee tell . <S> The etymology sheds some light on the sometimes sarcastic nature of pray tell . <A> adverbformal or archaic 1Used as a preface to polite requests or instructions: ladies and gentlemen <S> , pray be seated 1.1Used as a way of adding ironic or sarcastic emphasis to a question: and what, pray, was the purpose of that? <S> From online Oxford English dictionary
| The word "pray" means to earnestly ask something of someone.
|
"I have no charge on my cellphone" or "my cellphone is out of charge"? Situation:The batteries in your cellphone are running out of charge. How would a native English speaker quickly and naturally describe this situation? <Q> My phone is out of juice <S> This is how a nerd would describe the situation My phone has died on me <S> This is how many people refer to this situation <S> My phone needs to be recharged <S> This is also a way to express the same fact I need to charge my phone <S> Indirect method <S> Is there a cell-phone charger nearby <S> Another indirect method. <S> Can I use your cell-phone? <S> Cannot always be used effectively :-( <A> The most common expression I've heard for expressing that a cell phone no longer had power is: <S> While holding the cell phone, many people omit the words cell phone since it is understood that the thing they are holding is the subject of the statement: <S> My battery is dead. <S> Alternatively, many people omit the word battery since it is understood that the battery is the dead part of the cell phone: <S> My cell phone is dead. <S> People will also say their cell phone is dead if it is broken via some other means, though, such as it being dropped. <A> My cell phone battery is almost flat or <S> My cell phone is almost out of power <A> All the examples given so far are good, but I would also offer as common expressions <S> My (cell) phone is almost out of batteries <S> or I’m almost out of batteries or <S> My phone’s battery is dying or My phone is dying
| My cell phone battery is dead.
|
Cell phone? Cell? Mobile phone? What's the "correct" term? What's that type of phone called that you don't need a cable for and you can use everywhere in the world (provided there's coverage ;-))? And what differences are there between the regions? USA/UK/AUS etc... and even within, say, the US (or even UK). I've even read rumors that in parts of the east of the US, people use the term "handy" (which is a really crazy German "Americanism"). EDIT: Clarification: The colloquial usage is more interesting (to me) than the "correct" official terminology (though that's of interest, too). <Q> In the UK, we use mobile and/or phone , and perhaps even mobi/moby (though I've never seen it written that way outside text messages. <S> In the US, I've heard of cellular phone/cell phone/cell , and in Germany they call them handies (which still makes me chuckle for no good reason). <A> In Australia, it has traditionally been a "mobile" - never a "cell" (unless you are deliberately trying to sound American!). <S> However, it is increasingly becoming just a "phone", as landlines continue to disappear from households. <S> The one clarifying term might be "my phone" - <S> this would guarantee it to be a mobile phone, rather than a landline. <A> Speaking from the technology perspective, naming is specific depending on the device characteristics, two main categories being landline and mobile. <S> Landline is a device receiving signal through a fixed phone line (which is not always a circuit; sometimes the device is a pretty large phone with a SIM making it quite mobile, sometimes handheld, still it's considered a landline phone). <S> Mobile phones have a couple different technology-dependent types: cellular (or cell for short) are called the devices utilizing signal received through a "cellular network" satellite devices are powered by the satellite network <S> These terms describe your device in respect to differences implied by phone networks, but the total of non-landline phones are mobile. <S> Also there are smartphones . <S> This term distinguishes the device in a bit different dimension; it describes the capabilities as opposed to older handheld devices (smartphones are the devices that combine a microcomputer and a telephone). <S> So, strictly speaking, if you want to be specific to different types of devies you should use different terms in different cases. <S> That would make a lot of difference if you wanted, per se, sell software for a particular kind of devices. <A> In Canada the words I hear most often are "cell" or "cell phone", almost nobody says "cellular" anymore. <S> In Chinese one of the common words for it is 手机, (shǒujī) which literally means "hand machine". <S> Also among younger people non-mobile-phones are becoming less-used and lots of people don't even have land-lines anymore, and those people, not needing the distinction between mobile and non-mobile phones, simply call it a "phone". <S> (Note: <S> I almost never hear people say telephone anymore either). <A> Strictly speaking, a cell (cellular) phone is a mobile phone, but a mobile phone may not necessarily be a cell phone. <S> "Cellular" refers to the network technology. <S> A satellite phone is also mobile, but there are so few of them in use nowadays compared to cell phones that for most practical purposes (in urban areas for sure) they can be ignored. <S> I believe that when they first appeared in North America cellular phones were typically referred to as "Mobile" since that was the novel aspect, but over the years <S> and they have become more commonly referred to as simply cell phones, and <S> "mobile" is heard relatively rarely. <S> Either term will almost always be understood to mean "cell phone", and that is almost always what you really do mean. <S> But if you want "correct", make sure that it isn't really a satellite phone before you speak up. <A> In the UK "mobile" or "mobile phone" were the main terms but I think that is being replaced now by just "phone" - which is strange in that that is the one thing they are least used as.
| The cell phone providers usually call them "mobile" phones which is more precise since "cell" refers to a kind of technology.
|
Is "What is bounty?" grammatically correct? Jeff Atwood argues that "What is bounty?" is correct here , but is this really the case? <Q> I think it's fine. <S> What we're talking about is a noun spoken of as a representative of its class, not merely as an instance of it. <S> Consider some parallels: <S> What is art? <S> What is beauty? <S> What is language? <S> "What is bounty?" <S> in that context is really a shortened way to say "What do we mean when we use the term 'bounty' on this site? <S> " I, for one, have no objection to it at all. <A> <A> Perhaps the title should be “What is bounty ?”, or perhaps “What is ‘bounty’?”. <S> By comparison to “What is beauty?” <S> , the question “What is bounty?” <S> asks what the concept means rather than what the word means. <S> To illustrate, somewhat trivially: <S> Q: What is happiness ? <S> A: <S> Happiness is the state of < insert favorite definition here <S> >. <S> Q: What is happiness? <S> A: Happiness is a warm puppy. <A> In addition to what other answerers have said, "what is a bounty" has a different meaning than you intend it to. <S> Using that indefinite article implies that you're referring to a particular, though unidentified, bounty somewhere. <S> If anything, "what are bounties" would be better.
| It's fine in context , i.e. when asked on this or any other site that uses a bounty system.
|
How to pronounce "E = mc²" How do we pronounce E = mc² ? This is a physics equation. <Q> <A> The "=" sign is read as "equals" or "is equal to", depending on your culture. <S> (In the latter case, "is equal to" is such a common phrase all through school that it's typically read as one word: "izziqualtu".) <S> The "c 2 " could rarely be "c [raised] to the power of 2", but is almost always "c squared" (or "c square"). <S> Thus, "ee equals em see square[d]" or "e is equal to em see square[d]". <A> Alternatively, one could say Energy is the mass times the square of the speed of light in a vacuum. <S> If you are so inclined. <A> If you listen to this audio clip of Albert Einstein speaking in 1947, you can hear him say it as <S> "E is equal M C square" (with letters as ee, em, see ). <S> But nowadays it's normally pronounced as Jasper Loy <S> answered: <S> E equals M C squared . <A> Very simple you just go on speaking each word and symbol as they are. <S> So that makes it :"E is equal to M C Square "
| You read this as E equals M C squared , with the three letters pronounced as you would when reading the alphabet.
|
Has the use of the idiom "last week" surpassed the use of the correct "yester-week"? In his book Write It Right , which was published in 1909 -– a hundred years ago -- Ambrose Bierce disagreed with the usage of the words “Last” and “Past” with “week”. He explained : Last and Past. “Last week.” “The past week.” Neither is accurate: a week cannot be the last if another is already begun; and all weeks except this one are past. Here two wrongs seem to make a right: we can say the week last past. But will we? I trow not. And H. W. Fowler agreed with those sentiments in his Fowler's Modern English Usage 1st Ed . 4. Last) (latest. In this now favourite antithesis (Dr Marshall's latest, but we hope not his last, contribution) we are reminded that latest means last up to now only, whereas last does not exclude the future. The distinction is a convenient one, & the use of latest for last is described by the OED as ' now archaic & poetical'. But no corresponding agreement has yet been reached for abstaining from last when latest would be the more precise word, & many idioms militate against it (last Tuesday; last year ; for the last fortnight; on the last occasion ; as I said in my last). And his successor, R. W. Burchfield, also agreed, in New Folwer's Modern English Usage 3rd Ed. 4. Last/Latest. In such a context as “In his latest book, Dr. A…”, it is clear that Dr. A has written earlier books and that he is still alive and may well write others. If the statement runs “In his last book, Dr A…” the meaning could be the same, or it could also imply that this was the final book written by Dr A before he died. It is obvious, therefore, that if there is any danger of contextual ambiguity some word other than last should be used. In many idiomatic phrases last is still the only possible adj. of the two: = most recent; next before a specified time ( last Christmas; last week); = preceding; previous in a series ( got on at the last station); = only remaining ( the last biscuit; our last chance); ( preceded by the) = the least likely or suitable ( the last person I’d want to see; the last thing I’d have expected; = the lowest in order ( the last name on the list). Nevertheless, the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed described yester as: yester- in comb. or as prefix = immediately preceding the present, last, in yestereve, etc., after yesterday, yesternight; e.g. yester-afternoon, yester-age, yester-noon, yester-tempest, yester-week. See also yester-year. Of course, I admit I've always thought that last week was the week before this. So my question is: Do you think that use of the idiom last week has overpowered the correct usage "yester-week"? <Q> Yes. <S> It’s very tempting to leave the answer at that, but… some more notes. <S> The most cursory look at any newspaper, or around the blogosphere, confirms this answer. <S> ‘Last week’ is common as muck, while ‘yester-week’ is virtually non-existent, and when it does appear, it’s for archaic effect. <S> It’s had the meaning ‘most recent, latest’ for over 600 years: in 1411, for instance, the rolls of Parliament under Henry IV refer to “The last parlement…” ( OED .) <S> As your sources point out, however, ‘last’ can sometimes be ambiguous, and ‘latest’ is often a good alternative in those cases. <S> Talking about ‘the latest week’ sounds odd and affected, just as it did when Fowler wrote; but talking about ‘Madonna’s latest single’ is perfectly fine. <S> ‘Yester-’ isn’t actually as archaic as we tend to think! <S> A few examples — ‘yesterday’, ‘yesternight’, ‘yester-eve’ — are old, but (according to the OED again) <S> the general combining form (in eg ‘yester-week’) only really shows up in the 19th century. <S> Amazingly, even good old ‘yester-year’ was apparently only coined in 1870, by Rosetti translating <S> Villon: “ <S> Where are the snows of yester-year?” <S> Finally, none of the sources you give support your implication that ‘yester-week’ is the correct usage that should be preferred to ‘last week’! <S> The Bierce and Fowler quotes point out the illogic and occasional ambiguity of ‘last’ (note that neither of these makes it grammatically wrong); Fowler’s suggests ‘latest’ as a sometimes better alternative, but neither even mentions ‘yester-’! <S> The OED simply points out that ‘yester-’ exists (at least, existed for a few decades) and means roughly the same thing. <A> I think you are misinterpreting Fowler. <S> When he says "many idioms militate against it ( last Tuesday; last year ; for the last fortnight; on the last occasion ; as I said in my last )", he means that these are the only correct forms, even though they clash with certain expectations of logic. <S> Burchfield agrees: "In many idiomatic phrases last is still the only possible adj. <S> of the two <S> : = most recent; next before a specified time ( last Christmas; last week)". <S> The fact that some idiom is illogical or ambiguous does not mean that it should be changed; indeed, it should be kept here, say Fowler and Burchfield. <S> I know this because I have read enough of their opinions to be sure. <S> I am not sure whether Bierce means to say "it is illogical and it should be changed" or "it is illogical <S> but it is idiom <S> and therefore we should keep it"; but his "Here two wrongs seem to make a right: we can say the week last past. <S> But will we? <S> I trow not ." seems to indicate that he did not advocate a change of universal idiom either, illogical though it may be. <S> He appears to say "this would be logical, but we will not use it, simply because we have long traditions of usage". <S> Words like "yester-week" were not even current around 1900, and now they are even less so; "last week" is and was the right way to say it. <S> I see no other option. <A> The word yester-week is entirely obsolete today. <S> Using it in contemporary English is not a mark of correctness, but of insanity. <S> This was largely the case even in the time of Mr. Bierce, which is what makes his illogical and ill-informed screed so funny.
| ‘Last week’ isn’t in any way incorrect.
|
What is more appropriate, "data" or "information" when referring to facts about something. What's the difference really? The Computer Studies teacher quipped, "There is a lot of data out there regarding HTML programming". What does this really mean? Will it make any difference if the teacher had used "information" in place of "data"? <Q> I would actually suggest that in this particular case, he probably should have used information rather than data . <S> Data is typically used when you're referring to "raw information", e.g. metrics that have been collected, but without any sort of analysis. <S> Since in this case, he presumably means references or guides to HTML programming rather than, e.g., studies on the effect of HTML programming on the economy where data has been collected on the actual programming of HTML, I'm not sure what sorts of things would qualify as 'data'. <S> Perhaps tables of information in reference form or some such could be considered data, but I'm not sure why he'd limit his quip to just that sort of information. <S> More likely to my mind is that as a CS professor, he frequently deals with actual data and the frequent usage biases his word choice in cases like this. <A> Typically-speaking, information would have been the correct term, as you are referring to general bodies of knowledge on a subject. <S> Data , on the other hand, typically refers to specific and isolated facts on a subject. <S> You'd find information on how to program in HTML, but data on how many people have jobs where they program using HTML. <A> Information could be considered more appropriate. <S> Data can refer to the results of scientific experiments, or, especially nowadays, information stored digitally. <S> For the latter reason, data could be considered fine for your example, because there is a lot data (i.e. information stored digitally, e.g. online) regarding HTML programming, itself a 'digital' subject. <S> If he was talking about, say, how to cook chicken, it would sound a bit wrong: <S> There is a lot of data out there about how to roast a chicken. <A> If the teacher had said "information", it would imply confidence in the usefulness and correctness of the material to be found. <S> By saying "data", there is the implication that much of the material may not be all that good, and possibly that it isn't easy to tell the difference. <S> Information = <S> Data - Noise <S> Or perhaps I'm reading too much into what might be a casual remark by someone who uses the word "data" more often than many speakers. <A> <A> "Information," in my opinion, is a term that lends itself to being more "digestible" than the term "data." <S> In other words, I would say that the sentence should have been "There is a lot of information out there regarding HTML. <S> " Data can be considered more "raw." <A> Information is usually the set of things that can be known about a subject or concept (except when it is used in the precise technical sense in physics where it is associated with the amount of order there is in a system). <S> Data (plural of Datum) originally meant a set of measurements about something. <S> So the correct answer is "information" - although there has been some blurring of meaning over the years. <S> For instance - most "Data Sheet"s should probably be "Information Sheet"s :) <S> The name originally came from the documentation of the actual, measured performance of a component (thus data). <A> The statement doesn't present data or information about HTML programming, but is about that data or information, so a reasonable interpretation is possible for either concept. <S> I like “data are facts <S> , information is data in a context”. <S> So the statement as is could mean there are lots of facts available, e.g. size of that job market, effectiveness of that programming language, etc. <S> If 'information' were used instead, I would interpret that to mean I should be able to achieve some purpose – most likely to learn how to write in HTML, but also perhaps to understand why it exists, how it differs from other languages and so on. <S> Being that the speaker was a computer studies specialist, it's also conceivable <S> s/he was being humorous (or nostalgic). <S> Long ago, computers were called data processors.
| Data in my mind is statistical in nature, information can be conversational. It depends on the context.
|
Can 'revert' be used as a synonym of 'reply'? I am a native speaker of American English, and I have only ever heard this usage of the word revert from one person. This person is not a native English speaker (he is from India), so he may just be mistaken, but I'm curious if anyone else has seen/heard this usage. He will write an email, bringing up a point for discussion. He will explain the issue, and then end the paragraph with something like Please do analyze and revert on the status. The best I can tell, he is asking for a response, and not asking for the something to be undone, or changed back to the way it was before (which is the meaning that I associate with the word revert ). Is revert used with different meanings outside the US? <Q> Yes and no. <S> Reading around on the internet, it seems that this was originally just an error (and still is one for most native English speakers), but in some non-native-speaker speech communities it has become established as a common usage. <S> From Paul Brians’ Common Errors in English Usage <S> The most common meaning of “revert” is “to return to an earlier condition, time, or subject.” <S> When Dr. Jekyll drank the potion he reverted to the brutish behavior of Mr. Hyde. <S> In standard English this would literally mean they are asking you to become them, so it is best to stick with “reply” when dealing with non-South Asian correspondents. <S> Even some South Asians disapprove of this use of “revert.” <S> Googling eg <S> "please revert to me" or "I will revert to you" (and skipping past the first few pages of results, which are mostly usage/grammar sites) gives lots of examples in this usage in the wild. <S> Interestingly, it doesn’t seem to function as an exact synonym for ‘reply’; hardly anybody writes eg “revert to this letter”. <A> I am from India.. <S> and here , the word "revert" is used interchangeably with "reply". <S> Like you say.. your indian colleague means that wants a status update. <S> I have experienced a similar situation when a european colleague misunderstands the statement : " we shall revert with the status" as.. "undoing a change made previously" and there was a lot of confusion because of that.... <S> I guess we just have to be careful using our words depending on our audience... <S> On the other hand.. " reply" should be the correct word to use <A> This usage of "revert", as "reply", is heard frequently in Singapore and Malaysia. <S> (I lived in Singapore for 3.5 years). <S> Singapore officially recognizes it as being an incorrect usage of the word. <S> A Singapore government sponsored campaign Speak Good English (goodenglish.org.sg), specifically addresses the word "revert". <S> In my local library there, for a time they had a series of these Speak Good English posters, each poster dealing with a specific "Singlish" issue. <S> I once saw one for Revert, something like: "Say 'please reply to my email as soon as possible' instead of 'please revert back soonest'" <A> This article backs up most of the other responses here. <S> Most English dictionaries do not consider revert to be a synonym of reply , but this usage is gaining popularity, especially in India and South East Asia. <S> Although some language sticklers may consider this usage to be improper, the rising popularity suggests that it is not right to consider it a mistake. <A> I work a lot with professional people from Trinidad & Tobago, where a large portion of the population is Indian. <S> There, everyone uses "I will revert to you on this" meaning "I will reply to you on this". <S> Have to say, it bugs the heck out of me, but one could argue that if an incorrect usage of the language is used frequently, eventually it will become correct usage. <S> Perhaps we are already there. <S> Yuk. <A> I guess he uses to revert meaning to return [a reply] . <S> So far, I have never heard revert used with that meaning. <A> The real point that the whole discussion seems to have missed may become clear from this example. <S> "Thank you for your email. <S> Presently, I am away from my desk. <S> I will revert as soon as I return." <S> The person who writes this is not promising to reply , in the sense he will come up with a useful response, only that he will get back to the subject. <S> When someone says "Please do analyze and revert on the status", the revert is a perfectly grammatical and even lexical, usage, though it may be esoteric to the American ear! <S> He means to say please get back to the subject after you have studied it and thought up a useful response. <S> I am afraid he did not mean reply or response by revert at all. <S> [think: " <S> aw'rite! <S> let me read it first <S> - i'll get back to you on this later"]
| But in South Asia it has become common to use “revert” instead of “reply,” writing when people want you to get back to them about something: “revert to me at this address.”
|
What's the difference between "I look forward to" and "I'm looking forward to"? I just don't get the reasoning behind which one is correct in which situation. Typically I use the wrong one, or I use them when I'm not supposed to. <Q> If you mean both in the sense of anticipating something, both are equally valid. <S> However 'I look forward' is more formal; it's the kind of thing you would write in an official letter. <S> A typical example is the closing statement of a cover letter for a job application: I look forward to hearing from you soon. <S> ' <S> I am looking forward' is less formal. <S> You would rarely say to a friend on the phone 'I look forward to visiting you next week.' <S> You would say: I'm looking forward to visiting you next week. <S> I'm not sure why others here have suggested this is wrong. <S> You wouldn't say 'I run towards the train station!' <S> , you'd say 'I am running towards the train station!' <A> Hmm, okay, a totally non-grammatical (probably, and thus very likely totally wrong) answer by an avowed non-grammarian (who nevertheless described and describes himself as a grammar-nazi at times): <S> "I'm looking forward to" means I'm doing it right now, <S> this very instance, like in Elendil's example of being on the phone with a friend; I disagree that it's about formal vs non-formal, it's due to being on the phone with that friend in that moment, so of course you'd be looking forward to meeting <S> said friend at that very moment . <S> "I look forward" means looking forward in a general sense; like, you'd not think about meeting your friend every second of the day, but the anticipation would be in the back of your mind all the time. <S> That's my take, and I'm sticking to it. <S> ;-) <A> Look forward to is a phrasal verb that means to await eagerly . <S> It can be used in any tense. <S> Examples: <S> I look forward to meeting you tonight. <S> He looks forward to graduating this year. <S> We dare not cancel the trip to Banff. <S> The kids have been looking forward to this for ages! <S> Both were looking forward to spending a wonderful evening together, but the weather cruelly disrupted their plans. <S> I can't believe they 're actually looking forward to vacationing with us for three weeks. <S> This house is super boring! <S> Even though he knew it would be difficult and unpleasant, he still looked forward to having a heart-to-heart conversation with her. <S> The sentence <S> Thus, it can only mean one thing: <S> I am directing my gaze (or view) forward where forward is an adverb. <S> This usage, however, is not common in regular conversation, except in very few circumstances. <S> Nevertheless, it is definitely acceptable to say: I'm looking forward to it! <S> to indicate that one is eagerly awaiting an event. <A> I look forward to seeing you means <S> I await eagerly to see you . <S> I am looking forward <S> means <S> I am looking at the area in front of me . <A> Look forward to something or look forward to doing something means "to excited and pleased about something that is going to happen" I'm really looking forward to our vacation. <S> But "I Look forward" can meaning with trivial differences according to the context. <S> For example it can mean I'm looking to the area in front of my eyes. <A> Assuming you mean "I look forward to ..." and "I'm looking forward to ...", they are essentially the same thing. <S> However, there is a slight difference. <S> the -ing on "looking" is a present participle. <S> So if we consider "look forward to" to mean "anxiously await", then we can rewrite the phrase as: " <S> I anxiously await your visit", vs "I am Anxiously awaiting your visit". <S> So in this case, "look" and "await" <S> are the verb, and "forward" and "anxiously" are the adverbs. <S> So it's sort of a active/passive thing. <S> "I am" versus "I". <S> You would not say "I looking forward to" or "I am look forward to". <S> It is effectively the same thing as "I look" vs " <S> I am looking". <S> for example "I look good" and "I am looking good". <A> My take: 'I look forward to hearing from you' <S> means you expect something to happen. ' <S> I am looking forward to hearing from you' means you are now excited about a future event. <S> Both cases can be used when you expect a reply from a person you email. <S> Still, the connotation is different. <S> Another example: 'I see an accident happening' means you expect an accident to happen. ' <S> I am seeing an accident happening' means you <S> now see an accident happening. <S> Source: http://theicingonyourenglish.com/i-look-forward-to-vs-im-looking-forward-to/
| I'm looking forward cannot be interpreted to mean eagerly awaiting , as it would have to be followed by to_ .
|
Data pronunciation: "dayta" or "dahta"? I hear "dayta" more often, but what's the correct pronunciation? <Q> Wiktionary marks : <S> /ˈdeɪtə/ as UK, US /ˈdætə/ as US <S> /ˈdɑːtə/ as Australia, UK formal <S> Merriam-Webster lists <S> all three pronunciations, and provides a sound file for /ˈdeɪtə/. <A> There's no such thing as "correct" pronunciation. <S> Now, to answer your question, here's what LPD3 says on this (Wells 2008): <S> Preference polls <S> BrE: ˈdeɪtə 92% ˈdɑːtə 6% ˈdætə 2% AmE: ˈdeɪțə 64% ˈdæțə 35% ˈdɑːțə 1% NB: <S> ț stands for the (voiced) alveolar tap (flap) here. <S> Wells uses a slightly different symbol, not the usual IPA one . <S> A historical perspective: <S> The eleventh edition of Everyman's Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones (the 1960 reprint) gives ˈdeitə as the primary variant for British English, whereas dɑːtə is given in brackets, which means, in Jones' notation, the less frequent form that is still in current use. <A> The US and Australia, for example, predominantly use "dayta" but New Zealanders say "dahta". <S> In short, either is correct but different countries' cultures have different norms. <A> In American English, either is acceptable. " <S> (Regional speech differences can inflect the decision about pronunciation as well.) <A> I vaguely remember being told that day-ta was the correct pronunciation, and that was because there was a vowel (the second 'a') following the consonant (the 't'). <S> Now whether or not that actually applies, someone please comment because I'd love to know if I was given a load of hogwash there. <S> Personal experience, I find that I hear and use day-ta more than dah-ta. <S> It is similar to the different ways that 'SQL' is pronounced among us techies - some spell it out, and some pronounce it as "sequel". <S> Thinking about it, I find that when it is the word "data" all by itself, I use day-ta, but when it is part of another word ("database", for example) I tend to use dah-ta instead. <S> Again, not sure if this is something that I just happened to have picked up over the years or if it is even correct. <S> Anyone else notice the different pronunciation in situations like this? <A> The NOAD reports the pronunciation as /ˈdædə/ /ˈdeɪdə/, using the American English IPA; using the British English IPA, the pronunciation is /ˈdeɪtə/. <S> The difference between /ˈdeɪdə/ and /ˈdeɪtə/ is the same difference between /ˈɪdəli/ and /ˈɪtəli/ (the pronunciation for Italy ). <A> In the City of London: ˈdeɪtə. <A> Am I the only person who thinks that the first vowel in "dah-ta" would be pronounced the same as the first syllable in "follow" rather than the first syllable in "batter"? <S> I don't know how to write that out phonetically, but "dah-ta", to me, would be pronounced "dahh-tahh". <A> This question reminds me of the film Gravity . <S> Watch the first five minutes here . <S> On 1:55 you can hear "Houston" (Ed Harris) saying <S> "day-ta" ; on 4:47 Dr. Stone (Sandra Bullock) says "Dah-ta" , only to be answered "we are not receiving any 'day-ta' ". <S> Now, Ed Harris was born in New Jersey and Sandra Bullock <S> is from Virginia, but raised in Nuremberg. <S> It seems that the correct pronunciation of "data" is a matter of geography and not so much of grammar. <S> Well, I know this is not the most comprehensive study, but I wanted to share an interesting case of 'day-ta' vs. 'dah-ta'.
| Dah-tuh" is more common than "day-tuh" in my personal experience, though it's hard to say which is more prominent overall. That depends on which country you live in and what your definition of "correct" is.
|
"Had better" — what is the meaning of this grammatically? I'm interested to know why we use had better for recommendation. Technically we're speaking of an action that hasn't yet occurred. Like he had better leave a tip means he hasn't yet left a tip, but I suggest he do. Why do we use the past tense had if it has nothing to do with the past? Why do we not use the subjunctive here? ( He have better leave a tip. ) <Q> The NOAD reports that the meaning of had better do something <S> is <S> would find it wiser to do something ( you had better be careful ) ought to do something <S> It reports also this note about the usage: <S> In the verb phrase had better do something , the word had acts like an auxiliary verb; in informal spoken contexts, it is often dropped, as in you better not come tonight . <S> In writing, the had may be contracted to ’d ( you’d better call ), but it should not be dropped altogether (not you better call ). <A> "You had better..." seems to be an expression (idiom) that functions as a strong suggestion to solve a problem. <S> It seems to be even stronger than "You should..." <S> Examples: You had better see the doctor about your cough. <S> You had better study hard for your entrance exam. <S> To explain the grammar, I'd say it is such a strong suggestion phrase that it suggests something that the person should have already completed in the past but is just starting to do. <S> Clearer grammar might be "You better have finished the report!" <S> instead of "You had better finish the report!" <A> Look at this sentence He had better leave a tip. <S> But it makes sense to tell that the real form of the sentence was: If he had left a tip, it would be better. <S> It means he has not done the work, but still he has the opportunity to do it.
| It's actually used to say someone should do something.
|
"I want to come there" or "I want to go there" When someone is away from you and wants to be where you are, do they tell you I want to come there or I want to go there ? <Q> I have always thought that go has a slight connotational leaning to describing the journey, or leaving the origin. <S> Come has a connotation to arriving, or the destination. <S> Thus, "I want to go to Paris <S> " states that I want to make a journey, with Paris as the destination, but that the journey is important. <S> "I want to come to Rome" implies that the arrival in Rome is for a specific reason that is personally, emotionally important to the speaker. <S> Moreover, coming to Rome, as opposed to going to Paris, seems to imply that the speaker is addressing someone who is in Rome, and will be coming to them or going to Paris. <S> I believe that both choices are grammatically valid, but that each has a slightly different meaning invested in it. <A> would be understood as I want to travel and arrive where you are . <S> I want to go there <S> could mean I want to go in the place we are talking of . <A> The most common/natural expression here is probably along the lines of: <S> I wish I were there. <S> (Okay, so many people don't bother to use the subjunctive - as you should - and say was instead of were .) <S> A possible alternative is I want to be there <S> - it's slightly less natural sounding to me though, at least in British English. <S> I want to go there. <S> might be an appropriate response if someone mentioned a foreign country/holiday destination that sounded appealing to you. <S> I can't think of any real-word situation in which I want to come there. <S> would sound best. <A> I would have to say that there is a fairly simple and straightforward rule to this confusion. <S> If you are presently at the location, then use "come" (as in: While sitting at a cafe in Rome drinking espresso "I would love to come back next year." or alternatively, "Excuse me, can you come over here"). <S> But, if you are not presently at the location, to use "go" (as in: "Will you go over there." or "Hawai'i? <S> I would love to go there.").
| Generally, when speaking with a person that is away from you, I want to come there
|
What is the correct pronunciation and spelling of "asterisk"? Every now and then I get caught out by a spellchecker around the word asterisk . I can accept that this is the correct spelling, however I hear a lot of people pronouncing it as asterix also. Is it just me and this is a gradual changing of the word and most people are doing it or am I hearing things because I make the mistake myself? Is the popularity of Asterix the Gaul responsible for this mispronunciation and spelling or is it due to natural changes that happen in any language? <Q> The phenomenon is called metathesis , and it is actually not that uncommon in English and many other languages. <S> Note how you say three , but not threeteen or thrid ; you say <S> thirteen and third instead. <S> That's because thirteen <S> and third have undergone metathesis from Old English <S> þreotene and þridda . <S> Many languages have words that show this phenomenon, and some use it as a regular part of their grammar (e.g. the Fur language ). <S> The process of metathesis has altered the shape of many familiar words in the English language, as well. <S> [...] Metathesis is responsible for the most common types of speech errors, such as children acquiring spaghetti as pasketti . <S> The metathesized pronunciation of ask as ax /ˈæks/ goes back to Old English days, when ascian and axian/acsian were both in use. <S> [...] The process has shaped many English words historically. <S> Bird and horse came from Old English <S> bryd and hros ; wasp and hasp were also written wæps and hæps . <S> So, to answer your question, yes, that's a natural change that happens in many languages. <S> Wikipedia even expressly mentions <S> asterisk <S> → asterix /ˈæstərɪks/ as an example of metathesis, along with many others. <S> It can start off as a slip of the tongue, or as deliberate "laziness" if you will, but once the "wrong" pronunciation gets sufficiently established among native speakers, you can no longer call it wrong from the linguistics standpoint. <S> As one of our linguists once put it elsewhere , "metathesis can be done in error, but ultimately, if the alternate form becomes established in some dialect, it is hard to argue that every person doing it is making an error. <S> " <S> Again, not many people nowadays would argue that thirteen is a speech error. <S> Whether or not the same will happen to asteriks , is, of course, pure speculation. <A> Here is an interesting usage note on asterisk from the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition on my computer): <S> Avoid pronouncing this word |ˈastəˌriks| or |ˈastəˌrik|, as many regard such pronunciations as uneducated. <S> and a related one from the Oxford Dictionaries Online : <S> Even though asterisk does not look like a tricky word to pronounce, it can be problematic. <S> In both its singular and plural forms , it is often mispronounced as if it ends with -rix . <S> Pronounced correctly, it ends with a -risk sound when singular and -risks when plural <A> People who pronounce it asterix pronounce it wrong. <S> However, it is common in some parts and subcultures of the U.S. for people to reverse the ending -sk sound. <S> So they will say "He axed me a question" instead of "He asked me a question. <S> " <S> Some years ago I was producing a TV spot with a well known African-American soul singer doing the voiceover. <S> He could not say the word asks in the script, so we had to do an edit and switch the word. <A> It is true that there are some folk out there who feel one pronunciation is wrong . <S> However, I have to disagree with the absolutist attitude of a lot of the answers have. <S> In the software engineering circles I run in, either pronunciation is commonly heard, and both are considered perfectly acceptable. <S> It may be true that a few folks in the writing community feel otherwise, but programmers use the word far more than <S> writers/publishers/editors do these days. <S> It is used extensively in most programming languages for multiplication, pointer operations, and occasionally exponentiation. <S> So if you use the word exclusively in those circles, either pronunciation is generally accepted. <S> Perhaps the dictionaries will catch up with this common usage at some point, or perhaps the absolutist position will ultimately prevail. <S> Time will tell.
| It is not just you, and it is a fairly common error in pronunciation in many parts of the English-speaking world.
|
Can "modality" mean "having modes?" A widget has one button. This button performs different functions depending on the widget's mode at the time the button is pressed. Can this be said to have modality , or a modal design? <Q> This quote from Jeff Raskin's book, The Humane Interface (courtesy of wikipedia ) gives a good definition for "modal" in this context: <S> An human-machine interface is modal with respect to a given gesture when (1) the current state of the interface is not the user's locus of attention and (2) the interface will execute one among several different responses to the gesture, depending on the system's current state. <S> In your case, the "gesture" is "clicking on the widget's button", so the word "modal" is applicable here. <S> In general English usage the word "modality" means "having or related to modes" (for instance one might refer to "the modality of the music" about modal music ), so <S> your example would technically be correct. <S> However, since the word "modality" has a specific different meaning within the context of user interface design, you might be advised to express yourself differently avoid confusion. <A> <A> In my experience, there are only two recognised uses of modality in computing: <S> Modal Dialogs/Windows - <S> These force interaction from the user; that is, the user must interact with the dialog (and ultimately dismiss it) in order to continue with other operation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_window Human Computer Interaction (HCI) <S> - Modality is the means of communication between the user and the computer (e.g. audio, visual, tactile) <S> Neither of these fit your scenario. <S> That's not to say it is entirely wrong - model <S> does mean 'pertaining to mode or form' - but at best, its use in this context might be unclear <S> Instead, I would say the button on your widget is multi-functional , context-sensitive or mode-sensitive/mode-dependent <S> - I think mode-sensitive would be my preference. <A> I prefer to use modal design , even if modality means also modal quality . <S> The phrase modal dialog , though, could be understood to have a different meaning, as it is normally used to mean a dialog window that blocks its parent window until it is open. <S> If you think that modal design can be confused with that, then I would use modality .
| In computing a mode is "a way of operating or using a system," so if your widget has different ways of operating, which apparently it does, then it could be said to have a modal design.
|
"Who" versus "whom" with multiple verbs Which of these phrases is more correct? The man who I know to be unhappy The man whom I know to be unhappy Is one of the verbs in the phrase more important, thus determining the noun case, or is something else happening with the particular combination of verbs? ( The man whom I know is valid but the man to be unhappy isn't; the tense must be specified as in the man who is unhappy .) <Q> In this instance, the pronoun "who" is the object of the verb "know". <S> So you want to use objective case whom. <A> The quantity of verbs has no effect on the choice between who and whom. <S> The only thing you need to figure out is whether or not you need a subject for a verb. <S> Otherwise, use whom. <S> The non-technical instruction on choosing the right word: Who can only be used as a subject, so if you don’t need a subject, don’t use who; use whom. <S> For this example, the correct choice is whom. <S> “The man who/whom I know to be unhappy…” I suppose this is followed by a verb. <S> The simple subject of the sentence (of the verb that follows) is man, not who/whom. <S> Who/whom is not the subject of a verb, so you use whom. <S> Another way to write the example, which might make it easier to parse <S> , is as follows: “The man, whom I know is unhappy,…” As we see, whom is not serving as the subject of any verb. <S> Source: <S> Precise Edit <A> As the question is tagged with acceptability , I will report the following paragraph, reported by NOAD in the usage of who section: <S> The normal practice in modern English is to use who instead of whom <S> ( Who do you think we should support? ) <S> and, where applicable, to put the preposition at the end of the sentence ( Who do you wish to speak to? ). <S> Such uses are today broadly accepted in standard English, but in formal writing it is best to maintain the distinction. <S> If you want to avoid writing who when you should use whom (or vice versa), you can use that . <S> the man that I know to be unhappy <S> That is a relative pronoun used to introduce a defining or restrictive clause, especially one essential to identification; it is used instead of when , <S> which , who , whom . <S> the book that I have bought yesterday the person that I will meet tomorrow the year that Anna was born <A> As I write, all other answers agree that whom is the correct choice in this construction (because "whom I know to be unhappy" is an auxiliary phrase, wherein whom is not the subject of a verb). <S> I don't dispute the strict grammatical position, but I would say that, as suggested by this NGram , whom appears to be increasingly falling into disuse. <S> Correspondingly, here are over 1000 written instances of " who I know to", most if not all of which are "incorrect" according to strict grammar. <S> In my opinion, whom is already becoming somewhat 'dated', and it's only a matter of time before it disappears completely. <A> "I know the man to be unhappy" seems be more informative, but it doesn't answer the question until you change it again to "Him <S> I know to be unhappy". <S> Or how about "I know that man [him] to be unhappy. <S> This would indicate that you want the objective case - whom. <A> The main verb in your question is "know", so it is "The man whom I know to be unhappy", just as it is "The man whom I know". <S> It gets more complex if you replace 'to be' with 'is', as there are several possible meanings. <S> "The man, whom I know, is unhappy" = <S> "The man is unhappy: I know him (not he). <S> Without any commas, or (just as wrong) <S> with a single comma after 'know', ambiguity makes it impossible to say what the pronoun should be (unless the rest of the sentence makes it clear). <S> Moral: <S> punctuation is important, and don't lazily cut "to be" down to "is" unless you are clear about how you are changing the meaning. <S> NB <S> Precise Edit's answer (quoted by Lauren), leaves out all the commas in this phrase , so isn't helpful. <A> Very simple. <S> MAN is the subject of the main clause. <S> The VERB of the main clause is IS. <S> (This man is unhappy). <S> "who I know" is a subordinate adjective clause modifying MAN. <S> The person speaking knows the man. <S> The subject of the subordinate clause is I. <S> The verb is KNOW.WHOM is what we call the subordinate clause marker, but it is also the presumed object of the verb KNOW, so it takes the objective (Whom) case, not the subjective. <S> When pronouns follow a TO BE verb, and refer back to the subject of the sentence, they take the SUBJECTIVE case. <S> (I am HE. <S> She is WHO?)Most of the time, one's ear tells one what word to use. <A> To answer the direct question ... <S> Verb clauses can be nested and are parsed from the inner most to the outermost. <S> so "I know 'x to be" is a verb clause which after being parsed would resolve effectively to "is" and therefore your second statement is true - it the correct stereotype verb clause would be "the man who is unhappy". <S> The response to the other comment <S> - I don't know if this a culture thing <S> but I do not find it to be correct usage to replace who with that. <S> That can only be used when talking about NOT-people.
| If who/whom is the subject of a verb, use who. "The man who , I know, is unhappy" is equivalent to "The man who is unhappy (I know it)", so whom would be wrong.
|
In what context or situation (if any) would the words "try to see me" make sense? If there is such possible situation, please, describe it. Please don't insert any punctuation between those words and keep their order intact. <Q> "try to see me" could mean "try to meet with me for a few minutes", as in "try to see me next time you're in the office." <S> It could also be the literal meaning: "I'm testing a video camera, stand there and try to see me." <A> The phrase could also be used by a doctor to a patient: <S> Try to see me again next month. <S> This would be a suggestion for the patient to come back and speak with the doctor next month. <A> This Yahoo question seems to provide a good example, as in "try to renew a relationship": <S> "Why does my ex try to see me so soon after breaking up?" <S> The other meaning would be to "try to see me" (as I truly am), like in the "Try to see me" song from the Legion Within . <A> I went to see Caroline. <S> I saw Colin last night. <A> Well, if the Flash was trying to impress a girl he could say: "I'm gonna move from the left side of the room, to the right. <S> Try to see me.".
| One of the meaning of to see is meet someone one knows, socially or by chance .
|
What is the meaning and usage of the word "beknownst"? I've used "beknownst" and "unbeknownst" a couple times but I never really bothered to look it up until now. But it's not in most of the online dictionaries websites I frequent. I'm under the impression that this word is old school; if so, is it still appropriate to use? Or am I better off using some other word that means the same thing? <Q> Beknown also exists). <S> It is rather old-fashioned which is probably why some online dictionaries don't list it. <S> They have essentially been superceded by 'known' and 'unknown', which have equivalent meanings. <S> Nevertheless it is not uncommon to hear: <S> Unbeknownst to me, my wife had already bought the same present. <S> Or the like. <S> It is perfectly appropriate to use. <A> beknownst is an archaic word, as it is beknown ; the meaning of beknown is known . <S> The word that is used in Modern English is unbeknown (or unbeknownst ), which has its origin from beknown . <S> unbeknown |ˌənbəˈnoʊn| (also unbeknownst ) <S> adjective [ predic. ] <S> ( unbeknown to ) without the knowledge of someone: unbeknown to me, she made some inquiries . <S> ORIGIN middle 17th century: from un- (not) <S> + archaic beknown (known). <A> Unbeknownst is strictly an adverb may not be benoted as much as unknown since unknown is a noun and an adjective. <S> However, it is hardly "archaic" ... <S> I eathly found samples of being in magazines and books in the last decade. <S> The beverage industry has long supported groups such as Keep America Beautiful (the group famously known for its " crying Indian " ads) that emphasize individual responsibility for Utter collection but which, unbeknownst to most consumers, work behind the scenes to oppose and defeat bottle recycling bills. <S> … <S> E: The Environmental Magazine, 2011 <S> And it is benoted much more than unbeknown: <S> Ngram <S> (Sorry, I couldn't get it to load here.) <A> 'Beknownst', not archaic at all. <S> Abbreviated from, 'as be known to me'. <S> To simply use known in its stead would cause the confusion as to 'known to whom?'. <S> To imply that it should be understood that one would be referring to oneself is vulgarity.
| Technically there is no such word as 'beknownst' other than as a back-formation of 'unbeknownst' (unbeknown exists and in fact pre-dates unbeknownst.
|
Does "pants" more commonly mean "trousers" or "underpants"? In the UK, I've heard pants being used as slang for underpants (or was it in Bridget Jones' Diary ?), whereas in India it almost exclusively means "trousers". Describing the meaning of "put your pants on one leg at a time", this link says: To say that someone puts their pants on one leg at a time means that the person is a human being no different from anyone else. The idiom's origin seems to refer to trousers but I'm wondering whether someone reading this might think "underpants" rather than trousers? <Q> In the UK "Pants" typically refers to underwear. <S> (Where it is also a slang term for "bad". <S> As in "That's pants".) <A> In US usage pants means trousers. <S> In UK usage pants means underpants. <S> The popularity of US films and TV programmes means that most English speakers are likely to have some awareness of the US usage and will correctly understand phrases that use pants to mean trousers. <A> In British English, pants means underpants or, informally, nonsense .In <S> American English, pants means trousers ; the singular form is used as adjective. <S> [BrEn] <S> He thought we were going to be absolute pants. <S> [AmEn] <S> His pant leg was broken. <A> I'm English <S> and I've never called underpants "pants" <S> this is a relatively recent use of the word from about the early Nineties. <S> I went to 8 different schools around England, north and south, in the Seventies (don't ask) <S> no one ever called underpants "pants". <A> In Australian usage, 'pants' usually (but not always) refers to 'trousers'. <S> From the Macquarie Dictionary : trousers. <S> underpants, especially women's. <S> (phrase) be caught with one's pants down, Colloquial to be caught unexpectedly and ill-prepared. <S> by the seat of one's pants, Colloquiala. <S> without the benefit of prior instruction.b. <S> deprived of the technical aids usually available, as in the case of an aircraft pilot with faulty instruments. <S> get into someone's pants, Colloquial to have sexual intercourse with someone. <S> ... <S> the pants off someone, Colloquial (humorous) used after a verb, as an intensifier: that lecturer bores the pants off me; this'll scare the pants off her; I'll sue the pants off him! <S> wear the pants, to be the dominant partner in a relationship. <S> [abbreviation of pantaloons] <S> Interestingly, the loan-word 'pantsu' (パンツ) in Japanese suffers from the same conflicted identity - it can mean either underpants or trousers (though perhaps the former is more common). <A> In Britain, pants almost always refers to underpants (and more specifically men's underpants). ' <S> Trousers' is used everywhere <S> 'pants' is in US English, including the idiom you refer to. <A> In the UK, I've heard pants being used as slang for underpants (or was it in Bridget Jones' Diary?), whereas in India it almost exclusively means "trousers". <S> First of all, that is not slang. <S> Pants is the normal word in the UK. <S> There is a difference in use of the word in different forms of English. <S> In American English, it means what is known as trousers in the UK. <S> If pants is used in India with the American definition, that suggests an American influence on the English learnt there. <S> This page explains it: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pants_1?q=pants <A> Nonsense!"Pants" are definitely not underwear exclusively in the UK.Maybe <S> it's a regional thing. <S> Where I live in North West England, pants is a general name for all types of lower outer two legged garments and has been since I grew up in the early seventies! <S> Trousers are just a formal pair of pants. <S> Boys wear underpants and girls wear knickers. <S> I found out recently that a large proportion of the country call their underwear "pants" and it makes me wonder how over the years we have all been misunderstanding each other. <S> Interesting how Australia/India use nearly always follow the UK rather that USA but still use the same dialect as my own region in the UK. <S> I wonder how long the word "pants" to mean underwear has been around in the UK and which came first. <S> And how we all got so muddled!
| In other parts of the world, notably the USA, "pants" refers to trousers.
|
Do Americans use the world 'turtle' as a generic word to mean 'tortoise'? Obviously there are two different animals — a tortoise and a turtle. But I have been told by a colleague that in the US the word turtle is used to describe both. I find this odd as for example the Galapagos tortoise was fairly well known (old & big) and it would surely be a mistake to refer to it as a turtle. <Q> It all depends on how technical you want to be. <S> (I am writing as the spouse of a nationally recognized expert on wild turtles, tortoises and terrapins in the US.) <S> In the US there are 50 species of "chelonians" excluding sea turtles. <S> Among experts they are identified by strict Latin taxonimic names when precise species identification is required. <S> There is also a looser English taxonomy, but there is enough regional variation that experts fall back on Latin when confusion arises. <S> But, even experts in "casual" conversation use the word "turtle" to include "turtles, tortoises and terrapins"; e.g. "I study turtles." <S> Some non-experts refer to the shelled animals that live primarily in water (lakes, rivers and streams) as "turtles" and those that live primarily on land as "tortoises". <S> However, in the US northeast, the most common land dweller is the "box turtle ". <S> Bottom line, in casual conversations in the US the word "turtle" encompasses all those shelled creatures. <S> In discussion with passionate "turtle people" try to use the correct taxonomic name. <A> Your colleague is correct to an extent. <S> Generally in British English, tortoise refers to the land animal, turtle to the marine animal, and terrapin to the freshwater animal. <A> Yes. <S> American English often uses "turtle" for tortoise, in British English <S> the two terms are not interchangeable, and (for what it's worth) <S> Indian English often uses tortoise as the generic term for both turtles and tortoises. <S> ( The Hare and the Tortoise is never * The Hare and the Turtle , and Indian languages—and Japanese is similar according to a comment above—usually have the same words for both, and this is mapped to tortoise , not turtle .) <S> So it varies from region to region. <S> As evidence, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (UK) says, under tortoise <S> that it's "Called turtle in North America", and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives, under tortoise , definition 1b saying " Chiefly British <S> A terrestrial or freshwater chelonian." <S> That they are distinct in British English can be seen from this exchange from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland : <S> “When we were little,” the Mock Turtle went on at last, more calmly, though still sobbing a little now and then, “we went to school in the sea. <S> The master was an old Turtle—we used to call him Tortoise–—” <S> “Why did you call him Tortoise, if he wasn’t one?” <S> Alice asked. <S> “We called him Tortoise because he taught us,” said the Mock Turtle angrily. <S> “Really you are very dull!” <A> In the NOAD is reported that turtle means: a slow-moving reptile, enclosed in a scaly or leathery domed shell into which it can retract its head and thick legs. <S> • <S> Family Testudinidae : numerous genera and species, including the European tortoise ( Testudo graeca ). <S> (also sea turtle) <S> a large marine reptile with a bony or leathery shell and flippers, coming ashore annually on sandy beaches to lay eggs. <S> • <S> Families <S> Cheloniidae (seven species) and Dermochelyidae (the leatherback). <S> a freshwater reptile related to the turtles, typically having a flattened shell. <S> Called terrapin in South Africa and India and tortoise in Australia. <S> • <S> Order <S> Chelonia : several families, in particular Emydidae and Kinosternidae . <S> • any reptile of this order, including the terrapins and tortoises. <S> It's then true that in American English the term turtle can be used to refer to an animal that in other English languages is called tortoise . <S> This is not something that happens only in American English, though. <S> Also other languages have a word equivalent to turtle (In Italian tartaruga ) and one equivalent to tortoise (in Italian testuggine ), but the first can be used instead of the second (even if it is less accurate). <S> To notice also that, for example, in Italian the European tortoise is called tartaruga . <A> Yes. <S> American speakers do use the term turtle to refer to both the land-based and marine reptiles . <S> Whereas many (not all) BrEng speakers will differentiate between the two species. <S> I always thought it strange that the cartoon series my son used to watch, <S> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles , back in the late 1980s was titled so. <S> It was obvious that the four pizza-obsessed ninja turtles; Raphael, Leonardo, Donatello and Michelangelo performed their heroic deeds on land and and hardly ever in sea or freshwaters. <S> Although I do remember they spent some time in the sewers.... <S> And now nearly thirty years later, I find that Americans still prefer to use the term turtle . <S> In The Big Bang Theory, season 8 episode 17, Amy and Sheldon make an important announcement: <S> Amy : <S> We have some exciting news. <S> Leonard : OK <S> Sheldon : <S> As you know, Amy and I have been together a long time. <S> And a lot of things that I never thought were possible; now seem possible. <S> Penny : <S> Okaaay... <S> Amy : <S> After a careful evaluation of our relationship, we decided that the time was right to take a step forward. <S> Leonard : ... OK <S> Sheldon : Do you want to say it? <S> Amy : <S> Let's say it together. <S> Sheldon and Amy : <S> We're getting a turtle! <S> We then see the couple in a pet shop choosing a tortoise . <S> This is all the more remarkable considering that Sheldon and Amy are scientists, <S> Sheldon a theoretical physicist while Amy a neurobiologist.
| In U.S. English, turtle is used as a catch-all term for all animals of that type, but distinctive tortoises like the giant Galapagos tortoise will be called such.
|
What does "For what it's worth" mean? I hear it often, and can usually derive a sentence's meaning with or without it. What does it really mean? When would one use it? <Q> It means 'whether or not this is of any use/value'. <S> For what it's worth, I'm very sorry <S> I broke the window. <S> means, for example, that it may not make any difference to the physical state of the window, but that hopefully the apology helps placate you. <S> It's almost a kind of self-deprecation; it's saying 'No words of mine will be adequate, but...' <A> Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary for all or for what it's worth; for whatever it's worth: <S> Even though it may not be important or valuable. <S> For example, Here's my opinion, for what it's worth , or For whatever <S> it's worth <S> I've decided to take the train . <S> [Late 1800s] Dictionary.com <A> As reported from the NOAD, for what it is worth is used to present a comment, suggestion, or opinion without making a claim as to its importance or validity. <S> For what it's worth, she's very highly thought of abroad.
| for what it's worth (informal) said when you are giving someone a piece of information and you are not certain if that information is useful or important.
|
How to indicate possession when using abbreviation "Dr." I often run into a case where I need to say I have a doctor's appointment, but how would I properly punctuate it if I wanted to use the abbreviation Dr. instead of the word doctor ? Dr.'s appointment looks strange to me. <Q> Basically, the word doctor is a noun, and is the one to be used in any regular form of speech or writing. <S> Dr. , on the other hand, is an honorific. <S> Like Mr. , Mrs. , or Prof. , it isn't meant to be used as a noun at all. <S> To answer more directly, there is no proper way to use the abbreviated form to indicate possesion, as it isn't a noun. <A> The abbreviation <S> Dr should only be used preceding the doctor's name to refer to him or her. <S> It is poor style to use it otherwise. <A> I think when you use "Dr" or "Dr's" (with or without the period) as an abbreviation for Doctor, it's fine if used in an informal setting. <S> After all, you are abbreviating the word "Doctor" in a generic sense, rather than referring to the use of "Dr. Smith" (honorific). <S> For example, if you were texting someone or posting a "Tweet", either of the abbreviated forms (with or without the period) would be as acceptable as the unabbreviated form. <S> But, in formal usage, I would stick with the unabbreviated form (Doctor, Doctors or Doctor's). <S> For example if I was writing a letter to my employer, I would say "Doctor's" instead of "Dr.'s or Dr's". <S> Also... <S> There has been some discussion by others of the "possessive" nature of using "Doctor's". <S> In your case: "where I need to say I have a doctor's appointment <S> " it's pretty clear what is meant, but in a general sense, it could lead to confusion and I would try to find another way to word it ... <S> If you say "Doctor's appointment" , is this "an appointment with my Doctor", or is it "an appointment belonging to my Doctor"?
| To avoid confusion you could say "Doctors appointment" (omitting the (') apostrophe), but I think it would be clearer to say "an appointment with my Doctor" or "an appointment to see my Doctor".
|
Source for etymological study It has always been interesting for me to know how words are made and where they are coming from. Is there any reliable source for etymological studies? any books, or dictionaries out there? <Q> Online Etymology Dictionary <S> The basic sources of this work are Weekley's "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English," Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language," "Oxford English Dictionary" (second edition), "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology," Holthausen's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache," and Kipfer and Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang." <A> We aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it. <S> Thus etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations are included. <A> The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is online at archive.org: A-B <S> C <S> D-E F-G <S> H <S> I-K <S> L <S> M-N <S> O-P Q-R <S> S-Sh <S> Si-St <S> Su <S> -Th <S> Ti-U <S> V-Z <A> General purpose: <S> Online Etymology Dictionary Google Books , set date range and sort by date <S> * <S> Google Ngram Viewer <S> Bill Mullins has a giant list of Full Text Databases <S> Internet Archive <S> Project Gutenberg HathiTrust Digital Library <S> Topsy for Tweets <S> The Right Rhymes : hop-hop slang defined Rap Stats by Rap Genius <S> gives an idea of earliest use, but cannot be searched by time <S> Newspapers: <S> AU, US, NZ: <S> Elephind (1787-2016) <S> collates CA, Trove, PP and more USA: <S> Chronicling America (1836-1922) by the Library of Congress <S> Australia: <S> Trove <S> (-1954) <S> by the National Library of Australia New Zealand: <S> Papers <S> Past (1839-1945) by the Nation Library of New Zealand <S> Particularly for computing terms <S> : Google Groups for Usenet archives (also good for slang) (1981 - present) <S> DSpace@MIT for the CSAIL archives (1959 - present) <S> IETF's RFC archive (1969 - present) PDP-10 software archive (~1967 - ~1990), for old source code Tech Model Railroad Club dictionary , <S> TMRC 1st & 2nd editions (1959, 1960) <S> The Jargon File and its archives ( also here ) (1981 - 2003) MIT's The Tech newspaper archives (1881 - present) Bitsavers ' Software and PDF Document Archive (misc. dates) <S> * Care must be taken with Google Books' metadata, especially when only a snippet is shown: occasionally the book was published later than the the year Google claims it was, and sometimes they accidentally include multiple books for each record. <S> Therefore it's important to double check the date: scroll up to confirm the real date for "full view" books, and for preview/"snippet view" verify with another source (such as the Internet Archive , Project Gutenberg or the HathiTrust Digital Library ).
| Wiktionary Designed as the lexical companion to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia project, Wiktionary has grown beyond a standard dictionary and now includes a thesaurus, a rhyme guide, phrase books, language statistics and extensive appendices.
|
Which is correct, "neither is" or "neither are"? Bob: "Can I set the font color? Can I customize the text?" Frank: "Neither of these options is available. Sorry!" Is "neither is" always correct or should one use "neither are" in some cases and what are the exact rules? I tried the googles and found a big mess of this-is-why-stackexchange-exists :P <Q> In formal usage, it should definitely be is : <S> Neither of these options is available. <S> This is the traditional rule (iirc, Fowler’s discusses this at length). <S> However, in colloquial usage, either option is fine, and are seems to now be somewhat more common, at least on teh internets. <S> A commenter here nicely describes the sort of thought process which probably pushes people (usually subconsciously) towards using <S> are : <S> I wanted to say that “neither of us are cardplayers”, but I know that in that case, I should use “is”. <S> But I also can’t say “neither of us is cardplayers”. <S> So perhaps I should say “neither of us is a cardplayer” which sounds ridiculous to me. <S> Is the conclusion that, in situations like this, one should reconstruct the sentence entirely. <S> So I should really say something like “we aren’t cardplayers”. <S> Fine when you’re writing, but how do you avoid getting into a tangle when talking!! <S> FWIW, “ <S> neither of us is a cardplayer” and “neither of us are cardplayers” <S> both sound absolutely fine to my ear. <S> I don’t have time at the moment, but if someone else is in the mood for some corpus or n -gram searching (or can find someone who’s already done the research), it would be very interesting to know the history of this. <S> Is the current shift to <S> neither … are a real phenomenon, or is this just recency illusion? <A> I thought I'd add something to what has already been said in @PLL's answer. <S> Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, which I like for its descriptive style and useful examples, has this to say about <S> neither : <S> The reason it is sometimes plural is easy to see when you think about it. <S> Neither serves as the negative counterpart of either , which is usually singular. <S> But it also serves in the same way for both , which is usually plural. <S> The reason it seems more natural to use the plural verb to negate two choices is that we want to negate both choices, and not just one of them. <S> For example, it may seem more natural to say, "Neither of these colours suit me" and "Neither yellow nor orange suits me". <S> It also says: The singular number of neither is most likely to be ignored when it is followed by of and a plural noun or pronoun, for then both notional agreement and the principle of proximity pull in the direction of a plural verb. <S> It gives numerous examples of neither taking a plural verb: Thersite's body is as good as Ajax'/When <S> neither are alive-- <S> Shakespeare, Cymbeline , 1610 <S> Neither belong to this Saxon's company--Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe , 1819 <S> He had two job offers, but neither were ones he felt he could accept--Diana Diamond, N.Y. Times , 1974 <S> In conclusion, it says this: The pronoun <S> neither , then, is not invariably singular, though it is more often so. <S> When formal agreement obtains, it takes a singular verb. <S> When notional agreement obtains, it takes either a singular or plural verb. <S> These constructions are neither nonstandard or [sic] erroneous. <S> Otherwise, follow your own inclination in choosing singular or plural constructions after neither . <A> Despite what Fowler said, partitive constructions with neither seem to have taken mostly plural agreement until some time in the 1800s, as can be seen with the graphs for neither of them and neither of us . <S> But it does seems that singular agreement is most common today. <S> Neither of us is/are
| If you are writing something in a highly formal style, you will probably want to use formal agreement throughout. Neither of them is/are
|
Pronunciation of verbiage and foliage To my ear, the former should be pronounced "vurb-ij" and the latter "fohl-ee-ij" (the endings may vary among "aj", "edge" and "ij"). I occasionally hear people say "vurb-ee-ij" and often hear "fohl-ij". Are they interchangeable? Regional? <Q> According to Merriam-Webster and my own experience, the three-syllable versions of both words are the "more proper" ones. <S> M-W marks two-syllable pronunciations of foliage as "questionable". <S> Here is an explanatory excerpt from M-W: <S> The disyllabic pronunciation \ˈfō-lij\ is very common. <S> Some commentators insist that foliage requires a trisyllabic pronunciation because of its spelling, but words of a similar pattern such as carriage and marriage do not fall under their prescription. <S> The pronunciation \ˈfȯi-lij\ is disapproved because it suggests the transposition of the l and i in the spelling. <S> It is not as common as \ˈfō-lij\ and may be associated with the nonstandard spelling foilage. <A> In England, as often as I've heard those words used, they were always ee-aj or ee-ej <S> (like age)at the end. <S> So Verb-ee-aj or verb-ee-ej. <S> Fol-ee-aj or fol-ee-ej. <A> I'd never heard foliage pronounced without the "i" until I moved from New Zealand to Australia. <S> In Australia you never hear it with the "i" unless my wife and I are the ones saying it!
| While the two-syllable version of verbiage is quite common, I rarely hear foliage with only two syllables (but this could be regional; see below).
|
Third alternative to "between" and "among?" I want to express possibilities on a scale while providing 3 common examples. blue-----------------------orange---red If I say "Houses in this neighbourhood vary among blue, orange and red," this means it can be any of the three, but not values in between. If I say "Houses in this neighbourhood vary between blue, orange and red," this is incorrect because between should be used only for two items. Is there another word that can be used to represent variance across the entire scale while allowing me to provide three concrete examples, or must I say something like "Houses in this neigbourhood vary in colour; most are blue, orange or red?" update Of course, now that I've asked the question, this option occurs to me: "Houses in this neighbourhood vary from blue to orange to red." Is that clear? <Q> This is a good place to use the lovely word gamut . <S> As gamut means 'the whole scale or range' of a thing, you automatically include everything in between. <S> EDIT: <S> To answer your edit, no, that just makes it sound like they vary between those three colours. <S> You could say: <S> "Houses in this neighbourhood vary from blue to orange to red and everything in between." <A> "Spectrum"--it's particularly apropos for your color-based example, but can also work for any continuous scale: Houses in this neighborhood cover the spectrum from blue to orange to red. <S> Another possibility would be to say "range from": Houses in this neighborhood range from blue through orange all the way to red. <A> That between can only be used for two items is a myth. <S> Merriam-Webster says : <S> There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two. <S> It can be used when the number is unspecified <economic cooperation between nations>, when more than two are enumerated < between you and me and the lamppost> <partitioned between Austria, Prussia, and Russia — Nathaniel Benchley>, and even when only one item is mentioned (but repetition is implied) <S> <pausing between every sentence to rap the floor — George Eliot>. <S> Among is more appropriate where the emphasis is on distribution rather than individual relationships <discontent among the peasants <S> >. <S> When among is automatically chosen for more than two, English idiom may be strained <a worthy book that nevertheless falls among many stools — John Simon> < <S> the author alternates among modern slang, clichés and quotes from literary giants — A. H. Johnston <S> >. <S> Here is a blog post discussing further the distinction between between and among . <S> However, this doesn't really answer the original question because neither between nor among carry the meaning sought. <S> I would say “Houses in this neighbourhood vary in color between blue and red, including orange.” <A> Treither ? <S> The houses in the neighborhood are treither red, blue or orange.
| Houses in this neighbourhood run the gamut of colours from blue to orange to red. Between has been used of more than two since Old English; it is especially appropriate to denote a one-to-one relationship, regardless of the number of items.
|
How would you define "Fluent" level in English? Most of us heard about such levels as Beginner, Intermediate, Upper Intermediate, Advanced. As I understand "Fluent" is the highest level when describing someone's English. But how would you describe it?Some people think that "Fluent" is just when you speak very good (relative to other non-native speakers). But I think this is not enough. I think that you can say that you speak fluently when it is hard for native speakers to understand (based on your speech, accent and grammar) that English is not your native language. And if a native speaker can quickly (matter of seconds, or a minute) understand that your are a foreigner - you don't have a fluent level. What do you think? <Q> Strictly speaking 'fluent' in relation to speech means only that it flows smoothly and easily. <S> There is no implication that you shouldn't be able to detect the non-native status of the speaker, and I think this is a perhaps too high a standard. <S> If someone speaks English as well as the average Englishman, but has a slight accent that betrays his foreign origins, does that mean he isn't fluent? <S> I'd consider someone fluent if they didn't need to pause to think of a word any more than a native. <A> For an answer to this question, I will refer you to Jack Seward, who covers this topic specifically in his book Japanese in Action . <S> Although he is talking about Japanese, the same things are true of any language, including English: <S> To be accurately judged fluent in [a language], I believe a [non-native speaker] should have the following qualifications: He should be able to conduct all his daily affairs (business, visits to the doctor, TV-ing, bar-hopping, lovemaking, etc.) <S> completely in [the language] without strain. <S> His accent may not be perfect, but it should occasion no confusion or merriment among his listeners. <S> He should be able to read [publications in the language] <S> (newspapers, weekly magazines, and letters in the [cursive] ... style), with only an occasional reference to a dictionary. <S> He goes on to propose that a test for fluency in the language should require the test taker to: Translate a newspaper article Speak in [the language] on the telephone, as a test of accent. <S> Write a letter in [the language]. <S> Interpret a taped conversation between two [native speakers of the language]. <S> Comprehend a newscast. <S> Identify five major dialects. <S> Read a letter written in [cursive handwriting]. <S> [Not applicable] <S> Give the meanings of one hundred technical words or phrases ... from the fields of medicine, law, economy, science, and the arts ... <S> [which are readily understood by the average native-speaker who is a college graduate]. <S> Walk down the street and [read and interpret] the first twenty signs to be sighted. <S> Give a ten-minute, impromptu talk about an everyday topic of conversation (sports, politics, travel, traffic, etc.), the topic to be selected [at random]. <A> I would propose that a "fluent" speaker is one who can learn the language in the language. <S> This of course needs some clarification, as newborns are not fluent in their regional language even though they primarily learn to speak in their regional language. <S> I would argue that everyone learns their first language in info-graphic association (or equivalent for those with disabilities). <A> You can define "fluent" semantically however you wish to set a standard for yourself or others. <S> Awesome, semantics are cool! <S> It's not exactly a rigorous term from the get <S> go, just a 'nation' if you will. <S> After all, "fluency" is often used to describe even domain languages within English. <S> I might be "fluent" in computer technology, but not be "fluent" in Biology terminology. <S> I may even be "fluent" in a technical field that crosses languages such as scientific latin or mathematical notation. <S> Heck, we even use "fluency" to describe ability in things that don't even relate to language, because the concept is sort of broad from the beginning. <S> It's more important to set a specific goal and achieve that than to rely on the definition of a word validating your ability. <S> And as a funny philosophical comparison, if you never /notice/ a speaker make a mistake, is he still fluent? <S> That is, if a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound?
| In practice, I think "fluency" is generally used in the sense of "having the ability to reciprocally communicate naturally without miscommunication", and to that extent alone.
|
How to say that someone will execute none of two actions What is the correct way to say it: "I will not do it nor do that", "I will do neither it nor do that" or some other way? Edit: I think I did not expressed my doubts well. What I am looking for is whether it is possible to use "neither" or "nor" between two subordinate clauses, such as in "I will not buy groceries neither eat at a restaurant". <Q> For your example, you'd say I will neither buy groceries nor eat at a restaurant. <S> In the general case, the rule-of-thumb is to phrase the sentence as "I will neither X nor Y", where X and Y are phrases containing verbs that could independently form the two sentences "I will not X" and "I will not Y". <S> (In our sentence, X = "buy groceries", Y = <S> "eat at a restaurant"). <S> In case both X and Y begin with the same verb (say buy ), you can pull out the verb so that it distributes over the neither-nor construction: <S> "I will neither buy groceries nor buy shoes." <S> —> <S> "I will buy neither groceries nor shoes." <S> "I will neither eat in the park nor eat at a restaurant." <S> —> <S> "I will eat neither in the park nor at a restaurant." <S> "I will neither do this nor do that." — <S> > <S> "I will do neither this nor that." <S> etc. <A> How about this: 'I will do neither'? <A>
| You could always simply say "I won't do either of those".
|
Is the verb "redouble" just a redundant way to say "double"? A colleague and I were reading a corporate memo that contained the phrase 'redouble our efforts'. His claim was that the word redouble was equivalent to double and simply nonstandard. (Similar to, say, using irregardless in place of regardless ). I've heard this phrase fairly frequently, and don't see anything wrong with it in particular, but I was wondering if perhaps there was some style guide that prescribed against it or something similar that marked a preference for simply doubling our efforts rather than redoubling them. <Q> "Redouble" is a valid word in its own right, not non-standard at all. <S> Its use is uncommon, to be sure, seen primarily in the idiomatic expression that you reference. <S> Technically, according to its etymology (french "re-" + "doubler"), it should mean either "to quadruple" or "to double a second time." <S> However, it has over time acquired a broader meaning as "intensify" or "strengthen." <A> The word redouble comes from French re- plus doubler , "to double". <S> However, I'd go so far as to say that in corporate jargon, and even in common usage, it really is just a poor substitute for double or increase. <A> The expression can both mean to double and to double again . <S> See thefreedictionary.com/redouble . <S> From the situation it should be evident if it means to double something that was doubled before or simply to double something. <S> If it's not evident, the expression should naturally be avoided. <A> It seems that the only appropriate time to use "redouble" is after it has been acknowledged that whatever you're applying it to has already been doubled once. <S> It seems that most uses are otherwise redundant. <A> Often times it is used in a situation where the current approach is not working. <S> "We have to redouble our efforts." <S> This would mean both trying again, and putting in twice as much effort. <A> I think "redoubling" has an illustrative quality in that you can visualize folding a cloth over twice, the thickness increasing by four. <S> This of course is accompanies with the area of the cloth decreases by the same factor. <S> Consider when someone says "we must redouble our attention", they are directing the group to shift their attention from a broad area, to a much smaller area indicated by the group's leader. <S> The result may not be as intended, since the previously "attended" areas were probably also important. <S> So imagine a table covered by a table cloth being "redoubled" (or folded over twice) and left to lay <S> were an especially messy eater sits. <S> Or, perhaps the host simply pulls out three more table cloths and spreads them onto the table.
| So to redouble one's efforts really means to double them again, to further emphasise or reinforce them beyond whatever doubling you may have done before.
|
Why "motherboard" is used to refer to main board of computer Why is motherboard used to refer to the main board of a computer? What is the relationship with the word mother here? <Q> It's called a motherboard because it is the main circuit board in the computer, and it can be extended by plugging other circuit boards into it. <S> These extensions are called daughter boards. <S> Wikipedia suggests that historically a "mainboard" was not extensible in this way , hence the need for different terminology. <S> Many computer terms use human or biological words as metaphors: <S> Master/Slave (controller and devices) Male/Female (plugs and ports) <S> Mouse Peers Server/Client <A> Mother-board <S> The first references I found are in 1956 to "mother" board , "mother-board" and "mother board" ; the quotes suggest this is new terminology. <S> EIA's 1956 <S> Proceedings : IRE's 1956 International Convention Record , Volume 4, Part 2: <S> Ziff-Davis's 1956 Popular Electronics , Volume 4, Issues 1-6: <S> Hayden's 1956 Electronic Design , Volume 4, Part 2: Baby-board <S> The observant will have noticed one of these early uses of mother-board are in conjunction with baby-board , and not today's common daughterboard . <S> A mother-baby relationship seems more appropriate in this context than mother-daughter. <S> Daughter-board <S> A daughterboard , daughtercard or piggyback board is a circuit board meant to be an extension or "daughter" of a motherboard (or 'mainboard'), or occasionally of another card. <S> Daughterboard is the most common term nowadays. <S> When did this replace baby-board ? <S> The earliest I found was ten years later, in 1965 as daughter board , "motherboard-daughter board" and mother-daughter board . <S> Hayden's 1965 Electronic Design , Volume 13, Part 3 Rogers' 1965 Advances in Electronic Circuit Packaging : <S> McGraw-Hill's 1965 Electronics , Volume 38: <A> Mother lode and mother ship are older compounds along similar lines (both dating to at least 19th century, in mining and whaling respectively). <S> Perhaps motherboard was coined by analogy with one of those? <S> (Influence from mother ship seems very plausible, due to its sci-fi popularity.) <S> In each case, “mother X” seems to mean roughly “a big X, associated to some group of smaller X’s” — the metaphor seems fairly clear. <S> Unfortunately I can’t find any reliable sources right now with specific info on the origin of motherboard — hopefully someone else can, or I’ll try again tomorrow when I have OED access again…
| In personal computers, a motherboard is the central printed circuit board (PCB) in many modern computers and holds many of the crucial components of the system, providing connectors for other peripherals.
|
When President Obama makes a speech by using teleprompter, is he stuck to the script? I saw a phrase, stuck to the script in the following sentence in New York Times (Jan. 27) article reporting this year’s Academy Award nomination, The Academy Award nominations, announced this morning in Los Angeles, mostly stuck to the script that Oscar-season observers expected. My interpretation of stuck to the script here is a figurative expression of as anticipated, therefore, no surprise . Is it right? By the way, this might sound a naive question, when someone like President, or Prime minister is delivering a speech, say the State of Union or opening address relying on a pre-prepared script on teleprompter, is he stuck to the script? <Q> Yes, it means they did what was expected. <S> Nothing unusual. <S> "Sticking to the script" means not ad libbing (ad lib, from ad libitum , meaning freely or as you will). <S> It is extremely unlikely that a major public figure like the President would go off script and start ad-libbing, especially during a marquee event like the State of the Union Address. <S> A comedian might do that, because they're quick-witted. <S> Jon Stewart can do that. <S> But most politicians know, deep down, that going off script can only get them into trouble. <A> Yes-ish : the phrase is right, but the grammar is slightly different from how you’re using it. <S> Stuck always acts as a verb in this phrase, not as an adjective, so it would be When Obama made his speech today, he stuck to the script. <S> When Obama makes a speech with a telepromter, he always sticks to the script. <S> In your original example, the core sentence structure is: <S> The nominations mostly stuck to the script. <S> That aside, your gloss of the figurative meaning is spot on, and I don’t have anything to add to Robusto’s excellent elaboration of it. <A> Sort of, but not quite. <S> This is not necessarily the same as "anticipated, therefore, no surprise". <S> In your example sentence "The Academy Award nominations […] mostly stuck to the script that Oscar-season observers expected" it does mean that, but that meaning arises from the script being "the script that observers expected". <S> In rare cases, the "script" could be the opposite of what was anticipated, as in " <S> Most observers predicted that the president would back out of his earlier announcement following the protests, but surprisingly, he stuck to the script." <S> Here the "script" is the script that the president had announced earlier, not necessarily that the script that was 'anticipated, so no surprise'. <S> You are right that more generally a script can be anything pre-determined, as in a prepared speech. <S> If the president simply reads from his teleprompter, you can say he sticks to the script (or, in the past tense, that he stuck to the script). <S> If you say "he is stuck to the script", it can suggest that he doesn't have a choice and has to follow the script.
| To "stick to the script" means to stick to a pre-determined sequence of events and words (the "script", figuratively).
|
Does the casual use of "a la ___" in English preserve the French meaning? In English, we use a la carte and a la mode , but it is also common for people to add their own word to the basic construction. For example, one might comment on someone's dancing: He showed us some moves a la 1987. One might comment on a public address: She addressed the assembled parents a la Evita Perón. This seems to mean "in the style of" or "reminiscent of." Does anyone know if this is consistent with the meaning in French? <Q> Yes, the French “à la” means “in the style of” . <S> It is a shortening of “à la manière de” ( “in the manner/style of” ). <S> It's widely used in French, and some examples in particular are: in cooking: “à la diable” (with spicy sauce), “à la norvégienne” (Norway-style), ... referring to persons (in particular, artists or philosophers) or movements: “à la cubiste” (cubist-style), “à la Sartre” (in the manner of writer Sartre), ... <A> kiamlaluno is half right. <S> À <S> la would generally be literally translated by at the in english. <S> However, in some case, it would have the same meaning as in english. <S> Take for example the following expression meaning "to take French leave": filer <S> à l'anglaise would be translated to: flee english style From the top of my head <S> , I can only think of example using nationality, but I'm quite sure that it is used in other cases. <S> EDIT: <S> If you want to have some sources in the web, Wiktionary confirms that the second meaning of the French word is in the manner of , in the style of <A> The meaning is not preserved, at least in sentences like He showed us some moves à la 1987. <S> It's true that à la Evita Peron would mean in the style used by Evita Peron , and that French people would say à la française to mean in the French style , but à la 1987 would not mean in the style used on 1987 . <S> The general meaning of <S> à la cime de l'arbre -> <S> at the top of the tree à la conclusion - <S> > <S> at the conclusion <S> à <S> la fin de -> at the end <S> à <S> la maison -> to home <S> à la hâte -> in haste <S> à la main <S> -> by hand
| à la in French is at the , to , but in some cases it can also mean by , in (the) .
|
What does "strike home" mean? What does "strike home" mean in this sentence?: "This example ought to strike home for you" <Q> Literally, strike home means to deal an effective blow, hit a vulnerable part, or wound critically or mortally. <S> So what they're saying is that the example given should be so relevant and obvious that you immediately gain an understanding of what they were trying to demonstrate. <A> To strike home for you means to be understood from you . <S> The sentence could be re-written as <S> This example was supposed to be understood by you. <A> Previous answers suggested that This example ought to strike home for you <S> means " <S> This example should be understood by you" or "You should immediately understand this." <S> It's possible <S> that's what the writer meant, but if so, the writer hasn't phrased the sentence well. <S> It's unlikely an informed native speaker would say such a thing with such a meaning. <S> The fact that ngrams for strike home for you shows no usage of the phrase reinforces how unlikely it is to occur, regardless of meaning; but note that the sentence could arise naturally in dialog like Here's another good anecdote to include in your speech. <S> This example ought to strike home for you. <S> In this case, someone is telling you that including a certain anecdote in a speech will serve well to get your message across to the audience.
| Figuratively, as in your example, it means to have the intended effect, to hit the mark, or to cause a sudden understanding.
|
1970-ish: Is it an accepted word? If so, what does it mean? Modish , youngish , girlish are accepted words. Is 1970-ish accepted too, or even understood to be an English word? <Q> Acceptable or not depends on where you try to use it. <S> New words are formed like this all the time, but in a more formal situation you would only use such words if they are already widely known. <S> It can mean circa 1970 : <S> They stopped manufacturing that model 1970-ish. <S> It can also mean in a 1970 style : <S> That lamp really looks 1970-ish. <A> Accepted? <S> Don’t know. <S> I would print it. <S> What it means: I’d expect either “circa 1970” or “in roughly the mode of the early 70s,” depending on usage context. <A> I'm sure a few purists might object, but I would suggest that it will be accepted by the majority, in that they will be fairly clear in what is meant by the term. <S> Thinking about it further, I'm not beyond tagging -ish onto various other words or phrases myself. <S> Hardly the heights of eloquence but it usually gets the message across, which is surely purpose of language. <A> Speaking in more general terms, when I append ish to a word, I'm usualy trying to convey the fact that I'm approximating. <S> So in your example, 1970-ish would mean around the period of the year 1970 and the listener would realise that I could be talking about any of the several years before or after 1970, but that I don't know which one in particular. <S> But it depends on the context in which you use it. <A> OED 2nd <S> Ed supports -ish forming in your case. <S> 2.2 Added to other ns., with the sense ‘Of or belonging to a person or thing, of the nature or character of’. <S> These were not numerous in OE. <S> , whence only a few have come down to later times. <S> Examples are folcisc popular, hǽðenisc heathenish, þéodisc national, inlęndisc inlandish, utlęndisc outlandish (which come close to the gentile group in 1); also męnnisc human, cildisc childish, cierlisc churlish. <S> In later times this ending has become exceedingly common, sometimes in the earlier colourless sense as boyish, girlish, waggish, but chiefly in a derogatory sense, ‘Having the (bad or objectionable) qualities of’: as in apish, babyish, boarish, boorish, brutish, clownish, currish, devilish, doggish, doltish, dronish, foolish, foppish, goatish, ghoulish, hoggish, impish, knavish, mannish, monkish, mulish, owlish, prudish, roguish, selfish, shrewish, sluggish, sluttish, sottish, swinish, thievish, waspish, whorish, wolvish, womanish. <S> (These have usually corresponding Ger. <S> forms in -isch.) <S> Also from names of things, with sense ‘of the nature of, tending to’, as in aguish, blockish, bookish, brinish, feverish, freakish, hellish, moorish; or from other parts of speech, as snappish, stand-offish, uppish. <S> In recent colloquial and journalistic use, -ish has become the favourite ending for forming adjs. <S> for the nonce (esp. of a slighting or depreciatory nature) on proper names of persons, places, or things, and even on phrases, e.g. Disraelitish, Heine-ish, Mark Twainish, Micawberish, Miss Martineauish, Queen Annish, Spectator-ish, Tupperish, West Endish; all-over-ish, at-homeish, devil-may-care-ish, how-d'ye-doish, jolly-good-fellowish, merry-go-roundish, out-of-townish, and the like. <S> In the sentence : He is a 1970-ish. <S> I would understand his character is back to 1970s.
| The meaning of 1970-ish would depend on the situation.
|
Is ‘Yes-ish’ a perfect alternative to Yes, or is it 'Yes ‘on condition’? Is it received English? I found a word ‘Yes-ish’ in the answer (from PLL) to my question about the meaning of ‘Stuck to the script’ I posted today. As it is quite new to my ear, I consulted with Wikipedia before logging out the forum, which says: (Yesih) is yes with a condition or limitation, and similarly Noish (but this of course tends more to a .... Is ‘Yes-sh / Yessh’ often heard in day-to-day conversation among American people or found in casual writings.How ‘Yes-sh’ is different from ‘Yes’ in its implication, supposing it’s an informal or colloquial expression. <Q> 'ish' is added to some words to denote 'sort of'. <S> For example: He was tall-ish Means <S> he was tall, but not extremely so. <S> Taller than average, but not basketball-player tall. <S> I'm tired-ish Means <S> you're a little tired <S> but not totally 'knackered' ( <S> a bit of British slang there). <S> You perhaps wouldn't use it in formal situations like a business meeting. <S> It's not considered rude , it's just something you'd use in more relaxed settings. <S> This reminds me of a joke by a British comedian called Jimmy Carr Catholics <S> have a confirmation where someone says, "You are definitely Catholic". <S> Jews are never sure: they say "Well, I'm Jew-ish". <S> Here the comedian has made a 'play on words' and used the 'sort of' meaning of -ish as opposed to that seen in Jewish, English etc. <A> The definition for -ish is -ish <S> suffix forming adjectives: 1. <S> (from nouns) having the qualities or characteristics of: apish , girlish . <S> • of nationality or religious or ethnic group: <S> Swedish , Amish , Flemish. <S> 2. <S> (from adjectives) <S> somewhat: yellowish . <S> • informal denoting an approximate age or time of day: sixish . <S> I think that yes-ish can be understood as somewhat <S> yes , even yes is not an adjective and -ish <S> is not used to form an adjective. <A> I don't know if I have ever heard the term "Yes-ish" in actual conversation, and I've certainly never read it. <S> That being said, as a native (American) English speaker, I would know what someone meant if they said "Yes-ish". <S> "-ish" can be added intelligibly to a number of words (primarily adjectives), but it is not generally done. <S> When I choose to use "-ish" in conversation, it's generally an attempt at humor. <S> In most cases, you would just use a modifier, e.g., "I am pretty sure" instead of "I am sure-ish".
| Generally '-ish' is considered informal; slightly slang-ish!
|
"I'm done" or "I've done" When someone asks whether you have completed a task e.g. shopping, dinner. What should be your answer? I am done. or I have done. To me, the former sentence's formation, Sub + VBe+ Past Participle, falls to passive voice. Therefore, it has a totally different meaning from I have done Sub + Predicate (verb intransitive). Addendum: According to Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 3rd ed., the verb do is an intransitive verb in the meaning of complete/finish. In the sentence, same formation as I am done : I am beautiful. The verb am (of VBe) links the adj beautiful to the subject of the sentence I . Therefore I, the subject of the sentence, is beautiful (in other words, state of being). Then in the sentence : I am done. The subject, I , is linked to the adjective done . So the subject's state of being is done , in other words dead ? <Q> Done is used as the past participle in combination with have , obviously, but done <S> is also used as an adjective meaning "carried out, completed, or treated in a particular way: her hunting days were done " (Webster's); as such, either statement is correct depending on the context. <S> Usually, "I have done" would require an object (done what , precisely?) <S> and "I am done" would signify that one was finished with, say, a task. <S> At least in the U.S., a person would be much more likely to say "I'm done" to indicate the conclusion of an activity like homework or chores, and so on. <A> 'Have' is strictly correct. <S> You would properly say: <S> Yes, I have done. <S> or <S> However, 'I am done', 'I'm done', or 'I'm all done' <S> is also generally accepted to mean the same thing. <S> I believe it's more prevalent in US English. <A> In UK English especially, done is a verb, not an adjective. <S> Saying "I'm done" sits very uncomfortably with me. <A> As far as I understand, "I have done" is perfectly alright. <S> But if someone is asking after whether you're completed with a task it may be more direct just to reply "I have finished (it)." <A> "I have finished." <S> "I am done" means you are a cake that is done. <S> You're cooked. <S> If you have finished a task or a job, you should say, "I have finished", or "I'm through".
| Yes, I have finished.
|
Is there an informal way to describe a woman that can not have a baby? "Infertile"; "fruitless"? How would you describe such a woman in an informal talk to your friend? <Q> I would never say something like, "She is infertile/fruitless/barren/sterile ." <S> – I find that extremely rude. <A> Historically, a woman with such a condition was considered to be barren , but that word is not used much today (although it is nevertheless likely to be understood). <S> Nowadays, one would probably say she is "seeing a fertility counselor" or some such circumlocution, and people would infer the rest. <A> I have always used the word barren , although that word is a bit antiquated. <S> For some, the word barren may carry a negative connotation. <S> For instance, when the word is used in the Bible it's written as if it was a curse. <S> There are Biblical stories of women who were barren but then were blessed by God and were able to conceive. <S> Consequently, someone who is Jewish/Christian/Muslim might find that particular word a bit insensitive, as it seemingly implies they are cursed. <S> Perhaps the best way to avoid any potential embarrassment is to state the facts plainly, as in, "She is unable to conceive." <S> Even though most people will understand your intent, I'm not a fan of saying, "She cannot have a baby," because that can be taken literally to mean that she is not fit to mother. <S> Just because someone cannot conceive does not mean they cannot have a child through alternative means, such as adoption or surrogacy. <A> Joke answers: unbearable, impregnable, inconceivable (maybe that doesn't mean what I think it means...) <A> In an informal setting, a woman who has passed menopause may describe herself as "dried up" even if she's had many children. <A> The joke was not meant to provide answers, but a funny lesson on the complexity of the English language - not that other languages aren't complex. <S> Many lessons are best illustrated through humor - although the underlying lessons of that message can be missed entirely. <S> Thanks for the go-around here; I was able to give my daughter a lesson in the fun and folly of language. <S> I personally would say "she was not able to have children", and if that is too difficult just don't bring it up. <S> I liked the "euphemism treadmill" concept - very illustrative of the situation - I often get dinged for using the words ignorant, or deception as being negative although I find few ways of expressing the same meaning, and both can be positive or neutral when used that way...
| I wouldn't use a particular word, I'd just say, "She can't have a baby."
|
Is "this Monday" or "next Monday" the correct way to refer to the very next Monday in the future? Possible Duplicate: What day is next Tuesday? When I refer to the very next Monday that will occur in the future, I say "next Monday". Some colleagues refer to it as "this Monday", with "next Monday" meaning the second Monday which will occur in the future (I would refer to that as "Monday week", "this Monday" to me would mean the most recent Monday in the past). Are these both acceptable usages, or is one more correct than the other? <Q> There is ambiguity in both phrases. <S> The first is only due to loose usage, the second is due to lack of explicit reference. <S> I think of it as similar to saying "the next red stepping stone;" if you are on a blue stone, you're talking about the first subsequent red stone you will encounter, while if you're on a red stone, you're talking about whatever stone you will encounter after the one you currently occupy. <S> If the speaker intends to reference the Monday after the closest one in the future, the appropriate phrase is probably "the Monday after next." <S> "This Monday," however, is ambiguous. <S> " <S> This" could be interpreted as "this week's," "this past," or "this coming. <S> " Unless one is pointing at a square on a calendar, it would probably be best to explicitly use one of the two latter phrases to eliminate any confusion. <A> To me, the meaning of this Monday depends on the tense; in the past tense, I would take it to mean this past Monday, and in future tense, I would take it to mean this coming Monday. <S> Next Monday I take to mean the next Monday in the calendar (so between 1 and 7 days in the future), and like you, I condsider Monday week = a week on Monday , but I'm unsure how widespread this usage is. <A> This is always a contentious issue and it does come down to personal preference. <S> I would take 'last Monday' to mean the previous Monday. <S> 'This Monday' is the very next Monday in the calendar. <S> If it's Sunday, 'this Monday' is tomorrow. <S> 'Next Monday' is the next but one . <S> If it's Sunday, 'next Monday' is a week tomorrow. <S> I too would take 'Monday week' to mean 'a week on Monday'. <A> As used in my local area (Great Lakes region of the USA), "Next whateverday" refers to the upcoming day of that name that's NOT in the current week. <S> "This" would refer to the upcoming day in the current week (assuming user specified future rather than past).
| "Next Monday," in the strictest interpretation, means whatever Monday will happen closest in the future, excluding the one you currently occupy if it happens to be Monday.
|
When is "Y" a vowel? In school we are taught the vowels: A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y. Today's XKCD got me thinking about when the letter Y is considered to be a vowel. I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that in words like bicycle and why it is a vowel. What about the word voyeur (as mentioned in the XKCD alt-text)? If I've got this backwards, and Y is almost always a vowel, how can I tell when it is a consonant? Thinking back, I don't think my education ever covered the difference between them, we just memorized which letters were which. <Q> The answer is that it depends on what purpose you have in assigning it, or what set of rules you are following. <S> From the point of view of phonetics, the first thing to realise is that letters are not vowels or consonants: they represent sounds which may be vowels or consonants (and in the case of "y" possibly both). <S> The next point is that bifurcation into vowels and consonants is too simple: phoneticians recognise other possibilities such as "semivowel" — which "y" often is. <S> It is clear that in "Yvonne" and "mystery" all the "y"s represent vowel sounds. <S> I would say that in "yacht" and "Yeltsin" they represent semivowels (which you can call consonants if you like.) <S> I would disagree strongly with decoz.com (quoted in Mehper's answer) about "Kay" and "Sydney" — I think it is preposterous to say that "y" is representing a consonant in those. <S> In the case of "Sydney", it is part of a way of writing a simple vowel sound; in "Kay" it is part of a way of writing a long vowel sound or a diphthong, depending on dialect. <S> (A diphthong consists of two vowels or a vowel and a semivowel depending on how you want to analyse it). <A> The letter <S> y represents the consonant /j/ <S> (as in yes ), known variously as a palatal glide, a palatal approximant and a palatal semi-vowel. <S> It also represents the vowels /ɪ/ <S> (as in hymn ) or in some dialects /i:/ <S> (as in trendy ) and, alone or in combination, it represents the diphthongs /aɪ/ <S> (as in try ), <S> /ɔɪ/ <S> (as in boy ) and /eɪ/ <S> (as in day ). <A> Y can make 4 sounds: a hard y , as in yield (in this case, it is a consonant, it's most common use) <S> a short <S> i <S> sound, as in bicycle <S> a long <S> i <S> sound, as in my a long e sound, as in baby <S> In the last three cases it is used just as the letter <S> i would be, and <S> so it is a vowel. <S> It can also be used as part of a digraph, where two vowels written together are considered to have one sound. <S> Examples would be ay in <S> May and ey in Sydney . <S> This is similar to the way other digraphs are used, such as ea in eager or ie in friend . <A> The following excerpt from decoz.com sounds useful: <S> When determining if the Y is a vowel or a consonant, the basic rule is this: When the letter serves as a vowel, and in fact sounds like one, it is a vowel. <S> The same is true when the Y serves as the only vowel in the syllable. <S> Examples of both of these cases are such names as Lynn, Yvonne, Mary, Betty, Elly, and Bryan. <S> However, if the Y does not provide a separate vowel sound, as when it is coupled with another vowel, it is considered a consonant. <S> In names such as Maloney or Murray, the Y is a consonant, because the vowel sound depends upon the long E in Maloney and the long A in Murray. <S> Also, the Y is considered a consonant when it is used in place of the soft J sound, such as in the name Yolanda or Yoda. <S> In the names Bryan and Wyatt, the Y is a vowel, because it provides the only vowel sound for the first syllable of both names. <S> For both of these names, the letter A is part of the second syllable, and therefore does not influence the nature of the Y. More examples: <S> In Sydney, the first Y is a vowel, the second Y is a consonant. <S> In Billy, Sylvia, Missy, Kyle, Blythe, Sylvester, and Katy, the Y is a vowel In Kay, Yeltsin, May, and <S> Kuykendahl, the Y is a consonant.
| In general, the Y is a consonant when the syllable already has a vowel.
|
Is there a word that means "doing the right thing for the wrong reason"? Is there a word that means doing the right thing for the wrong reason or getting the right conclusion from the wrong set of presumptions ? <Q> The word unwittingly seems close, though you may have to qualify it. <S> I found an example <S> I think demonstrates this use (see page 140 in the search results). <A> How about a new word: corraccidentally <A> I think this question can't have a clear answer because this phrase is quite open. <S> Think about all the situations where this could be applied. <S> So going to the root of the problem, I think what this phrase is expressing is that the person isn't aware of all the circumstances (or has the wrong idea) when doing something. <S> So I agree with @Andy <S> that it might be unwittingly. <S> Or in my opinion inadvertently would be a closer fit to. <S> That said, it might also be expressed unintentional, since he/she is doing something wrong, thinking its the right thing. <S> But all those meaning don't cover the harshest way to use this phrase that would make the "accused" a naif, confused or misguided <S> (I like this last actually) since you could be meaning: "although you are doing the right thing, there is not much merit to it, since it's almost by chance, you don't have a philosophy behind your actions (or a wrong one)" <A> Serendipitously is the word I would use, although it means something more like "doing the right thing for no reason at all". <A> The word "Lucky" is frequently used in that situation. <S> For example, in a case where someone confronted with two doors, decorated with writing in a foreign language, selects the one that is on the right as the "entrance" on the basis that everyone is right handed. <S> He has made a correct selection, based on incorrect information (that is not why the door is the entrance). <S> One might say to him: <S> "Wow, so you just happened to pick the correct choice despite having faulty reasoning? <S> What a lucky break!" <S> Although now that I'm thinking about it, the word "Fortuitous" is closer to what I meant. <A> Ulteriorly. <S> The individual doing the "right thing for the wrong reason" did it ulteriorly. <A> I think this might be a candidate: unassumingly <A> An egoist or megalomaniac...is probably someone who would do nice things for someone to build their own rep etc. <S> thus doing something "right" for the "wrong" reason. <A>
| I'd say the person has reached the outcome "fortuitously" or "accidentally" (both mean "by accident or chance")
|
Using "that" in place of "it" as an object is not always correct. How can I explain why? A student wrote to me I'm sorry I was absent for class on Monday. What is the homework? I want to do that before the next class. I prefer using it to that but am not sure what explanation I should give. Can you help? <Q> Neither that nor it is grammatical in that position. <S> In fact, what is grammatical is no word at all: <S> I'm sorry I was absent for class on Monday. <S> What is the homework I want to do before the next class? <S> Unless of course you meant this, in which case you do need it : <S> I'm sorry I was absent for class on Monday. <S> What is the homework? <S> I want to do it before the next class. <A> Assuming it should read <S> I'm sorry I was absent for class on Monday. <S> What is the homework? <S> I want to do it before the next class. <S> There is no need to use "that" to emphasize what it is the speaker wants to do. <A> My suggestion: <S> What homework should/must I do before the next class? <S> Regardless of your student's somewhat faulty grasp of English, you should rejoice that you have such a polite and conscientious student. <S> Let's hope he or she goes far. :-) <A> As others have commented, your intuition that "it" is better than "that" is correct. <S> Here is how I would explain why: The word "it" is a neutral pronoun, simply referring back to a previously mentioned concept (in this case, the homework). <S> Thus, "that" is preferable when: Something is literally being pointed out ("I want that ! <S> ") <S> Reference is made (perhaps implicitly) to a specific thing among alternatives ("I want to do that before the next class (even if I don't do the reading and other preparation that I'm supposed to)"). <S> Compare "I didn't want to do it", which refers simply to a choice between doing the action or not, to "I didn't want to do that ", which implies that I did want to do something . <S> There is a desire to distance the object from the speaker ("Did you have to bring that in here?") <S> Since (presumably) none of the above applies in your example, the more neutral "it" fits better.
| as @nohat suggested, I think the reason I'd prefer "it" is, "that" is a demonstrative pronoun, and the antecedent (the homework) is very clear from the previous statement. The word "that" is a demonstrative pronoun (carrying with it a sense of pointing something out - either literally or figuratively), and one that carries a sense of distance from the speaker (especially when compared with "this").
|
Is it safe to equate 'less evil' to 'more good'? We had a bit of a debate with this one. He, a native speaker (unlike me) went for: "less evil" implies that you are comparing evil people and "more good" implies that you are comparing good people I always felt that there's no difference. Am I on the minority of English speakers? Who is more correct between the two of us? <Q> Consider a sentence like: <S> Gandhi was less evil than Hitler. <S> If you aren't familiar with the persons in the sentence, or only familiar with Hitler, you would naturally assume that it's about two evil persons. <A> Each expression carries a different implication. <S> If you're comparing, for example, different options for a brand new expensive car you would use positive language since all of the options are pretty favorable. <S> You wouldn't say "this one isn't as bad as that one, so I'll pick it instead" <S> you would say "this one is better." <S> Even when making a negative statement about a car, you wouldn't say "this car is worse than the other one" so much as you would say "this car isn't as good." <S> Also expressions like <S> "This isn't as bad as I expected" imply that the subject is not completely up to par with what would be considered "good." <S> Violating this rule is used for humor. <S> Consider this conversation: <S> Person 1: <S> How's the new boss? <S> Person 2: He's better than Hitler. <S> This means that this boss is so terrible that only Hitler could be favorably compared. <A> The "one" you speak of is right. <S> Less evil is, well, less evil. <S> Still evil <S> , just less so. <S> Though "more good" doesn't really make sense in general , talking about a good character. <S> "less good" would match "less evil" here, and would make sense in the context. <S> And of course, less good doesn't mean evil. <S> "Less X" means you're talking about a sliding scale. <S> With "good" and "evil" being opposite ends of this scale. <S> And there's everything in between, <S> so "less" of the extreme ends doesn't mean we're at the other end, just not at the very extreme of this end. <S> Compare "hot" and "cold". <S> "Less hot" doesn't mean cold, does it? <S> Just as "less cold" doesn't mean hot. <S> It doesn't even have to mean "warm". <A> There is a difference, but in terms of usage and context, not in terms of meaning. <S> Whenever you compare two items or persons, it implies a somewhat close relationship between the two. <S> "Bob is less evil than Hitler" and "Bob is better than Hitler" <S> both suggest that Bob can be compared to Hitler and thus is pretty evil (see jjackson's reply). <S> The difference, barring humorous references, comes from the direction in which the comparison is made. <A> Comparatives (-er, -est, less, least, more, most) can only modify a single adjective at a time. <S> More good is comparable to good , less good , best , and not good at all , but it has as much to do with <S> less evil as it does with less purple or less hungry . <S> Try substituting "positive" and "negative" (in their numerical sense) into your example: <S> more negative < negative < less negative < 0 <S> < <S> less positive < <S> positive < more positive Notice <S> that the next thing after less <S> [x] is not more [y], but less [y]; and more importantly, notice that those are all strict inequalities: something can be as less negative as it wants to be, it will still not be positive .
| If you say "less evil", it implies that you are talking about something evil but less so than something else, whereas better implies that you are talking about something which is already good or at least acceptable It depends a little on how the expressions are used, but generally there is a distinct difference.
|
What is a "go-around" in this context? Well, to begin with, I don't even know what is the usual meaning of "go-around". So, if you know, please, explain it to me. But in this case this noun ("go-around") seems even to be used in a slightly different sense. One user whose name is Chrisnfolsom, while answering my question on the proper way how to describe a woman that isn't able to conceive a baby said in his answer these words: The joke was not meant to provide answers, but a funny lesson on the complexity of the English language - not that other languages aren't complex. Many lessons are best illustrated through humor - although the underlying lessons of that message can be missed entirely. Thanks for the go-around here; I was able to give my daughter a lesson in the fun and folly of language. I don't know what he meant here by "go-around" (italics and bold type in the quote are mine). Of course, I could have asked him there this question, but since I don't even know the primary meaning of that word, I think it would be proper to make it as a separate question and not spend his time. Special request for Chrisnfolsom: If you happen to see this question, please, explain to me what you meant by "go-around" there - no one else knows better than you what you were saying. <Q> In this case however, I think what Chrisnfolsom meant was an excuse/opportunity to teach his daughter about the "fun and folly of language". <S> (It was a great joke, by the way) <A> Given the go-around does indeed derive from aviation where the aircraft is sent away from the airfield on a circuit, normally because the field is too busy to take them, too many planes on taxiway, or some emergency or other. <S> It is mostly used as meaning "passed from pillar to post" or fobbed off. <S> An example would be where you phone a company, then are told you need to speak to accounts, the accounts dept say they can't help its customer service, customer service say its technical dept <S> and then you are told that only accounts can help you. <S> Its the circularity of the action that's the feature. <S> Chrisnfolsom's usage was I think non-standard <S> but I guess he is alluding to the idea that in answering a question about language usage being complex on a forum, the ensuing discussion gave him further material to illustrate just how confusing and complex it can be. <A> In this context : The joke was not meant to provide answers, but a funny lesson on the complexity of the English language - not that other languages aren't complex. <S> Many lessons are best illustrated through humor - although the underlying lessons of that message can be missed entirely. <S> Thanks for the go-around here; I was able to give my daughter a lesson in the fun and folly of language. <S> Go-around is a localized colloquialism, which in this case is referring to the exercise of discussing the topic . <S> However, in a broader sense it means to engage in any personal interaction, or perhaps non-personal in some special circumstances. <S> It may be acceptable to refer to a squabble or argument as a go-around as much as the process of collaboratively solving a problem. <S> In the non-personal context, go-around could refer to a difficulty using a computer or some other machine, for example... <S> I had a proper go-around with this modem, but I still can't get connected at all. <S> In essence, the person is saying they had to go around the problem a few times before solving or giving up on it. <S> Hopefully Chrisnfolsom will be able to shine some direct light on the meaning. <A> It seems quite clear to me that in the context, he means what would be almost the literal meaning of the phrase, "going around", i.e. "taking a tour" or "going on an excursion", in this case the excursion being the interesting and nostalgic thoughts and memories conjured by the discussion that resulted. <S> "We'll be right back. <S> I'm going to give him a go-around of the place before dinner."
| A go-around is an excuse, usually to avoid something, or an argument
|
Why is writing "$1" correct but writing "%100" isn't? It seems like "%100" should be correct if "$1" is correct. <Q> The position of the currency symbol depends on local rules 100,00 F 100,00 <S> € <S> $100.00 <S> kr100,00 <S> This is because the world hates programmers <A> It is the currency symbol that is the odd usage here. <S> % is a shorthand notation for 'per cent' that has developed since Roman times - <S> it makes for it to follow values (think 100 per cent) <S> I can't seem to find anything about why so many currency signs precede the value, though. <A> Writing $1.00 instead of <S> 1.00$ was to prevent fraud <S> , it's harder to add digits between the number and the $. <A> English contains many conflicting conventions, in many cases because the conflicting conventions were each inherited from a different source. <S> The USA currency prefix position was probably influenced by that of the British currency prefix which I suspect came from the Romans and might reflect Roman conventions or Latin word ordering. <S> The positioning of abbreviations for temperature and other units of measure may have come from other sources. <S> In short, English is exuberantly inconsistent.
| Different conventions apply to currency symbols and other types of symbol.
|
Why should I say 'One Hundred' when 'Hundred' seems enough? I just want to know whether both the usages are right or not. Also, do these usages depend on geography? <Q> It's a noun <S> so it's necessary to specify the quantity. <S> "One hundred" is the same as saying "a hundred," just like if you had six hundred it would be necessary to say "six hundred. <S> " The same rule applies to other nouns; you don't say "I have dollar" you say "I have one dollar" and you don't say "I have car" you say "I have a car." <S> (or, of course, "I have six cars"). <A> 'Hundred' is a noun, not a quantity. <S> Thus it needs a determiner like 'a' or 'one' to function as a quantity. <S> 'Dozen' is functionally similar. <A> If you want to think about it mathematically, one hundred is 1x100. <S> Two hundred is 2x100, or 200. <S> In English you must specify how many units of 10x10 you have if you wish to make sense. <S> Oyu can't just tell me that you have the unit 10x10, you need to say how many. <S> Exception: this rule works, obviously, only with numbers between 100 and 9900. <S> The rule is less consistent with numbers above five digits.
| Hundred in English signifies a unit of 10x10, 100.
|
What does ‘Need a turn on the butcher’s block’ mean in cutting down the U.S. Government spending? I came across a phrase a turn on the butcher’s block in the following sentence appearing in an article of Time Magazine (Dec. 19, 2010 issue) titled Can Washington Tackle Its Deficit Cows . I know how butcher’s block looks like with pictures, and I understand Washington must touch on big chunk of deficit sources. But what does this figurative expression need a turn on the butcher’s block really mean? Can somebody teach me? The list of reasons for our looming economic disaster is long: a tax-cutting and spending spree when economic times were good; the financial crisis, with its blow to tax revenues and massive spending in response; two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also plenty of ways we can get out of hock. The Bowles-Simpson plan has spotlighted some of our government's long-standing sacred cows — ones that may finally need a turn on the butcher's block. Here are three of the most expensive ... — Spending on Military Machine, Social Security, and The American Dream Subsidy <Q> When the author of the article says The Bowles-Simpson plan has spotlighted some of our government's long-standing sacred cows — ones that may finally need a turn on the butcher's block. <S> he is using a metaphor. <S> He is equating certain government programs with sacred cows (in India, cows have traditionally been considered sacred and could not be killed) and he extends the metaphor to say they should be considered for slaughter (that is, they need to take "a turn on the chopping block", a heavy wooden table where meat is cut up, which is what happens to slaughtered beef). <S> Calling something a sacred cow is a cliché, but the writer rescues the metaphor by extending it and freshening it up with the chopping block reference. <S> Also, in case you're wondering about what take a turn means, it comes from games and rides at the amusement park and the like. <S> To take a turn at something means to be involved in a process by which a number of people wait to participate in the process one (or more) at a time. <S> Baseball is popular in Japan, so I know you will understand that when a team is at bat, each player comes up and takes a turn at the plate to try to hit the ball. <A> The implication is that they think the three "sacred cows" contain "fat" (i.e., unnecessary spending) that could (and by implication, should) be stopped. <A> As reported by the NOAD, a butcher's block is a a sturdy wooden kitchen table with a square top on which food may be chopped . <S> The metaphor used is between the meat that is cut on the butcher's block and the tax cut (or between the fat that is cut off the meat, and the tax cut).
| I'd guess they're referring to the fact that one of the things a butcher does is trim fat off the meat.
|
"To break eggs" or "to crack eggs"? ? She cracked an egg into the frying pan. In this sentence, should cracked be replaced with broke ? I take that to crack means to break, but without causing a complete separation of the parts . The windshield of this car was cracked. <Q> You're right about the meanings of the words. <S> But both verbs are used with egg. <S> See the examples: <S> Never crack eggs directly into the bowl that you are building your recipe in. <S> Cracking an egg open and separating the egg yolks is quite easy. <S> Make sure they're not wearing any rings and challenge them to <S> break an egg this way. <S> Breaking an egg with one hand takes finesse, but using two hands to crack eggs works just fine. <A> Both verbs are quite commonly used with eggs. <S> Comparing various phrases in the Google n-grams viewer (“cracked/broke an egg”, “crack/break the eggs”, etc.) <S> gives the impression that in the late 19th century break became more common, but that recently crack has been making a bit of a comeback. <S> However, the same historical trends seem to hold for all the phrasings I tried. <S> As @nohat points out, crack can be used with this meaning in other contexts as well, though it seems to be less common in general than it is with eggs. <A> The verb crack can mean “to break by creating cracks”, or as Merriam-Webster Dictionary says “1a: to break so that fissures appear on the surface <crack a mirror>”
| The relative frequencies vary quite a bit between phrasings (eg in “breaking/cracking eggs”, breaking dominates by a large margin, presumably due to “You can’t make an omelette without…” and similar phrases).
|
Why "go off", as in "alarm went off"? I was wondering why does something goes off , when it in fact does the opposite bomb goes off - it blows up alarm goes off - it turns on Why not goes on ? <Q> To go off in this sense is related to the expression to set off, meaning to start or to be started. <S> It implies that the subject was in a state of rest, then moved off from that state into action. <S> The phrasal verb to go on already has the meaning of to continue. <A> An alarm goes off when the alarm is "released" or "raised". <S> An alarm isn't just a thing that is on/off, it's a state of alert. <S> Similarly when a bomb goes off , it has moved from a gentle, resting state to an excited, explosive state. <S> Goes off is often used for something that suddenly and explosively changes from a resting state to one of vigorous action. <S> "The runners have lined up, the starter raises his pistol... and they're off!" <S> "The gun goes off and everything changes... <S> the world changes... and nothing else really matters." <S> - PattiSue Plumer, runner <A> While I'm no expert on idiom origin, I'd venture to guess that the phrase is "alarm goes off" because the first alarms were likely those that needed to be wound up. <S> As one winds them up, the mechanical processes inside coil up, around and on top of each other, creating a tension. <S> So when it unwinds...the coils literally come off of one another, causing to tension to be be released as well until finally the coils are all off, and the tension is gone, which allows the other parts of the alarm to vibrate and make noise. <A> As an alternative to the other two answers, I think of "going off" as a trap or reaction getting triggered. <S> " <S> Rest and motion are not really relevant. <S> Same with a "trap going off" — the trap was waiting for a particular event and <S> then *bam* <S> it went off. <S> " <S> Went off" is a phrase for someone exploding in emotion against another and also brings to mind a triggering event. <S> An alarm fits in this category of words: "The alarm went off. <S> " <S> The trigger for an alarm is a particular time and, when the time arrives, *bam* <S> it goes off. <A> There are two different meanings in play here: <S> The distinction between working/active ("on") and not-working/inactive ("off"). <S> The description of a dangerous, sudden, loud, or explosive act occurring: "setting off" an explosion, "sounding off" at roll call (i.e. shouting out "present", "here", or something like that in response to your name being called). <S> So you could say "the alarm went on" and would be understood, but it's not idiomatic. <S> The picture is that the alarm is loud (a siren, bell, etc) and indicates danger of some sort. <S> In a computer system, an "alarm" might simply be a light or a sentence printed, but the mental picture still applies. <S> A light "goes on", so you might even see an indicator light "go on" indicating that an alarm has "gone off". <A> To be on <S> something is well-defined as a state of being poised in one position, and as the antonym of that, "off" directly suggests being set in motion or released (I'm off, they're off, the plane takes off, we set off fireworks, etc.). <S> I think a bomb or alarm clock "going off" makes pretty clear sense in that light.
| The bomb goes off" means that the reaction was triggered.
|
Up or down a notch? (I apologize for the silly question ahead) I've lost some weight recently, and I was able, for the first time today, to close my belt buckle using a notch higher than usual... For the life of me I can't figure out if I "went up a notch" or "down a notch"? Is this phrase even applicable for an actual belt? <Q> Turn the volume down a notch. <S> or, figuratively, in sentences like Anyone who names a board game after himself needs to be taken down a notch or two. <S> Soon he was taken down a notch. <S> The expression you are looking for is probably to notch (something) tighter . <S> She notched her belt tighter. <A> Normally, waistbands are described as being 'taken in' or 'let out'. <S> I would suggest that when describing notches on a belt (notches in a belt?) <S> that the proper phrases would be something like, "After dieting for two weeks I'm buckling my belt in one notch in." <A> “Go up (or down ) a notch” is not the usual idiom. <S> I would avoid it. <S> It is idiomatic to say something like: <S> “I took my belt in a notch” (to indicate a smaller waist or a condition of extreme hunger) <S> “I let <S> my belt out a notch” (to indicate a larger waist or a condition of extreme satiety) <S> These expressions “take in” and “let out” are also used when referring to alterations of clothing for a similar purpose. <S> For example, one might have one’s trousers “taken in” or “let out”. <S> See “take in” and “let out” at MacmillanDictionary.com .
| down a notch means down a level .It is used in sentences like
|
Is there a term for words that have a single meaning or are only used in a single context? Certain words you hear in English are only ever heard in a single context. For example, skirl is used to describe the sound a bagpipe makes . Etymonline generously says the word is "rarely" heard outside that context, but I can't recall ever hearing it used for anything else. I imagine one could use it figuratively to describe another godawful high-pitched screech (sorry, bagpipe lovers), but there's no other bona fide usage for it. What I want to know is stated in the title of the question: Is there a term for these one-off words? I'm sure there must be, but I can't think of what it might be. Edit: Judging from some of the head-scratching comments I've received, there seems to be some confusion. Perhaps I did not make my meaning clear. I'm not looking for a word to describe the single instance of skirl . I'm asking about a class of words like skirl . I know there exist other examples of words that are only ever used in one context, but I can't think of any others at the moment. <Q> It's a " stormy petrel . <S> " <S> The idea, as described on the linked page, is that (for example) you never (or, at least, rarely) find a petrel <S> that's not stormy . <S> Similarly, "all shrift is short ," and lots of other examples. <S> One of the ones there is in fact " <S> every skirl is of bagpipes ." <A> Closely related are fossil words , which have no meaning outside of a certain set phrase. <S> "Bated" survives only in "bated breath", for example. <A> There are several terms for closely related concepts: A nonce word is a word that somebody made up for a localized purpose. <S> Apart from fossilized words, those nonce words that caught on are probably the major part of this group. <S> (It's named after the "cran" of "cranberry".) <S> A fossil word is similarly a word that is used only in a small number of phrases (but whose state is specifically due to the original meaning's obsolescence). <S> A hapax legomenon (of a particular corpus) is a word that appears exactly once. <A> There is no clear word or term that conveys words that have a single meaning or are only used in a single context. <S> The nearest match is the word <S> unequivocal : <S> having only one possible meaning or interpretation. <A> In the first part of your question, you have asked if there is a term for words that have a single meaning. <S> I think the answer is "monosemy" which refers to the fact of having only a single meaning. <S> According to Oxford Living Dictionaries <S> it means: <S> The property of having only one meaning. <A> This conversation may have rather run its course a while ago... but a friend of mine (author Patrick Woodrow) and some of his friends had a game called 'Dependencies' which was about identifying exactly these kinds of words. <S> We've added to the list periodically over the years - it includes words such as 'shrift', mentioned above - as well as others like 'spick', 'champing', 'abetted', 'kibosh', 'betide', 'madding' etc. <S> No doubt a number of these would fall under the fossil words referred to above too. <S> Best wishes, Ed
| A cranberry morpheme is a morpheme that has no meaning on its own, and exists only as part of one or a small number of words.
|
"I park my car in the yard" What is the origin of the different pronunciation of words like park , yard , cartoon , margarine in American and British English? In other words, why doesn’t British English generally pronounce the r in such words? Or vice-versa: why does American English generally pronounce the r in the same words? <Q> Broadly, English accents are divided into two categories, rhotic and non-rhotic . <S> All English accents were originally rhotic, and the R sound was typically articulated as an alveolar trill , in contrast with the alveolar approximant of most contemporary dialects. <S> Non-rhotic accents began developing in the Middle English period, and were commonplace by the arrival of modern English, gaining popularity in southern England during the 18th century. <S> As Alex mentions, notable non-rhotic United States accents include coastal New England, New York, and old-style Deep Southern; the so-called "continental" or trans-Atlantic accent , characteristic of upper-class America through much of the 20th century, was also distinctly non-rhotic. <S> Rhotic British accents are to be found in the West Country, as well as much of Scotland and Ireland. <A> The difference you're describing is between rhotic and non-rhotic accents. <S> In the UK, rhotic accents have been declining since the 16th century, although they still persist in the West and Southwest. <S> English was already established in the North American colonies before the decline in rhoticity, which is why it's been preserved in the US and Canada. <S> I think the exception of New England might be down to the fashion in the early 20th century of affecting a Mid-Atlantic (and British-style non-rhotic) accent. <S> North America was clearly colonised before the start of the decline in rhoticity, whereas Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand were colonised after and therefore have non-rhotic accents. <S> More detail on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents <A> I write as a linguist. <S> There is something called compensatory lengthening in phonology <S> and it's simply that when a sound is deleted, another sound is lengthened to fill up that empty space. <S> This can be likened to sharing a small bed with your partner and then he has to leave for work as early as 3am. <S> you spread out to fill the space he has left and enjoy the rest of your sleep. <S> This is why yard sounds different from bad, cartoon from cat and park from pack. <S> the /r/ has been deleted and the vowel before it lengthens to fill its space. <S> this lengthening is sometimes accompanied by backing and rounding to give /a:/ <S> or /Ʒ/. <S> Your margarine example doesn't quite cut it too because non-rhotic speakers pronounce /r/ <S> before vowels and between vowels (intervocalically) <S> so there s no way you would have pronounced margarine as maj-ah-een. <S> you would not pronounce the first /r/ <S> because it is before a consonant but you will definite pronounce the second /r/ <S> because it is intervocalic(between vowels) <S> so you actually say /ma:ʤrin/ or /ma:ʤrәn/ or /ma: <S> ʤәrin/. You likely say the last one when you are speaking slowly.
| Both the British Isles and the United States, as well as Australia and other areas where English is spoken, have regions of both rhotic and non-rhotic accents.
|
Aren't adverbs related to the closest word? What about other modifiers? Aren't adverbs related to the closest word? Does nightly in nightly business report refer to business ? Update: I am still confused. Is relation of non-adverb modifiers different from that of adjective? In First Certificate Language Practice by Michael Vince the "first" is related to the nearest modified word (without dephis application) I am not interested in specific case of "Nightly Business Reports" (only), I'd like to understand a rule/pattern with possible exceptions in order to reuse it in my writing. <Q> In the case of a list of modifiers, it is generally presumed that all the modifiers apply to the final subject; if one modifier is intended to apply to another modifier in the list, most often they will be joined by a hyphen. <S> Per your example, nobody would assume that the "nightly" in "nightly business report" modifies "business"; if it were supposed to, it would have been written "nightly-business report". <A> In the same way, in the following phrase his prime-time, nightly TV talk show <S> both nightly and TV are referred to talk show . <A> "Business report" is a compound noun . <S> Though this word is written with a space in the middle in the English writing system, linguistically speaking, "business report" is one word . <S> This is why we say "the business report" and we can't say "the business the report", "business the report", "daily business interesting report" or anything else like that. <S> "Business report" is a single unit. <S> Nightly <S> (in the sense you are using it) is an adjective, not an adverb. <S> In any case, it modifies the entire compound noun, "business report". <S> (Adverbs never modify nouns.) <S> So, the constituency works in this way: [nightly [business report]]
| Nightly and business are referred to report .
|
Is healthful considered an acceptable synonym of healthy? To my ear, healthful does not sound right. This could well be geographical bias on my part. Is it now a valid alternative to healthy ? Does it have another meaning? <Q> Healthy means "in a state of well-being." <S> Healthful means "promoting or contributing to one's healthiness. <S> " <S> (Apparently it used to be a suitable synonym for "healthy" <S> but I don't believe it is widely considered such anymore.) <S> So, to re-word the old adage, you could say that an apple a day is healthful; but you wouldn't say that you are healthful unless you're trying to convince a reluctant cannibal to consume you. <A> I suspect it's a cromulent neologism. <A> In everyday speech, we often hear "healthy" used (incorrectly?) <S> in place of "healthful."
| To my ear, "healthful" refers to something that promotes health, like a "healthful diet" or a "healthful climate," whereas someone who eats a healthful diet has a better chance of being "healthy."
|
Which one is correct to say: "It's me" or "It's I"? I was taught at school that the following expression is not grammatically correct: Who is there? It's me. The correct one is: Who is there? It's I. Can you let me know which one is accurate? Here is a good explanation about both forms. <Q> "It is I" is grammatically correct in the pure sense, but would never be used in spoken English - or very rarely by people who speak in an ultra-formal dialect. <S> "It is I" would have been correct in Shakespeare's time, in spoken English, but not now. <A> As reported from the NOAD: me /mi/ <S> pronoun [first person singular] 1. used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself as the object of a verb or preposition: <S> Do you understand me? <S> Wait for me! <S> • used after the verb to be and after than or as : <S> Hi, it's me. <S> You have more than me. <S> • informal to or for myself <S> : <S> I've got me a job. <S> It's then correct to say it's me . <A> The answer to the question ' <S> Who's there?' <S> is ' <S> It's me.' <S> ' <S> It is I' would normally be heard only when something else follows it, and then only in rather formal contexts, as in 'It is I who have done all the work, so it is I who should get the compensation.' <A> "It is me," is more common, and correct. <S> However, "It is I who am here," is also correct, and "who am here" can be left off and implied, making "It is I," also correct. <A> This question is related to I can run faster than... <S> In that exchange nohat describes the pronouns being used in the nominative and accusative cases. <S> Modern English speakers have become more comfortable using the accusative case in comparisons even though traditionally comparisons have used the nominative case. <S> It is further noted that "both forms are standard." <S> Modern English has slurred the distinction between cases, using word order to denote case rather than declension. <S> We still use different words for most personal pronouns (he/him, I/me, we/us), but have lost it for you/you. <S> "I talk to you." <S> "You talk to me." <S> When asking "Who is there? <S> " it would be correct to answer in the nominative case, "I am here." <S> Likewise, asking "Who is it?" <S> should elicit " <S> It is I" or "I am it." <A> While it is formally correct to say "It's I", while informal or popular usage allows "It's me", it would be incorrect to say "It's him and I" (as in the title of a currently popular song), which mixes objective and nominative cases; it could be either " <S> It's he and I" or <S> "It's him and me".
| "It is ME" is not grammatically correct in the academic sense, but is used in spoken English.
|
What does "hit margin" mean? This is used in an economic context: We don't monetize ourselves properly, so we don't hit margins . <Q> One of the meanings of hit is to reach or attain (a specified level or amount) ; <S> Prices are expected to hit a new low. <S> The new train cab hit 100 mph. <S> The sentence you reported can be rewritten as <S> We don't monetize ourselves properly, so we don't reach high profit margins. <A> Margins are edges of a thing. <S> In finance , a margin is "a sum deposited with a broker to cover the risk of loss on a transaction or account. <S> " There is no larger context to the sentence, but I would expect that the word monetize signifies that the term is being used in the financial sense. <S> What it probably means is that the enterprise is worried that if it doesn't get enough capital going forward, the creditors are likely to call in the debt. <A> Margin is the difference between what it costs a business to buy or produce something and what they sell for it. <S> So to hit margin simply means to profit. <S> Meaning of sentence: <S> We don't make money enough to maker our sales more than our costs. <A> "Margin" is synonymous with "profit" in this sentence. <S> "Monetize" is basically converting a hard asset to a liquid (cash) asset. <S> Basically: <S> "We don't turn our assets into cash well <S> , so we don't make the profits that we have budgeted for ourselves."
| profit margin is the amount by which revenue from sales exceeds costs in a business .
|
Why do people use "I hear that..." when talking about the past? I often see that people write ‘I hear that…’ meaning the past. For example: I hear that Sally has won in lottery. (If I remember correctly it is used in English Grammar in use by Cambridge University) Why is it used? Shouldn’t be ‘I heard that…’ when we mean the past? <Q> 'I hear' is different. <S> It is present tense of course, but it is more figurative in the context you are talking about. <S> It means something along the lines of 'The rumour is', not that you are literally hearing something. <A> To me, ElandilTheTall is right, <S> I hear that is more figurative. <S> But I also think it can imply common knowledge. <S> When you say I heard that you probably have a specific source that told you about it in mind. <S> A friend, a newspaper, the internet, etc. <S> When you say I hear that you imply that it's common knowledge, although this is likely the first time you've talked about it, you assume either that the person you are speaking to already knows about it, or the person you are speaking to should already know about it. <A> So I hear <S> and So I've heard are same in spoken English. <S> They both are used to say that you have been told something or you already know it. <S> There's a nasty infection going round, so <S> I hear/heard . <A> I asked to a friend of mine, who lives in USA, and she explained me that the difference between the sentences is: I hear that Sally has won the lottery. <S> Sally recently won the lottery. <S> I heard that Sally has won the lottery. <S> Sally won the lottery in the past.
| 'I heard' is past tense and indeed means that you had heard something previously.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.