source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
What do you call a person who does not go out with his friends? What do you call a person who does not go out with his friends because he thinks he is superior to them? <Q> I think the word you may be looking for is aloof , meaning "not friendly or forthcoming; cool and distant". <S> [Websters] <S> Although James had many friends, he remained aloof from them and hardly ever socialized with them. <S> Edited to add: The word also carries the connotation of supercilious , which means "behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others". <S> You could also simply say: James remained aloof from his friends. <A> Title of this question was a bit misleading. <S> If you are sure that the reason for this is that he thinks he is superior to his friends, he might be "snob" ( as Hellion already said ), "pretentious" or "haughty". <S> However as someone who prefers to stay home instead of going out with my friends, I'd like to point out that it is not necessarily person being smug, but merely one that avoids crowds, possibly a "homebody" in a good sense. <A> Unsociable or antisocial maybe, if someone doesn't go out much at all (if he does go out, but not with his "friends", perhaps he's just changed his circle of friends). <A> That's a very specific question. <S> I am unaware of a word that means exactly that. <S> You would have to say something like: <S> He doesn't go out with his friends because he thinks they're beneath him. <S> There are a couple of words/phrases referring to someone who doesn't go out much: stick-in-the-mud , and stay-at-home , but these are general terms. <A> This question is clearly some kind of trick or paradox. <S> If "he" doesn't go out with them, and thinks he is superior to them... <S> likely they are not "his friends ". <S> Nor he is "their" friend. <A> See if this is of any help to you. <S> hubristic is what I think I'd use... <A> I personally would call such a person an "asshole", but "snob" also comes to mind as a possibility. <A> Elitist doesn't quite cover all the bases ( e.g. , it doesn't necessarily imply that someone won't go out with his friends), but that's what I might call someone who refuses to go out with people who are "beneath" him. <S> It works well alongside snob (as Hellion and user4395 mentioned). <S> Perhaps one could riff off the idea of social stratification to create a new word/phrase, although they'd have to explain what they meant as soon as they used the term.
| First thing that came to mind was that the person was introvert or even somehow socially constrained.
|
Should 'Today' and 'Tomorrow' be capitalised? I always wonder whether 'today' and 'tomorrow' should be capitalised. Can anybody help me? <Q> Otherwise, it is a plain old regular word. <S> I have written this today and may or may not get an upvote for it tomorrow :D <A> The words today and tomorrow are only ever capitalized in titles: <S> The <S> Today Show (TV program) <S> Tomorrow <S> Never Knows (Beatles song) <S> But in everyday speech, these words are left lower-cased: <S> I'm going to take it easy today. <S> I have a big day tomorrow. <S> Edit per Christian's comment <S> : English does not capitalize nouns unless they are so-called proper nouns , by which I do not mean proper in the British sense of being "in order" or "the way a thing should be done," but instead nouns that are used as actual names for people or places or ideas that are represented in titular form. <S> The other variety of nouns are called common nouns , and they refer to everyday things that are not singled out for such special naming. <S> Unlike German, in which every noun is capitalized, common nouns in English are not singled out for special treatment (unless, of course, they come at the beginning of a sentence, or are used as class identifiers in a poetic sense: occasionally you will see truth or beauty written as Truth or Beauty , signifying that these represent special philosophically representative uses of the terms). <A> The words today , tomorrow and yesterday are not capitalized. <S> However, Monday , Tuesday , Wednesday , Thursday , Friday , Saturday and Sunday are capitalized.
| Today and Tomorrow are not capitalized because they are not really names, nor are they proper nouns. They are capitalized only if they appear at the beginning of a sentence, or if you are making a title for some sort of event such as "The Today News".
|
What does "If you're gonna get up in my face you'd better be ready to back it up!" mean? I just read the following expression: I have a vague idea what it means but please could a native speaker comment: "If you're gonna get up in my face you'd better be ready to back it up!" <Q> The first part is idiomatic: Get up in my face <S> This refers to the way that someone acting aggressively will often get very close to their opponent and shout in their face. <S> Figuratively speaking, it can also just mean someone being aggressive or antagonistic, without them necessarily getting physically close. <S> back it up <S> Means acting on the aggression physically, in this context. <S> So the whole phrase means: <S> If you are willing to talk aggressively, you had better be ready to fight too. <S> The implication is that they had better be ready to fight, because the speaker is. <A> It means - if you are going to confront me, you should be prepared to fight. <S> "In my face" means (literally or figuratively) standing face to face within the distance normally considered "personal space" and reserved for contact with close friends. <S> If someone who is not a close friend does this, it is considered aggressive. <S> "ready to back it up" is a vague cliche that suggests having available supportive material, reasoning or (depending on context) force. <A> My guess is it is ADDITIONALLY a play on words Face: front of you Back <S> : behind you It rolls off the tongue like Monty Python's "If you're going to split hairs, I'm going to piss off." <A> Since this came up in more than one answer/comment... <S> There are actually quite a few different meanings to "back up". <S> Among them: Move in reverse, or the wrong direction. <S> Eg: <S> To get out of a parking space, I usually have to back up my car . <S> Provide support for. <S> Eg: Baseball teams typically have a pitcher, a relief pitcher, and a backup reliever. <S> Writers often need to back up their assertions with statistics. <S> To make a copy of (kind of the verb form of the previous meaning). <S> eg: <S> It is a good idea to back up important files on your computer. <S> To follow through with a threat or promise. <S> eg: <S> It's not actually bragging if you can back it up. <S> This is essentially the opposite of bluffing, and this phrase is commonly used to imply a person is bluffing when they get belligerent (or at least to "call the bluff". <S> Fight or don't fight, but shut up either way.) <S> Now since meaning 2 is also often used in situations that involve physical confrontations <S> (eg: <S> An officer should never enter a house without backup .) <S> I can see where some people could get confused. <S> But whenever you hear something like Don't talk smack unless you can back it up , we are talking about meaning 4. <S> I first heard both "get all up in my face" and meaning four of "back it up" while hanging out with speakers of AAVE , so I suspect both originated from there (particularly the former). <S> Things like this from AAVE tend to get borrowed by speakers of other North American English dialects because they sound cool (or tough), but I don't know how widely used they are outside of the USA.
| To back someone up is to stand behind them ready to provide assistance.
|
Why is "ass" considered obscene? Spam filters replace obscene "Ass" for "butt" Meanwhile, in literature, newspaper articles, forum posts, sayings, proverbs, etc. I am encountering many more expressions with ass but not with butt . Why is ass considered obscene? What is the difference between ass and butt ? <Q> Why is ass considered obscene? <S> Some would consider it obscene when referring to the human posterior, or more likely, when used as an epithet for a boorish or stupid person. <S> Asshole in my view is considered even more obscene. <S> The "why?" <S> question is pretty subjective. <S> Why is any word considered obscene? <S> It's just the way the word developed and societal convention. <S> I believe in the spectrum of obscenities, even as an epithet it's not that obscene. <S> In my opinion, a filter which replaces the word with butt is too stringent. <S> What is the difference between ass and butt? <S> When referring to anatomy, there's little difference. <S> Each word has other senses, however. <S> An ass can refer to the sure-footed animal smaller than a horse with big ears. <S> It can also mean a pompous fool or be used as slang for sexual intercourse (get some ass) . <S> Butt has many other senses. <S> It can be the part of the trunk of a tree nearest the roots, the victim of ridicule (butt of your jokes) , thick end of a handle or stock of a rifle/pistol, the end of a cigarette, or a type of joint (carpentry, not the other type of cigarette.) <S> Butt can also be used as a verb, to place end to end, to lie adjacent, or to strike or shove against/in between, (to butt in line.) <A> I will answer to the second question. <S> The words have different meanings; leaving out what the words mean when they are used as verbs, these are the definitions of the words: <S> butt /bət/ <S> noun <S> the person or thing at which criticism or humor, typically unkind, is directed: <S> his singing is the butt of dozens of jokes . <S> • (usually butts ) an archery or shooting target or range. <S> • a mound on or in front of which a target is set up for archery or shooting. <S> noun a push or blow, typically given with the head: he would follow up with a butt from his head. <S> noun <S> 1. <S> (also butt end) <S> the thicker end, especially of a tool or a weapon: a rifle butt . <S> • the square end of a plank or plate meeting the end or side of another, as in the side of a ship. <S> • the thicker or hinder end of a hide used for leather. <S> 2. <S> (also butt end) <S> the stub of a cigar or a cigarette: the ashtray was crammed with cigarette butts . <S> 3. <S> informal the buttocks. <S> • the anus. <S> 4. <S> the trunk of a tree, especially the part just above the ground. <S> ass <S> /æs/ <S> noun <S> 1. <S> a hoofed mammal of the horse family with a braying call, typically smaller than a horse and with longer ears. <S> • <S> Genus Equus, family Equidae: <S> E. africanus of Africa, which is the ancestor of the domestic ass or donkey, and E. hemionus of Asia. <S> • (in general use) a donkey. <S> 2. <S> (informal) <S> a foolish or stupid person: that ass of a young man . <A> I'm sure you know the different meanings of ass. <S> For the vulgar meaning it comes from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European " Orse " which means (“ backside , buttocks , butt ”). <S> In this meaning it's widely used in North America. <S> Note <S> : Also it has some other word origins.
| When ass is used to refer to the animal, it's generally not considered obscene.
|
front up or show up? In article ‘How To Use the “Seven Deadly Sins” to Turn Visitors into Customers’ in the Smashing Magazine the autor used the word ‘front up’: Showing off your customers. People want to use tools that big brands use. SEOmoz does a great job of fronting up the logos of famous companies that pay for their tools, with a simple call to action prompting you to be as successful as these top brands. This entices users to try this tool: “I want to use something big brands use.” I don't know he is a native but I have not found the proper definition. Did he use it right or simply made a mistake? <Q> Front Up means " Appear somewhere for a short time ". <S> It's used in Australian English. <S> Here it means to show the logos in a web page for a short time. <S> Example: <S> I hate these occasions, but I'll front up for the first half. <A> An odd phrase and one I haven't heard before. <S> From the context it seems to mean 'promoting' or 'pushing to the front'. <S> In other words, SEOmoz is good at 'pushing' the logos of famous companies to the forefront of their advertising. <A> Show up would mean be conspicuous or clearly visible, informal arrive or turn up for an appointment or gathering ; showing up doesn't seem to suit in this case.
| I think the author uses fronting up to mean to show on the front page or simply to show on the front of the page .
|
Does the verb "Unstar" exist? I'm creating an application for the iPhone where the user has the ability to star an item, i.e. adding a star to the item. Now I am wondering whether I can also use unstar ? Or should I go with something different - if so, what? <Q> The verb to unstar is not reported in the dictionary I have, which doesn't report to unpublish either. <S> If to star refers to an action that changes the status of something, then to unstar <S> would be understood as the action that makes the opposite status change. <S> This is what happens with to unpublish , which is understood as to change the status to not published . <A> Unstar is commonly used in applications such as Gmail. <S> I would say yes, it's acceptable to use in the context of software. <A> i am not sure about unstar <A> that was once a 1, with a star icon displayed, but if you read the linked question there seems to be a bit of confusion in the general public as to how "to star" should be interpreted as a verb. <S> you'd be safer using actual verbs from the dictionary, saying "remove a star" alongside a clear concept of what "adding a star" means. <A> Is it really difficult to say "remove a star", which all readers will understand instantly, without needing to refer to a glossary? <S> Whether or not this activity requires the inclusion of a new word in the English language remains to be seen, but it isn't there yet, <S> so why make life difficult for yourself? <S> Fretting over it has probably taken up much more of your time and energy than typing the extra few characters would have. <S> Just use words that say what you mean, and will be understood by your readers -- i.e. in this case, if you're writing for GMail users, go ahead and use "unstar"; if you're not, consider using real words.
| but you can definitely use Unstarred as gmail and other e-mail provider use in there action buttons basically, "star" is not a verb, so neither is "unstar" but if you do decide to use one as a verb you might as well use the other to be consistent. i think it is obvious that "to unstar" something is to set a value to 0
|
What does the British idiom "taking the piss" mean? I most recently heard this in the context of a business deal: Sorry gents, looks like we'll be taking the piss on that one. I understood that the business had suffered a financial loss, although I expected I was missing some nuance. In entirely different scenarios, I've heard piss used in British idiomatic phrasing that suggested a lack of concern, or carelessness. Those phrases are difficult to reconcile with the previously mentioned usage. Are there multiple idiomatic meanings for this word, or am I missing some kind of unifying theme? Updated: I might not have a perfect recollection of the quote. But given the typical meaning of the phrase, I wonder if the speaker's intention was along the lines of "We'll be laughing about this later." Or maybe I just missed the real meaning. <Q> That particular usage of "taking the piss" , actually means "taking advantage of" . <S> When said from the receiver's perspective it would be akin to <S> "You have got to be joking!" <S> , "Are you taking the mick[ey]? <S> " , "Are you taking the piss?" <S> - All enquiries as to whether they are being made fun out of, the more usual meaning, but with the implication that is not the case, and they are being taken advantage of. <S> In this context, said from the side of the entity taking advantage, it says <S> "we will be taking the piss" , we will be taking advantage of the other entity. <S> Particularly used where terms and conditions are particularly harsh, or the client is being screwed for far too much money. <A> "Taking the piss" simply means "making fun of" in its usual context. <S> It's a very common expression within Britain, but probably rare elsewhere. <S> ("Taking the mickey" is a similar, slightly sanitised version, that perhaps is used elsewhere?) <S> The Wikipedia page gives a fairly good overview. <A> Re the second part of your question: yes, there are many many many idiomatic uses of piss in British English! <S> Just off the top of my head: <S> piss - urine, to urinate. <S> (The main literal meaning, of course.) <S> pissed - drunk, roughly equivalent to hammered in AmE. on the piss - out drinking, similar to on the town , on the tiles . <S> piss (someone) off - to offend, irritate, anger someone. <S> (Hence: pissed off = angry, closely equivalent to AmE pissed .) <S> Piss off! <S> - Go away! <S> (Milder analogue of Fuck off! ) <S> piss about (or around ) - to mess around, do things that aren't really worthwhile. <S> More suggestions welcome in comments... <A> My understanding of this phrase breaks down to: <S> "Are you taking the piss [out of me] ? <S> " <S> "I'm just taking the piss [out of you] ." <S> "Piss" in this interpretation could mean something like confidence (similar to the phrase "piss and vinegar" ). <S> In other words: "Are you trying to make a fool of me?" <S> "Are you trying to cut me down a notch?" <S> Or in more modern parlance, "are you trolling?" <S> The dialogue you describe doesn't really make sense for that use of the phrase. <S> "We'll be taking the piss" <S> reads more as <S> "we'll have the last laugh" to me. <A> "Are you avin a laugh?/Is he avin a laugh?", like "Are you taking the piss?", are used (in London and other parts of Britain) in situations where John McEnroe would say "You cannot be serious, man!"
| take the piss out of (someone/something) - to make fun of.
|
What is the origin of "cross country skiing"? I was speaking of skiing when I was in USA, and I discovered that one type of ski is called cross country skiing . What is the origin of that phrase, which is not really referring to skiing through countries? <Q> It's using the term <S> cross-country <S> not in the sense of national boundaries, but open countryside. <S> Basically, it means skiing through fields, pastures, open range, whatever. <S> It is contrasted with downhill skiing in which skiers follow a (usually) prepared track down a mountainside. <A> Etymology online gives the following elucidating definition: <S> also cross country, crosscountry; 1767, of roads, from cross (v.) + country, or aphetic for across-country. <S> Of flights, from 1909. <S> i.e. It does not refer to movement across borders of countries, but rather across a single country (at some scale). <S> So, "cross-country skiing" can basically be interpreted as "skiing across [significant] terrain". <S> Specifically, it does of course involve a very specific technique, different to that of downhill skiing. <S> Analogies can be made with "cross-country running" as well. <A> What is the origin of that phrase, which is not really referring to skiing through countries? <S> The phrase isn't referring to a political country, but country in the sense of the "outdoors" -- the rural area outside of cities and towns. <S> It is the same sense as such phrases as country roads , back country , Country and Western music, etc. <S> The phrase has been applied to this technique of skiing even if it takes place on a well-groomed city track or trail. <A> Cross-Country as an adjective has two meanings. <S> Here it means " Taking place outside roads " Examples: <S> Cross-country running <S> Cross-country <S> Skiing <S> We took a cross-country route instead of the motorway. <S> Also check this link .
| Cross-country skiing refers to skiing which historically took place across significant stretches of rural landscape, rather than up and down one hill or mountain ( downhill skiing ).
|
What is the closest alternative to "rubbish" in American English? What is the replacement for "rubbish" in American English? I would think "crappy" but it seems a bit stronger than needed. <Q> <A> First of all, the word rubbish is pretty well understood by American English speakers, and although it does have a British flavor it is used occasionally by Americans. <S> So if you are worried that your use of rubbish will not be understood, that is less of a concern than with some other Britishisms. <S> Second, I’m not sure how rubbish is used as an adjective. <S> All the uses I know of are nouns. <S> Even in uses like “what rubbish quality” or “getting the occasional play on rubbish indie radio shows”, the use is as an attributive noun. <S> Finally, as others have noted garbage can be substituted for nearly any use <S> rubbish , whether literal or figurative. <A> The questioner should give an example of the kind of usage he/ <S> she is after. <S> For example, if you want an equivalent exclamation for the British speaker's "Rubbish!" as an American I'd say "Bullshit!" if the situation is informal and "Nonsense!" <S> if it's more formal, with lots of alternatives in between. <S> But none of these would be parallel to the 'crappy' option that the questioner is intuiting. <A> How about trashy ? <S> I'm not sure if it's American English, though... <A> Trashy denotes something different. <S> Trashy is usually associated with person. <S> Doing so regards that person as a slut most likely. <S> Garbage < Crappy < Shitty would be the alternates in order of strength! <A> What about junk ? <S> This isn't commonly used but doesn't have quite the same connotations as trash /*trashy <S> *. <A> The most common American is quite strong. <S> It is "bullsh--." <A> I've always found that "stinks" seems to convey a similar connotation as "rubbish". <S> The grammar isn't the same obviously, but the nuances seem closer particularly when the object being described is an action. <S> -"His performance is rubbish." <S> "His performance stinks." <S> -"This outfit is rubbish" <S> "This outfit stinks." <S> -"My game today is rubbish." <S> "My game today stinks."
| Garbage is suitable, I think.
|
When to use "Well" or "Good" Possible Duplicate: Why do so many people get this wrong? “How are you? / I'm well.” How would you answer the question "How are you?" I'm well. or I'm good. I notice that in American English, the latter is normally used, but I feel that the former is grammatically correct. Same goes for questions like "How did it go?" Can one answer "It went well," or "It went good." Which is correct? <Q> This is why "it went good" is grammatically incorrect. <S> However good is so often used as a synonym for well in vernacular English that dictionaries may mention its nonstandard equivilance. <S> To answer your first question, it's usually preferred to say "I am well" in formal English because it specificially means "I am in good health" whereas "I am good" doesn't have that specific association. <S> "I am good" is grammatically correct though. <A> "I'm good", to me, connotes other possible meanings, such as "I'm quite competent", but others' mileage may vary. <S> I would avoid "it went good" as ungrammatical. <A> Both are correct. <S> When you give either response, there are words that aren't said that are understood. <S> eg. <S> I am (feeling) <S> well. <S> or I am (in) good <S> (spirits/health.) <S> well is an adverb modifying <S> went . <S> "It went good" is incorrect, as good is not an adverb.
| One key difference is that "well" can be an adverb and "good" cannot, at least not formally. I usually say "I am well", meaning "I am in good health", with the caveat that most people to whom I say it regard me as being perhaps overly formal. "It went well" is correct,
|
What is the difference between ‘silviculture’ and ‘forestry’? What is the difference in usage? What associations does the former word trigger that the latter does not (and vice versa)? <Q> I say I am a silviculturist <S> , I don't mean I plant forests. <S> The other grammatical difference between the words is that there are two derivates of silviculture ( silvicultural , silviculturist ), but there aren't derivates of forestry with similar meaning. <A> I think the main difference would be that silviculture applies to any tree, while forestry only to the ones in a forest. <A> "Silviculture" to me, never having heard it before, just sounds like it's pretentious. <S> Like a 'Garbage removal expert'. <S> I admit I'm outside my specialism, though, so there may be some distinction in the field. <S> And I know people who are irritated by people calling themselves 'software engineers' when in reality they're just 'programmers' putting on airs... <A> Silviculture involve on field not science ie a farmer can involve on Silviculture but forestry is science related to forest ie M.Sc. <S> in forestry <A> Afforestation is the planting of trees in a barren land to increase forest area while silviculture deals with the growth,establishment, development, care and regeneration of stand (plant)
| The NOAD reports that silviculture means the growing and cultivation of trees , while forestry means the science or practice of planting, managing, and caring for forests .If
|
What do Americans think of using 'cheers' to sign off an email? I've suspected before that "Cheers" as an email sign-off is a bit of an English (or possibly Commonwealth) thing, but being English it's natural to me and I use it as the mood takes me to end an email. When I email an American, what sort of impression does it give? Are there any other English speaking cultures out there where it's a bit unfamiliar? <Q> To me, as an American, it doesn't really get interpreted other than to flag to me that the writer is speaking British English. <S> I have no idea when it is or is not proper to use "cheers" in British English, so it sort of gets ignored as to whether this is a formal or informal way of signing off. <S> Internationally, it's probably best to stick to <S> a more formal "Thank you" or "I look forward to your reply" if the communication is with someone with whom you do not have a pre-established relationship. <S> This is more important when the recipient is not a native speaker of English and may be confused. <A> As an American English native speaker, I interpret it as "Thanks/Have a great day from someone from England (or possibly Australia)" . <S> Not that they were intending the "from England" part - <S> that is just my interpretation. <S> Edit: <S> I do find myself using it sometimes lately :) <S> Also <S> 'no worries', but I have some Australian friends, so I probably picked it up from them. <A> As reported from the NOAD ( New Oxford American Dictionary ) <S> the definition of cheers is the following: <S> cheers /tʃɪ(ə)rz/ <S> exclamation informal expressing good wishes, <S> in particular • good wishes before drinking: “Cheers,” she said, raising her glass . <S> • <S> [British] good wishes on parting or ending a conversation: Cheers, Jack, see you later . <S> • [chiefly British] gratitude or acknowledgment for something <S> : Billy tossed him the key. <S> “Cheers, pal.” <S> Cheers is therefore used to express good wishes in both American English and British English; it's probably understood to have that meaning in a specific context (e.g., before drinking). <S> I would use good wishes . <A> I am an American English native speaker, but I've been exposed to the British usage so much that I've ended a couple of emails with it myself. <S> It always seemed like a fairly reasonable signoff. <A> It does remind me of when Americans say "Cheers" when they click glasses in general goodwill to each other. <S> But more than that, whenever I hear a European say or write Cheers, I always think it sounds so cool and makes them seem so laid back, friendly, and even hip. <S> I really love the phrase and always feel impressed when I hear it. <S> I'm not sure why. <S> In fact, I wish I could say it without feeling funny. <S> But it feels like cultural appropriation to say it. <S> But I totally support other Americans saying it if they want to. <S> It's just not a trend in our culture yet <S> so it sounds a little funny for us to be saying it.
| As a native American speaker, when I see British folk sign off "Cheers," I have always interpreted it as they are sending out a general well wishing.
|
What is a one-person business called? I'm wondering what is the term for the person, that is doing business on his/her own and has tax liability. It's different in each country, I'd like to know how they are called in USA and UK. <Q> I am the sole proprietor of this business. <S> Or... <S> Independent Contractor : <S> A person working independently, under a contract; a self-employed person. <S> I am an independent contractor. <S> Or... <S> Self-Employed (or Freelancer) : <S> working for yourself. <S> I am self-employed. <S> I am a freelancer. <A> In Australia, they can be self-employed, freelancers, contractors, sole practitioners (for professional services), sole traders (for other services), and probably a lot more besides... <S> I don't know if I have heard of sole proprietors here. <A> Sole proprietorship or simply proprietorship . <S> The owner is called the proprietor . <A> In the UK, a one person business is often referred to as a one-man band. <S> " <S> My consulting business is actually just me. <S> I'm a bit of a one-man band at the moment" <S> It comes from the practice of a street entertainer playing multiple instruments at once. <A> The question is vague. <S> In the U.S, "sole proprietor" is a legal term that signifies the one human being who is responsible for the debts of a business and legally entitled to the profits of the business. <S> A sole proprietorship is distinguished legally from partnerships and corporations, in which the debts of a business are not the responsibility of a single, "natural person," another term of legal art. <S> In usual practice, a sole proprietor is also the daily manager of the business, but this need not be true. <S> Nor is it necessarily true that a sole proprietorship has only one person working at the business. <S> It refers to a technical legal relationship. <S> (See Wikipedia for "sole proprietor.") <S> In the U.S., one term commonly used for people who work for themselves is "self-employed," regardless of the legal form of ownership, which would not normally be known or of significance to most people. <S> That term, however, does not imply that the person works alone. <S> A person who owns and runs a small shop with several employees would still be called "self-employed." <S> A person who works alone may be called a "sole practitioner" or a "lone practitioner" although that term encompasses people who do not work alone so long as those with whom they work are in an auxiliary capacity. <S> Thus a doctor who is not in a group practice would be referred to as a sole practitioner even though the doctor may employ a nurse or secretary or receptionist, none of whom practice medicine. <S> EDIT: I see the the OP was particularly interested in the incidence of taxation. <S> The entity that has primary liability for taxes depends on the exact legal form under which the business operates. <S> There is, however, a doctrine in U.S law called "piercing the corporate veil" that may impose secondary liability for corporate debts on other parties. <S> Moreover, U.S. tax law is arcane and Byzantine and so is the domain of highly specialized accountants and lawyers. <S> Any questions about primary and secondary liability for taxes should be asked of those specialists. <S> I won't even venture a guess. <A> The term self-employed without employees seems to be used by multiple organisations: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) <S> Eurostat (provides statistics for EU institutions) <S> The Dutch statistics agency Department for Business Innovation & Skills in the UK (powerpoint) <A> I'd rather think that proprietor means owner what, in turn, means that such person is not necessarily working in his/her business alone.. <S> One person business would be the best..
| Sole Proprietor : the person who owns and controls a sole proprietorship.
|
What is the correct usage of 'worse' and 'worst'? I've noticed a lot of people who, according to the way I was taught, misuse the words 'worse' and 'worst'. The way I understand it, 'worse' is for comparisons, and 'worst' is the superlative. But more and more I see people using them in the exact opposite positions. That's the worse thing I've ever seen. This can't get any worst. This specific thing seems to occur a lot more than any mistakes, so I'm wondering what's up with this. <Q> However, I think the impression that this error is catching on may be an illusion — <S> the usage isn't really changing, it's just such a jarring mistake that when you meet it, it really stands out. <S> Googling the phrases you mention, compared with their correct versions, gives: " <S> That's the worst thing I've ever seen." <S> 51,200 <S> hits"That's the worse thing I've ever seen." <S> 598 <S> hits"This can't get any worse" 1,320,000 <S> hits"This can't get any worst" <S> 9,580 hits Google hits are an awfully rough measure, but these differences — factors of around a hundred in each case — show pretty conclusively that this isn't a common usage. <S> If anything, for words that are so close together in both pronunciation and spelling, I'm surprised there aren't more people making this mistake as a typo or thinko. <A> It is just your typical degeneration of usage - the internet is a highly informal medium, and people generally don't self-edit before they post (as an interesting aside - open any high quality page on wikipedia, then look at the changelog for the article, and see the number of spelling and grammar edits versus the substantive content changes) - couple with the fact that most people who post in English on the internet are not native speakers/writers of English. <S> To answer your specific question - both of those examples are wrong, and should be: <S> That's the worst thing I've ever seen. <S> This can't get any worse. <A> This is bad (good). <S> This is worse (better). <S> This is the worst (the best). <S> English, go figure. <S> Good, better, best, never let it rest, 'til your good is better and your better is (the) best.
| You are right — they are definitely misusing worse and worst in those examples.
|
When traveling abroad, are you "oversea" or "overseas"? I live in Singapore and I will be travelling to Jakarta. Should I say " I will be oversea next week. " or " I will be overseas next week. "? Looking at Google Maps , it looks like there are two seas between Singapore and Jakarta. Is there any instance where I should use " oversea "? <Q> So if you're talking about literal travel across a sea, use oversea: <S> I work in oversea shipping. <S> While if you mean generally abroad, use overseas: <S> Is there an extra charge for overseas shipping? <S> I will be overseas next week. <S> Edit: <S> Just to clarify, as @kiamlaluno points out, these words make no distinction about the number of seas that you cross. <S> Seas in this sense is not literally the plural of sea, but rather the abstract notion of the waters of the sea that you cross when you go oversea, as opposed to the lands that you cross when you go overland. <A> I would go with: <S> I will be overseas next week. <S> Overseas, an adverb, means to go beyond the seas. <S> Even with an 's' at the end, I think it still functions as a singular ( confirmation anyone ?). <S> The number of seas doesn't make a difference, and one sea doesn't mean you have to use oversea . <S> See this link for definitions: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overseas <S> However, Merriam Webster also lists oversea , mainly British usage, as having the same meaning as overseas. <S> Acoording to them oversea was used first, in the 12th century, compared to overseas , in 1533. <S> Nowadays, without offence to the Brits, you hardly hear oversea used. <S> The nearest synonym to overseas is abroad. <S> I will be abroad next week. <S> An occasion when you might use over sea (note separation) <S> : They travelled over sea and land. <S> which, to my ear, sounds better than: <S> They travelled over seas and lands. <S> The other issue is whether overseas would apply if you were travelling to another country without crossing any sea or seas. <S> By the way, don't confuse overseas with oversee , which means to supervise or to watch over. <A> Maybe it's just me, but that expression sounds very pompous when applied to relatively short distances, no matter how many seas are in between. <S> When I lived in UK, I never heard the term oversea or overseas applied to continental Europe. <S> Go simple and you won't go wrong, <S> just say "I'll be in Jakarta next week". <A> It would be overseas even if you only cross one sea. <S> Or ocean. <S> That's if you're in America. <S> The Brits say oversea (singular), but you never hear that over on this side of the pond. <S> Edit: My CD version of Webster's cites overseas |ˈōvərˈsēz| ( Brit. also oversea) <S> so I included that mention even though I have never heard the usage in any contet from anyone.
| You should use overseas: both oversea and overseas literally mean across a sea, but overseas is much more common for the abstract meaning of abroad.
|
Is it "comedy" or "a comedy"? For example in this sentence, do we need an article before comedy ? Improv is essentially [a] comedy. <Q> Comedy can be used as a countable or uncountable noun. <S> In the example sentence, we are probably using it as an uncountable noun, in which case the article should be omitted. <A> It depends on how you're describing Improv. <S> For example I would expect no article in this sentence: <S> Whose Line Is It Anyway? <S> is essentially comedy with points. <S> Whereas I would in this one: <S> Shakespeare's A midsummer night's dream is a comedy. <S> As Jasper Loy point out, the distinction comes between countable and uncountable use. <S> In my first example comedy is not countable because it is used throughout the show, like you might use paint. <S> In the second example, there is only one play, so there is only one comedy. <A> 'a comedy' would describe a specific show: Friends is a comedy. <S> Because you can improvise without it being comedic. <A> We do not need an article since comedy is being used as an uncountable noun here. <S> Another example of this usage is: He dreams of having a career in stand-up comedy. <S> An example of its usage as a countable noun is: <S> Friends was a highly successful TV comedy. <S> The use of the adverb essentially may cause confusion. <S> You could say: Improv is comedy. <S> Improv is essentially comedy.
| In terms of improv , I'd say: Improv is essentially a style of comedy.
|
Usage of "having seen" I am try to say that it's hard to determine something until you have done it. Is the sentence below correct? It is pretty hard to quantify one’s feeling until having seen the show. <Q> I think a better sounding phrase would be <S> It’s pretty hard to quantify one’s feeling without having seen the show <S> But otherwise, yes, that is correct. <A> Others here are correct that without is a better choice given the way the example is phrased. <S> But if you really want to use until you can, provided you recast the sentence something like this: <S> It's pretty hard to quantify one's feelings until one has seen the show. <S> or It's pretty hard to quantify one's feelings until one sees the show. <S> I'm not particularly fond of the use of the word "quantify" here, however. <S> If it were up to me, I'd use another verb: perhaps assess or evaluate . <S> It's pretty hard to assess one's feelings until one sees the show. <A> Use 'without' instead of 'until': <S> It's pretty hard to quantify one's feelings toward the show without having seen it. <A> "Until" requires a point of time, or an action that can be viewed as a point: "Until twelve o'clock"; "until she comes"; "until seeing him". <S> It can be used with extended but definite periods, but then requires there to be a specific time within that period, so "Until this year" implies "Until some specific time during this year". <S> "Having seen the show" relates to a period of time of uncertain length, with no particular points within it, and so is incompatible with "until". <S> It is associated with a specific time outside itself (in this case, before itself), so it would be fine with "after", for example: "after having seen the show".
| You could also rearrange it a little: Without having seen the show, it's pretty hard to quantify one's feelings towards it.
|
Usage of commas with "albeit" Is it correct to place two commas in this sentence? New York City plays a significant, albeit previously neglected, role in the urban narratives of [...]. <Q> Your use of commas there is parenthetical. <S> So you could also write: <S> New York City plays a significant (albeit previously neglected) role in the urban narratives of [...]. <A> Yes, that's fine. <S> A good rule of thumb when placing commas is to read the sentence through out loud, and actually say the word 'comma' in your head when you come to one. <S> This gives you a sense of the pause the comma creates. <S> If it sounds right, it is right! <A> It depends on whether you prefer an open or closed style of punctuation. <S> It is fine to say New York City plays a significant, albeit previously neglected, role in the urban narratives of [...]. <S> but equally fine to say <S> New York City plays a significant albeit previously neglected role in the urban narratives of [...]. <S> The judgment here must be whether the commas are needed to make the meaning clear. <S> I think in this case they are not needed. <S> But in a sentence with many clauses and antecedents and the like you may need the extra grouping that commas provide. <S> Or you may not.
| Your use of commas is valid and frequently used.
|
Is it wrong to say "cook a cake"? Is it wrong to say "to cook a cake"? <Q> Though you can find a lot of web pages using "cook a cake". <S> Examples: <S> He knows how to bake a cake better than anyone else. <S> Making a basic sponge <S> cake is very easy. <A> Baking is done in an oven, cooking is done on a stove-top and typically implies using water. <S> You can bake pies, roasts, cookies, bread, casseroles, pizza, and cakes. <S> You can cook vegetables and noodles. <S> It is common and acceptable to say "cook a meal" or "cook dinner" rather than "bake a meal" or "bake dinner", even if the meal was all prepared in an oven. <S> It becomes more confusing when you consider certain other food types. <S> Eggs can be fried, scrambled, or boiled, but you rarely hear of anyone baking or cooking eggs. <S> The bottom line is that bakers bake things and those things they produce are " baked ", whereas cooks (or chefs) cook things and those things they produce are " cooked ." <A> It's not wrong, but it's more common to see 'bake a cake', as that is almost always the cooking method used. <A> Provided that it is an oven based cake you should say " bake ". <S> If describing a cake that isn't made in the oven (eg a fish cake) you could say " cook ". <A> It should be "bake a cake" and not "cook a cake". <S> Baking is when you put something in an oven-toaster-griller, and cooking is when you put something on the stove-top. <A> I just checked dictionary.com. <S> It says that "cook" means: to prepare (food) by the use of heat, as by boiling, baking, or roasting. <S> to subject (anything) to the application of heat. <S> So cooking includes boiling, baking and roasting. <S> Wich means its not even on the same level of precision. <S> So we can say we "cook" for everything that's been heated but we can't cook a salad or cold food. <S> I guess that something prepared on the stove-up can only be "cooked" but then something baked is also "cooked". <S> The same would be applied to roasted and boiled. <S> If you guys have other sources that say the opposite please share ;)
| It's better to say " make a cake " or " bake a cake ".
|
why do we say scorching hot while scorching already means very hot? Scorching means extremely hot. So why do we say scorching hot? Isn't it redundant to bring hot after scorching? <Q> Scorching is both adjective and adverb . <S> If you use it before an adjective like hot it means you're using it as an adverb, which means very or extremely. <S> As an adverb it means very hot. <S> So it's not considered as redundant info. <S> Examples: <S> Here in Houston, it was a scorching 93° today. <S> It was a scorching hot day. <S> The scorching desert heat <A> As an adjective, scorching can be used to emphasize that the following noun causes burns or discoloration. <S> In that regard, "a scorching heat" implies that the heat causes burns or discoloration. <S> It is roughly synonymous with burning . <A> You're right, scorching heat (or scorchingly hot ) appears at first glance to be redundant. <S> Also, it is something of a stormy petrel (thank you again, Alex): <S> You can't say something is scorchingly cold or scorchingly tepid. <S> Good writers might find a sharper way to express the heat, probably avoiding a cliché into the bargain. <S> Still, in conversations and informal writing this kind of adjective (or adverb) is used simply as an intensifier. <S> You'll agree, I'm sure, that scorching heat is many degrees more uncomfortable than mild heat. <S> Is it as hot as extreme heat? <S> I'm not sure. <S> But both extreme and scorching heat refer to weather that is pretty damned hot. <S> In any case, something that is scorched is heated so as "to become dried out and lifeless" <S> [Webster's] — so it has a particular meaning after all. <S> There are all kinds of heat that do not cause things to become dried out and lifeless.
| Scorch , as a verb, means to burn slightly or to cause discoloration due to heat.
|
Is "from whence" correct? Or should it be "whence"? I just saw a parody on the Lord of the Rings , where one of the characters says: it must be cast back in the fire from whence it came! This struck me as odd, since I expected them to say "whence it came"; but now I find that "from whence" seems to occur as well. Does anybody know whether this is correct, or whether it has been correct at some point and subsequently fell into disgrace (or vice versa)? <Q> I did some research using the Corpus of Historical American English , and it paints the following picture: <S> (X axis: <S> year, Y axis: incidences per million words) <S> This shows that from whence has been in constant use all the way back to 1810 (that's how far the Corpus goes). <S> Indeed, as the World Wide Words post already linked by Shaun says: <S> And even a brief look at historical sources shows that from whence has been common since the thirteenth century . <S> It has been used by Shakespeare, Defoe (in the opening of Robinson Crusoe : “He got a good estate by merchandise, and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York; from whence he had married my mother”), Smollett, Dickens (in A Christmas Carol : “He began to think that the source and secret of this ghostly light might be in the adjoining room, from whence, on further tracing it, it seemed to shine”), Dryden, Gibbon, Twain (in Innocents Abroad : “He traveled all around, till at last he came to the place from whence <S> he started”), and Trollope, and it appears 27 times in the King James Bible (including Psalm 121: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help”). <S> Emphasis added. <S> (The King James Bible was completed in 1611). <S> As you can see from the above graph, from whence is on a steady decline; however, so is whence <S> all on its own, so the graph isn't really that helpful. <S> What we really want is the ratio : <S> The values on the Y axis in this graph tell you how many times more often whence was used without from rather than with. <S> So, around 1920, whence all by itself was roughly 10 times more popular than from whence ; nowadays, on average, every second usage of whence is prefixed by <S> a from , according to the Corpus. <S> In other words, from whence has been actually gaining "relative" popularity since 1920. <A> The first edition of Wycliff's Psalms (1382) has: <S> I rered vp myn eȝen in to the mounteynes; whennys shal come helpe to me. <S> But the edition of 1388 has: <S> I reiside myn iyen to the hillis; fro whannus help schal come to me. <S> I can imagine 14th century grammarians having the same argument we're having now: "Nay! <S> Thou canst nat say, fro whannus : yt lakketh gramer!" <A> It is technically redundant to say from whence , since whence means from where . <S> However, most modern usage of the word is prefixed with from . <S> It is a topic of heated debate in some circles. <A> Both 'whence' and 'from whence' are commonly used. <S> The addition of 'from' is a more recent addition <S> ('whence' is first recorded circa 1300, 'whence from' 1568) but seems to be just as common. <S> It might seem somewhat tautological given that most dictionaries list 'whence' as meaning 'from which place', but it is one of those phrases that has been used for so long it has become standard. <A> The NOAD reports the following note about the use of from whence and whence : <S> USAGE <S> Strictly speaking, whence means from what place , as in whence did you come? <S> Thus, the preposition from in from whence did you come? <S> is redundant and its use is considered incorrect by some. <S> The use with from is very common, though, and has been used by reputable writers since the 14th century. <S> It is now broadly accepted in standard English.
| It looks as if there has always been some doubt about whence versus from whence .
|
Curriculum vitae: Proper qualifiers for skills I am updating my curriculum vitae, and there is a section where I list my experience with several technologies and programming languages. I would like to group my experience in two categories; namely, technologies with which I have long experience, and those with which I have relatively basic (yet, not elementary) experience. Currently I am listing my experience as follows: 20+ years of experience with X and Y Some experience with W and Z However, some experience sounds ambiguous and I think gives the impression that my experience with W and Z is quite elementary. I do have some experience with W and Z but not enough to call it "broad". What would be a good or proper qualifier for such skills? <Q> You could say: Moderate experience with W and Z or switch it up a little: <A> It depends on the nature of your experience: <S> You could measure it in years, just like the rest of your experience. <S> I've seen people use small bar graphs for each skill to indicate how well they know each ability. <S> You could reword your other items and say you have substantial experience with them and just experience with the lesser-known items. <S> You could say you have working knowledge of the lesser-known items. <A> I would recommend the following: Experience with X and Y. Exposure to W and Z. <S> However, you may want to up the scale a bit, in which case I would suggest Expertise in X and Y. Experience with W and Z. <S> This indicates that while you do have experience/working knowledge (more so than "exposure" would imply), you have not mastered the technologies/languages. <S> It's made clearer by the use of "Expertise" with X and Y, since, if you were as skilled with W and Z as with X and Y, you would have called that "expertise" as well.
| Sound working knowledge of W and Z which implies that you know enough to be useful in most practical cases.
|
What is the difference between “I earn $500 each month” and “I earn $500 per month”? What is the difference between these two sentences? I earn $500 each month I earn $500 per month <Q> The latter describes your salary: if you sit at your desk and don't get fired, you'll get $500. <S> The former is more a description of the situation: somehow, by hook or by crook, I manage to scrape together $500. <S> "Each" encompasses the possibility <S> there's no connection, and it's just happenstance. <A> The two are equivalent. <S> Neither holds any implications as to how you come by the money; that is implied by 'earn'. <S> Per means 'for every' or 'for each', so it's almost exactly the same as just saying 'each'. <S> Per is perhaps more common. <A> "Each month" is a fixed amount, "per month" can be an average. <A> I'd say that "I earn $500 per month" <S> suggests that your monthly salary from a single source is $500, whereas "I earn $500 each month <S> " could mean that you make $500 from potentially multiple sources. <A> So if you work for half a month, you will earn $250. <S> "I earn $500 each month" implies that from the start of the month to the end of the month you acquire $500. <A> There are subtle differences in meaning. <S> “I earn $500 each month” says that each month, considered separately, the sum of your receipts is $500. <S> This can mean that the sum equals $500 exactly . <S> But it can also mean $500 at least . <S> For example, you can write: <S> I earn $500 each month. <S> During peak months, I earn as much as $800. <S> "I earn $500 per month” express a rate , or linear relationship, between time and money. <S> It means that over n months, the sum of your receipts is n × $500. <S> Again, this can mean that the monthly sum equals $500 exactly . <S> But it can also mean $500 on average . <S> For example, you can write: <S> I earn $500 per month. <S> This is considering the year as a whole. <S> The summer months are slower, but I always make it up over the holidays. <A> There is no difference. <S> The following sentences are equivalent: <S> I earn $500 each month. <S> I earn $500 per month. <S> I earn $500 every month. <S> I earn $500 a month. <S> My [monthly] salary is $500. <S> From personal experience, I would say that per month is the least likely to be used in this context.
| "$500 per month" connotes "I earn money at a rate of $500 per month." The use of "per" imply a causal connection between the passage of time and the arrival of your pay.
|
What does "macabre laugh line" means with regard to the government’s alteration of color-coded alert system? American daily newspapers such as Washington Post and New York Times provide a treasure trove of interesting words and idioms to foreign learners of English language like me. For example, an article of January 29 the New York Times titled We Never Got Down to Blue begins with the following copy. It provides me with a set of interesting phrases in only the following few lines, such as Erode into a macabre laugh line , stand beltless in one’s socks and survival biscuits . Among these phrases new to me, I’m particularly interested in the expression erode into a macabre laugh line . Why can macabre , which I understand meaning chilling, dreadful , can marry with the word laugh line that does not seem to necessarily fit gruesome connotation of macabre ? So, What does erode into a macabre laugh line . mean? Can anybody tell me? Well before the end, the government’s color-coded alert system was eroding into a macabre laugh line for the modern age of terrorism. Were people standing beltless in their socks actually hearing the airport announcements when the risk estimate mostly shuttled between yellow (Elevated) and orange (High)? The five-color code is going the way of cold war survival biscuits. Homeland Security officials decided that it ultimately lacked credibility and clarity to the point of sapping rather than bolstering public confidence. <Q> The article is basically say that the alert system was so useless at providing any real information regarding a potential threat that people found it to be a source of dark humor rather than a valuable warning. <S> So, watching the threat level indicator change could provide you with a cheap laugh about a very serious, potentially life-threatening situation. <S> It's similar to gallows humor , but in an even more downbeat fashion, if that's possible. <S> I don't believe that the author necessarily meant to refer to the "laugh lines" that ElendilTheTall defines; I think it's more likely referring to the TV production usage of a "laugh line" or "laugh track" or "canned laughter" to provide a pre-recorded sound of laughter at supposedly hilarious moments in various shows, especially if the live audience wasn't appreciative enough of something. <S> So, related to that sense, the alert system is ultimately doing nothing but providing a constant stream of cheap laughs about how useless and ineffective it is. <S> "Standing beltless in one's socks" is meant to be taken literally, as the TSA's procedure for passing through airport security checkpoints requires both the removal of all metal objects, including belt buckles, and the removal of shoes. <S> So as you prepare yourself to go through the scanner, you are indeed standing beltless in your socks. <A> Laugh Lines <S> A laugh line is a wrinkle around the eyes, also often called 'crows feet'. <S> When you laugh you squint your eyes and <S> this causes the skin around them to wrinkle. ' <S> Laugh (or laughter) lines' are a polite way of referring to these wrinkles. <S> 'Macabre' means grim or gruesome. <S> In this case the writer is saying that the colour-coded alert system has become something of a joke because no one really pays attention to it; it is something that has been 'laughed off' so many times that the only reminders of it are the wrinkles left around the collective eyes of the nation. <S> EDIT: <S> See Hellion's answer for an alternative (and more likely) theory. <S> Cold War survival biscuits <S> Cold War survival biscuits were hard cookies, designed to last a long time in storage, i.e. in a bomb-shelter. <S> Nowadays, few people have such bomb-shelters, let alone stock them with provisions like survival biscuits. <S> In other words, the writer is saying the alert system is as out of date as these biscuits. <S> He is drawing an analogy between the paranoia in the Fifties regarding nuclear war and the modern paranoia regarding terrorism. <S> Standing beltless in their socks <S> This refers to the security measures taken at modern airports nowadays: you are asked to remove your shoes and belt in order to pass through the metal detectors. <S> The writer is saying 'did anyone being inconvenienced by modern security measures actually care what the threat-level colour was?' <A> Oishi-san, the line is taken from the idea of black comedy , which is a kind of drama (or, by extension, a non‐dramatic work) in which disturbing or sinister subjects like death, disease, or warfare, are treated with bitter amusement, usually in a manner calculated to offend and shock. <S> and black humor (same link), which is grotesque or morbid humor used to express the absurdity, insensitivity, paradox, and cruelty of the modern world. <S> There you can clearly see the line's relation to the macabre. <S> The whole terrorist threat-alert system was nothing but a grim, black joke.
| It is 'macabre' because of the potential gravity (seriousness) of a terrorist threat.
|
Usage of "|" in English sentences I have a book about punctuation marks, but it doesn't report when to use | in a English sentence. I notice that the New Oxford American Dictionary uses that character to separate the examples it reports. Are there other uses of | in a sentence written outside specific contexts? <Q> You never use it in an English sentence. <S> It is — as you've noticed in your dictionary — used in concise-format publications to take the place of words or more-space-taking formatting. <S> It's also used in mathematics and pseudocode. <S> But never in an English sentence. <A> I have noticed in some technical manuals, the pipe being used as a delimiter on menu interactions. <S> For example: Edit|Copy. <S> I used to use this as well but have since moved to using Edit <S> > <S> Copy instead as it feels more like a flow of commands, especially when the interactions are long and mix menus and tabs <S> (for example: System> <S> Preferences <S> > <S> Network>IP). <A> The vertical bar | is a piece of typography which only has meaning in specific contexts. <S> Personally, if I used it alone (rather than in pairs), I would probably wither be using it in the mathematical sense of <S> divides as in "2 | n 2 + n " (i.e. two divides n-squared plus n) or in the probability sense of given as in "Pr(3 heads from 3 flips|at least 2 from 3) <S> = 1/4" (i.e. the probability of three heads from three flips given at least two from three is a quarter). <S> There are many more uses, including as a list separator. <A> You will notice that in places where it is used, such as the dictionary, near the preface you will see a section titled "How to use this dictionary" explaining the meaning of the | as used in this dictionary.
| The | character is not part of English punctuation.
|
Is there such a word as "semiproduct"? This question is related to industry and manufacturing. I'm wondering if there is a word "semiproduct". We use it to describe a piece of material - for example steel sheet, pipe, elbow, dome, U-profile, … that could is not a product itself, but will be later used in the manufacturing process. But it's not raw material either, it's something in between. Is there a better correct word that would collectively describe these things? <Q> Regardless of whether it is the finished product or not, a steel sheet is still a product; it has been produced from raw materials. <S> I would think 'component' would be more appropriate, but there are lots of industrial in-words, so as Tragicomic says, there's no reason you can't use semiproduct so long as your colleagues understand it. <A> The word you are asking for is semifinished or semiprocessed , which are adjectives; the nouns you would use are semifinished product , or semiprocessed product . <A> To tackle this from yet another angle for good measure, there is the word prefabrication , which refers to the process of producing "semiproducts" which are later assembled to the final product on site: <S> The most widely-used form of prefabrication in building and civil engineering is the use of prefabricated concrete and prefabricated steel sections in structures where a particular part or form is repeated many times. <S> [...] Prefabricated bridge elements and systems offer bridge designers and contractors significant advantages in terms of construction time, safety, environmental impact, constructibility, and cost. <S> [... S]mall, commonly-used structures such as concrete pylons are in most cases prefabricated. <S> Radio towers for mobile phone and other services often consist of multiple prefabricated sections. <S> Modern lattice towers and guyed masts are also commonly assembled of prefabricated elements. <S> Prefabrication has become widely used in the assembly of aircraft and spacecraft, with components such as wings and fuselage sections often being manufactured in different countries or states from the final assembly site. <A> One more possibility, depending on the nature of the material, would be "assembly" or even "sub-assembly", especially when such a thing can be serviced or replaced in isolation. <S> A car, for instance, might have a fusebox assembly, which can be removed as a unit, or a fuel sensor sub-assembly, which includes not only the sensor itself but also the connecting wire, mounting bracket, tube, and screws. <A> If you're talking about production line, there is technical term called WIP <S> (Work In Process). <S> So you'd better simply call it WIP material or in process material , which means it's not finished yet. <S> About computer, there are many different things, if that's a piece of code that's called snippet . <S> Also component and module are used. <S> Modules are like blocks of info and editable info that can be placed anywhere. <S> Components are parts of the functionality of the system. <S> (Gallery, Address book and so on) <A> This may be usage that is specific to your industry, and if you call it a semiproduct and the people you work with understand it, it should be fine. <S> I've heard it called production material , which is different from raw material in that it is used in the production process but is not actually converted into a new and finished product.
| There's no such word as semiproduct in normal English.
|
Does "needless to say" convey to the reader that he is ignorant? Isn't the term a bit condescending? <Q> It could be construed that way, but it depends on what is said after it. <S> If I said: Needless to say, two plus two is four <S> you wouldn't find it condescending, because generally it is needless to say that two plus two is four. <S> If I said: Needless to say, cribellate spiders have no need for glands producing hygroscopic adhesive. <S> You might, depending on your knowledge of spiders, disagree with the first clause and thus find it a little condescending. <S> It is up to you to judge your potential audience and tailor your writing to them. <A> The Cambridge Dictionary Online describes the phrase as: Needless to say: as you would expect; added to, or used to introduce, a remark giving information which is expected and not surprising. <S> Examples 1) <S> The life and adventures of Martín Chuzzlerwit <S> (Charles Dickens, 1844) <S> It has been rumoured, and it is needless to say the rumour originated in the same base quarters , that a certain male Cbuzzlewit, whose birth must be admitted to be involved in some obscurity, was of very mean and low descent. <S> 2) <S> The Complete Tales of Uncle Remus <S> (Joel Chandler Harris, Richard Chase, 2002) <S> No typographical device could adequately describe Daddy Jack's imitation of the flushing of a covey of partridges, or quail; but it is needless to say that it made its impression upon the little boy. <A> I find it is quite the opposite. <S> If you were to neglect to qualify an obvious statement with something like "needless to say", or "as you know", the reader might then feel like he is being condescended to because you are telling him/her information <S> he/ <S> she already knows. <S> By adding the qualifier, you establish some common ground, in essence saying "I know that you know what I'm telling you already, <S> and I don't want to insult your intelligence, so please don't be offended." <A> It is not condescending at all. <S> It is just a different set of words used to convey the same meaning as '... <S> and hence it follows that ....' <S> If it were condescending, then the phrase '... <S> last but not the least ...' would also be condescending to the person who is addressed last in some list. <S> Does putting that word 'least' in there mean that there is someone in the room who thinks that person is the 'least' ? <S> Of course not ! <S> It is just an expression used instead of saying '... <S> it is thus obvious that...', '... <S> it can thus be deduced that...' , '... <S> it implies that...' Needless to say, needless to say is not condescending at all. <A> In addition to other answers, I want to add: In formal writing, that phrase should be avoided. <S> If it's needless to say, why are you saying it? <S> If you want to be concise, everything you say should serve a purpose. <S> At best, it sounds like extra fluff; unless you're writing in a genre in which that fluff is ok.
| No, it just indicates that the writer expects the fact that follows to not be surprising to the reader.
|
What is a respectful way to refer to a person who has died? What is a respectful way to refer to a person who has died? Is it OK to call that person "rest in peace"? The rest in peace guy was a very generous man. <Q> You can say "late" if you are referring to the deceased's name, or a position from which it is obvious who you mean. <S> This is respectful, formal, and businesslike. <S> The late John D. Rockefeller was a very generous man. <S> My late husband was a very generous man. <S> But not <S> * <S> The late guy was a very generous man. <A> "Rest in peace" should always be written as RIP (which really is an abbreviation of the Latin). <S> It should not be used as an adjective. <S> Thus, one cannot say The * rest-in-peace guy was a very generous man except one wants to be extremely informal, but this is certainly not respectful. <S> I propose two options: <S> Use <S> deceased : <S> The deceased was a very generous man <S> may he/ <S> she/they rest in peace , or <S> may his/her/their [gentle] soul[s] rest in [perfect] peace : <S> The man, may his gentle soul rest in peace , was very generous. <S> He was a very generous man; may his gentle soul rest in peace . <S> Mr. M, RIP , was a very generous man. <S> Mr. M, may he rest in peace , was a very generous man. <S> Use while alive : While alive , he was a very generous man. <S> He was a very generous man while he was alive . <S> The past tense and tender memories can also suffice, depending on context: <S> He was a very generous man. <S> As always, one's tone is most important factor in situations such as this. <A> I would refer to <S> the deceased unless I was aware of a particular sensitivity in the culture or context. <S> The deceased was a very generous man. <S> but I find this archaic and a little patronising. <A> He's "Resting". <S> He's "Definitely Deceased". <S> He's "Passed On. <S> Is No more. <S> Has ceased to be. <S> Expired and gone to meet his maker. <S> A stiff! <S> Bereft of life, rests in peace! <S> His metabolic processes are now history. <S> He's off the twig, he's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible! <S> This is an EX-PERSON!" <A> Another option would be to say : " he passed away". <S> Like " he passed away in his sleep" . <S> As far I know.. <S> The term "late" is used in a more formal settingalthough " died" is not a disrespectful word.. <S> I think sometimes we tend to conjure a rather violent death <A> Use the person's name, with "late" if you must make it clear they are dead. <S> I think the terms like "the deceased" are too impersonal. <A> "The departed" is a polite, formal expression that also works, and it's also a popular movie (though I never saw it). <A> I think the only respectful way to refer to a person who has died is when we do not talk about body <S> but we talk about person's ideas, love, theories which has made impact in our lives. <S> Only body dies, not the person's contribution to the world. <S> That is why a "respectful way" is needed as an expression of thanks. <S> We can say that is person is "no more among us" which conveys the idea that we are referring to the soul which has traveled somewhere else leaving the body behind.
| Some might suggest the dear departed Punctuate any reference to the dead with RIP (written),
|
literally as a hyperbole Possible Duplicate: “Literally” and “Decimate” misuse I have seen a lot of backlash in internet media against people using the word literally to mean something not literal. Something like "he was literally as big as a house" to mean someone was very bigI think this comic sums up the anti literal movement well http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally Is this actually grammatically incorrect or can the word "literally" be a hyperbole strengthening a metaphor? <Q> My Webster's defines hyperbole as exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. <S> So it would seem that using literally as a hyperbolic expression would be to negate its sense of non-literalness. <A> Dictionary.com has the following usage note: Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”: <S> The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. <S> The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise. <S> The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing. <S> The same might often be said of the use of literally in its earlier sense “actually”: <S> The garrison was literally wiped out: no one survived. <S> Despite this, I'm going to continue criticizing this use of the word. <S> It's become trite, overused for emphasis, and waters down the word. <A> It isn't a grammar issue at all. <S> The backlash stems from the fact that they are using the word incorrectly. <S> " <S> Literally" should not be used for emphasis. <S> Just because a lot of people make the same mistake doesn't make it correct.
| Although this use of literally irritates some, it probably neither distorts nor enhances the intended meaning of the sentences in which it occurs.
|
About 'more general case' A relation is often considered to be a more general case of a property I don't fully understand. Is it to say a relation is a case of a property ? then what's a more general case ? <Q> I believe it means that a relation is a property lacking strictness, loosely defined. <S> But it's just a guess. <S> I have no proof and I am not a native either. <S> For example, if you say that "A is taller than B", A has the property of being taller than B, but you do not know exactly how tall A is, because this is dependent on B. <A> In other words, a relation is a general-purpose category of items, like "vehicle"; a property is a specific type of relation, like "car" is a type of vehicle. <S> All cars are vehicles, and all properties are relations; but not all vehicles are cars, and not all relations are properties. <A> The sentence refers to the word general as in less specific . <S> An item can have measurable properties while relating to other items through comparisons.
| I think it becomes clearer when stated the other way around: "A property is a more specific type of relation."
|
What does ‘Nevada Sen. John Ensign may be toast’ mean? I came across a headline of an article in the Washington Post (Feb. 2nd) reading ‘Why John Ensign may be toast,’ which is followed by the following sentence; Embattled Nevada Sen. John Ensign continues to move forward with plans to run for reelection in 2012 despite anemic fundraising and a looming Senate ethics investigation. Between an ethics investigation and poor fundraising, the Republican senator's reelection campaign might not stand a chance. Ensign is right about it being ugly, but whether or not it's a battle he can win remains a matter of considerable debate. From the context of the above copy, my take of ‘Be toast’ is ‘On examination (or under criticism).’ in an analogy with bread being toasted. But dictionaries at hands don’t give anything like that definition. In addition, why ‘Toast’ is used as an adjective, not in past participle form in this phrase? Though the phrase is self-explanatory to native English speakers, but not to a late-started English learner like me. Can somebody explain me about its exact meaning? <Q> To be toast is to be ensured defeat. <S> The meaning of the quoted sentence is that the Senator has all but lost the election already. <A> This is repeated in the body of the article with the line <S> the Republican senator's reelection campaign might not stand a chance. <S> The expression can be used in more or less any situation where the subject is on the losing end (not necessarily literally). <S> Eg when in an action movie a group has gotten itself in a situation it cannot get out of without getting harmed, that group would be toast. <S> N.B. <S> : <S> Sorry if the example seemed random, this is just one of those expressions I expect in such a type of movie, so I went with it. <A> Well, the best reference I can think of is from this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgq-HzT1WRs <S> Bill Murray gives it a nice spin. <S> Actually the word doesn't just mean "defeated", it means "incinerated" (or turned into something resembling "toast"). <A> Here is the Merriam-Webster entry for toast . <S> The last item is the one you're interested in.
| It is meant that he will most likely be defeated in the upcoming election.
|
Is it acceptable to nest parentheses? Is it acceptable to nest parentheses (for example, if I (meaning myself) write like this)? <Q> It is acceptable, but you should use it with care. <S> In serious papers and letters, you should avoid it completely, and rather find a way of re-phrase it. <S> In conversational e-mails, blog posts, StackExchange posts etc. <S> it might be more natural to use it, but the inner parenthesis should never be long (just a couple of words). <S> Example <S> With nested parentheses <S> This is a quick example on how to rephrase a potential problematic use of nestedparenthesis.(It <S> can be a less important section like this (which is quite long, even if it is not important), and when you continue, the reader might be lost in where in the parenthesized text he is, and might wonder if he still is inside any parentheses.)Anyway, the main text continues here. <S> Re-phrased to remove nesting <S> This is a quick example on how to rephrase a potential problematic use of nested parenthesis. <S> (It can be a less important section like this. <S> It is quite long, even if it is not important. <S> Now when you continue, the reader is not lost anymore because the long section is taken out in a separate paragraph, and no inner parentheses can be mistaken for an early termination of the outer section.) <S> Anyway, the main text continues here. <A> I believe it's acceptable , but vaguely considered poor form , and I tend to avoid it (often by restructuring a sentence and busting out some emdashes) unless I'm intentionally using it to be cute. <A> Well I do it, but then I spend a lot of time as a mathematician. <S> If it gets confusing I think using alternative bracket glyphs assists ([{<« »>}]) . <S> [ <S> Though using the guillemets (« ») as brackets can get you in to trouble, as a lot of languages use them as speech marks. <S> (Wikipedia) ] <A> My English Composition professor told us that if you ever feel you need to use nested parentheses, that is one sure sign you need to rewrite the sentence instead. <S> Here's what one technical editor has to say on the topic <S> : Nesting parentheses should be done with square brackets "([ ])". <S> But since square brackets are usually used for citations, this is confusing. <S> The answer is to eliminate all nested parentheses by appropriate rewording. <S> (Dashes, otherwise not recommended, can have a use here.) <A> I have found that people who appreciate stressing thoroughly the logical construction of their sentences to make them totally unambiguous tend to use parentheses a lot, and to nest them, even though (see other answers) <S> it's considered poor form. <S> In particular, scientists (especially mathematicians and logicians) seem to do that more commonly than other people. <A> In looking at this question, I was immediately reminded of the work of William Faulkner, an undoubtedly well-known author in the United States. <S> He is notorious for his complex sentences that can go on for pages. <S> In some of them, he unapologetically uses nested parentheses. <S> While Faulkner sets a precedent doing this, it is not at all proof of the 'correct' usage. <S> His motivation is quite different. <S> I like the way Louis Rubin puts it in his essay <S> The Dixie Special: William Faulkner and the Southern Literary Renascence : <S> His very style itself, with the long sentences, the liberal deployment of adjectives, the parentheses, and the parentheses within parentheses, proceeds from the conviction that reality can be represented only when presented in its full complexity, leaving out nothing that is important. <S> His admiration for Thomas Wolfe <S> , he said on several occasions, was for that novelist's attempt, however impossible of fulfillment, to put all experience on the head of a pin. <S> I bring Faulkner's example up for the sake of introducing a different angle on the OP's question. <S> It may not be the best choice stylistically to nest parentheses, but there have been literary precedents that show the practice. <S> The example of Faulkner's usage of the nested parentheses shows that there is a purpose in his writing to convey a sense of complexity and to leave nothing out . <A> Parentheses are a way to stuff more ideas into a sentence than it could otherwise bear. <S> They make life easier for the writer who is trying to capture all his ideas as they bubble up, but harder for the reader trying to make sense of it all. <S> If you nest your parentheses, you risk losing your reader entirely. <S> So I'd say, in your first draft, go ahead and use as many parentheses as you want, but in later drafts you should try to eliminate them — especially the nested ones.
| Generally, you should avoid having long texts in parentheses, as the reader will eventually forget that he is inside a parentheses block. The most important is to make sure that the reader don't get confused of where the parenthesis start and end.
|
"That my results are not reproducible" or "that my results are unreproducible"? What is better to write? that my results are not reproducible that my results are unreproducible How can it be re-written as positive affirmation (preserving the same meaning)? Edit: Do not I remember correctly that it is better to write negative sentence than positive but much more lengthy? This question is about technical copywriting. Update:When I was writing the question, I did not account for the fact that there are 4 "synonyms": non-reproducible, unreproducible, irreproducible, not reproducible Update: the post with this phrase that provoked this question <Q> I would usually say not reproducible, and if I wanted to use a single word I would always use irreproducible rather than unreproducible . <A> First part: “not reproducible” seems to be widely more used than “unreproducible”. <S> I checked this on Google, the Corpus of Contemporary American English , the British National Corpus , and a Google search restricted to a scientific publisher website ( American Chemical Society , acs.org). <S> Second part: it's hard to say something this negative with a very positive tone. <A> that my results are non-reproducible <S> Both the prefixes un- and <S> non- have the same meaning, but they are used with different perspectives. <S> In a note, the NOAD reports that The prefix un- <S> tends to be stronger and less neutral than <S> non- . <S> Consider, for example, the differences between unacademic and nonacademic , as in his language was refreshingly unacademic , and a nonacademic life suits him . <A> It is unclear what context the original poster is considering, but it should be mentioned that both examples given have a strong implication that the results are, in principle, incapable of being reproduced. <S> A "positive alternative" without this implication would be something like "the results have not yet been reproduced" or "my colleague was not able to reproduce the results"
| One way to make it more positive is to hint at possible reasons why you could not reproduce the results, e.g., “my results could not, under the time available, be reproduced”.
|
Does "within" have an antonym? If so, what? Does "within" have an antonym? If there is an antonym, which one is it? <Q> Mehper beats me to it with outside , so I'll just throw in a third alternative for the sake of completeness. <S> Historically, without is an antonym of within , and Merriam-Webster still says that the first meaning of without is "outside" without further comment, but I don't actually see it being used that way these days. <S> Wiktionary marks that usage as " archaic or literary ". <A> Outside is an antonym to within . <S> For example: Within or outside of an organization or institution. <A> Outwith means outside of something. <A> In Scottish English the antonym is outwith . <S> I think it nicely resolves the problems with using without or outside , which often don't accurately reflect the intended meaning. <S> There's a picture of it on Wikipedia being used on a sign: <A> I agree with "without. <S> " Reminds me of a Marx Brothers exchange: "Without" is a broader term, covering both "lacking" and "the absence of," and also means "outside." <S> (This double meaning led to the Marx Brothers routine: "There's a girl waiting without." <S> "Without what?" "Without food or clothing." <S> "Well, feed her and send her in.") <S> From On Language , by William Safire. <A> To me the antonym of 'within' is 'between' and here is why: Previous answers proposed 'outside' as the/an antonym of 'within'. <S> To find the 'true' antonym of 'within' I tried to find in which context(s) the word is used. <S> After a moment of reflexion I recalled that 'within' has to do with group theory and analysis of variance. <S> In group theory the properties of elements falling into groups are analysed. <S> For example think of a class of students divided into two groups: males and females. <S> Each student can provide his or her weight. <S> It is then possible to calculate the variation of weight either: 1) <S> WITHIN groups (e.g. within males and then separately within females) and2) BETWEEN groups (e.g. between males and females). <S> To me the 'real' antonym of 'wihin' whould be thus 'between'. <S> However there may be other contexts I have not thought of where this is not valid. <S> Precising the context in which you want to use the word would be valuable next time. <A> I don't think 'without' or <S> 'outside' groups mean the same as 'between' groups (and similarly for 'inside' and 'within'). <S> Let me try to explain my point by using these words in a context of comparison. <S> Let's imagine once each student has given her or his weight <S> the teacher ask the students the following questions: 1) <S> What are the difference of weight BETWEEN male and female students?2) <S> What are the difference of weight WITHIN male students?3) <S> What are the difference of weight WITHIN female students? <S> First let's imagine how the students could have answered. <S> For question 1 a possible basic answer would be to calculate the mean weight of male students (let's imagine it is 70 kg) <S> and then the mean weigth of female students (let's imagine it is 60 kg). <S> The obsious conclusion (however possibly statistically incorrect) would be that boys are heavier than girls by a difference of 10 kg. <S> For question 2 a possible answer would be to calculate the difference between the heaviest boy and the lightest boy. <S> For question 3 a similar answer could be given for girls. <S> We have just imagined an example of comparison where 'between' and 'within' have precise meanings which can be understood by answering math questions. <S> Now if you do not see the difference with 'inside' and 'ouside' let's use these words in the previous questions: 1) <S> What are the difference of weight OUTSIDE (or WITHOUT) male and female students?2) <S> What are the difference of weight INSIDE male students?3) <S> What are the difference of weight INSIDE female students? <S> First you could say that the use of 'inside' in place of 'within' is not that much of a shock in question 2 and 3. <S> However a possible interpretation would be to search for weight differences inside the body of each student which does not make any sense. <S> Second please read question 1 out loud. <S> To me it does not make any sense and it is the strongest evidence that 'outside' or 'without' cannot replace 'between'. <S> And to me the same applies to 'inside' and <S> 'within' even if it is less obvious.
| However an obvious antonym of 'outside' is 'inside' which is different from 'within'.
|
Is using "an idea" instead of "a good idea" good English? In colloquial German, you can say something to the effect of Would it be an idea to move the bike shed a bit to the left? and it is immediately understood that "an idea" is supposed to mean "a good idea". I tend to use this "an idea" in my English conversations as well, but I am unsure about its validity. Sure, it's never a problem to understand what is meant, but is it commonly used and good style? Googling seems to suggest that it indeed is valid and relatively broadly used. Is this true? Is it, like in German, a more colloquial thing? Edit: Note that I am specifically asking about the use of "an idea" instead of "a good idea". <Q> From my experience (American Eng.), Would it be an idea... <S> is very uncommon, and while I might understand that you're looking for an opinion on its merits, if you asked something like <S> Would it be an idea if I shot myself in the leg? <S> My initial (perhaps smart aleck) reaction would be more along the lines of "Well, yes, it's an idea. <S> It's just not a good one", so I would recommend keeping the good barring a good reason to drop it (as opposed to just a reason, I suppose). <S> I should also point out that what is much more common is to respond to someone else's idea/plan with the phrase <S> Hey, there's an idea . <S> In this phrasing, it's normally implied that it is a good one. <A> As a native English (NZ/Aust/British) speaker, when I hear this phrase I do immediately assume the person suggesting the idea thinks it has some merit. <S> Why else would they have suggested it? <S> With regard to the absence of positive adjectives such as "... <S> a good idea..." I believe this is somewhat dependent on a cultural tendency to be reserved in expression. <S> For instance to say "would it be an idea?" is preferred to "would it be a good idea?" <S> since the former implies a lesser presumption of the merits of the idea. <S> This allows the other person more scope to judge for themselves, and thereby engage in discussion of merit, rather than manoeuvring them into a polarised stance. <S> On the contrary side it is a more passive way of mentioning the idea and therefore more easily dismissed, so it might be seen as a submissive manner of speaking. <A> The sentence you wrote could be rewritten as Would moving the bike shed a bit to the left <S> be worthy of consideration? <A> You don't hear "would it be an idea" often in English, if at all. <S> Pretty much anything, any suggestion, would be an idea of some kind. <S> Stating it this way might even invite a snarky response, such as: "Yes, that's an idea . <S> So is jumping in the lake." <S> What you might say, however, if you weren't sure your idea had merit (and therefore didn't want to attach "good" to it), would be something like <S> Here's an idea. <S> Why not ... <S> [explanation of suggestion] <S> or I have an idea. <S> Why not ... <S> [explanation of suggestion] <S> You could also say Here's one idea: <S> Why not ... <S> [explanation of suggestion] <A> I am also an American English speaker, and I hear the usage you're asking about occasionally. <S> For whatever reason, it's usually with might rather than would ; "might it be an idea to... <S> " <S> I hear its implications similarly to how Ed Guiness describes, where it is in fact asking about whether it's a good idea, but the speaker is being more tentative about it than if they had said "good". <S> It is fairly colloquial, yes. <S> I would not use it, or expect to see it, in formal writing and would find it a mismatch in tone if it appeared there. <A> Would it be a good idea <S> if... is frequently used in English. <S> Somehow, you have to specify that the idea you will outline is good. <S> You can also split it in two sentences as in <S> I have an idea: why don't we do the following . <S> In that case, people are assuming you think it's a good idea. <A> I would neither use "idea" or "good idea", as both sound very German to me (although I'm also a German native speaker).There <S> are several other options in English conveying the same notion. <S> e.g.: <S> Do you think it's sensible to ... <S> Does it make sense to ... <S> Does it work ...
| I would not use an idea to mean a good idea . An idea , used in phrases like that's an idea , means worthy of consideration .
|
Why "exclamation mark" but not "exclamation sign"? I wonder, why ! symbol is called exclamation mark , but = symbol is called equal sign ? Is it only tradition or there is something behind? <Q> I suppose it's in the origins. <S> ? <S> and ! <S> are from the family of language <S> punctuation marks = is from the family of mathematical symbols or signs . <A> I think they're called marks because they actually mark something. <S> That a sentence is a question, an exclamation, or a quote. <S> But = <S> is just a sign, it doesn't mark anything. <S> Again, this is just another guess. <A> It is merely punctuation whereas the equals sign actually adds meaning to the sentence: life "equals" goodness. <A> I cannot comment yet, as my karma will not allow it. <S> The exclamation mark was referred to as “sign of admiration or exclamation” in the 15th centuryaccording to <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark <S> I think it is just convention. <S> If you think about the = sign, you can argue it "marks" equality. <S> On the other hand, if you use "exclamation sign", in my mind, the street sign pops up.
| Another difference I see is that the exclamation mark has no meaning on its own.
|
How to use "who" vs. "that" I often get confused when trying to use who vs that. Some examples that often confuse me: That The person that went to the store. The people that went shopping. The persons that went shopping. The group that went shopping. Who The person who went to the store. The people who go shopping. Please explain when to use either for plural subjects and singular subjects. Animate and inanimate objects as well. <Q> In actual usage, though, both who and that can be used to refer to persons, sometimes to animals, and sometimes to entities that consist of people. <S> The dog who/that chewed the bone chased the cat. <S> The person who/that stole my purse used all my credit cards. <S> The group who/that went shopping was mugged. <S> That , not who , is used to refer to objects. <S> The house that Jack built is falling down. <S> Here's what <S> Oxford Dictionaries Online says: It is sometimes argued that, in relative clauses, that should be used for non-human references, while who should be used for human references: a house that overlooks the park but <S> the woman who lives next door . <S> In practice, while it is true to say that who is restricted to human references, the function of that is flexible. <S> It has been used for human and non-human references since at least the 11th century, and is invaluable where both a person and a thing is being referred to, as in a person or thing that is believed to bring bad luck . <S> For more examples of actual usage, here's a link to Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English usage (see pages 895 and 896). <A> The relative pronoun "that" used in reference to a person or to people has been extant since at the 11th century (I lack proper citation for this date, but there are ample instances throughout 13th and 14th century literature - notably in Chaucer) but is typically only employed when a pronoun is used to combine both a person or people and a thing or things simultaneously. <S> Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition and American Heritage Dictionary both note the interchangeability of "who" and "that" with either being acceptable when referring to a person or to people, however. <S> (See citations listed with this article .) <S> According to GrammarBook , there are three basic rules: <S> Who refers to people. <S> That and which refer to groups or things. <S> That introduces essential clauses while which introduces nonessential clauses. <S> If this , that , these , or those has already introduced an essential clause, you may use which to introduce the next clause, whether it is essential or nonessential. <S> These are the rules as were drilled into my head by both my family and throughout my education. <S> As a matter of personal preference, I would like to add that I find the casual use of that in reference to a person or people to be revealing. <S> To equate someone to a thing is to depersonalize - even when one is referring to one's self. <A> There isn't any difference for plural and singular subjects; the difference is for people and non-people. <S> Saying who is personifying, saying that or which is objectifying. <S> Presumably one should always say who when speaking of a human being, or other entity known to be of roughly equivalent or higher intelligence, and that or which when speaking of an inanimate object. <S> Animals and other beings thought to be of below-human cognitive capacity are something of a gray area; I'd say choose your usage according to what sort of tone you want to convey. <A> When I was at the U of Oregon in the 1970s studying journalism, the AP style guide required the word "who" when referring to people and "that" when referring to anything non human, whether an inanimate carbon rod, or a dog. <S> It grates on my ears to hear so many people use "that" when referring to a person. <S> I agree that it shows the increasing depersonalization of society. <S> It seems that these days, people are just objects, not human beings, and the language is reflecting that.
| It is usually said that who is used for people (and sometimes animals) while that is used to refer to objects.
|
"I'm right, aren't I?" My dictionary reports that aren't is also an abbreviation for am not , when used in questions. Is this use of aren't common? If it is common, are there any differences between the different English dialects? Why aren't I being given a pay raise? <Q> Yes, it is common. <S> The little-seen "amn't" does occur in Irish and Scottish English. <A> There is a good article on this at Wikipedia : Amn't <S> as a contraction of am not is known from 1618. <S> As the "mn" combination of two nasal consonants is disfavored by many English speakers, the "m" of amn't began to be elided, reflected in writing with the new form <S> an't . <S> In non-rhotic dialects, aren't also began to be represented by an't . <S> Lower down the page, there are the following sentences: Aren't as a contraction for <S> am not developed from one pronunciation of an't <S> (which itself developed in part from amn't <S> - see etymology of ain't for further discussion). <S> In non-rhotic dialects, aren't and this pronunciation of an't are homonyms. <S> For reasons that are unclear, the spelling aren't I began to replace <S> an't <S> I <S> in the early part of the twentieth century […]. <A> It's perfectly fine. <S> In the right dialect you'd also get away with "ain't" (which is the same for first, second and third person, singular and plural, conveniently). <S> But it's widely (UK) <S> considered a bit vulgar. <S> "..., am I not" tends to give extra stress. <A> Is it common? <S> Not in my area. <S> It would be considered snobbish to use it. <S> I would never say: I aren't going to do it. <S> Nor would I use it in a question: <S> Aren't I right? <S> Technically, it's correct but it makes my skin crawl. <S> Stick with <S> I'm not and Am I not? ... <S> However I'm also in a region where, as @ijw says, one can use <S> ain't without angst.
| Aren't as a contraction for are not first appeared in 1675. To me, it's unnatural to use are with I .
|
"I will go up to the stores" What is the meaning of the following sentence, said from a person that is at home, and is going outside? I will go up to the stores. <Q> I have heard this exact sentence used and my hunch (sorry, no source) is that it is derived from the general store days in which the warehouse or storage area of the retail shop was located above it. <S> In that case, I will go up to the stores. <S> would have been something said by the proprietor if he intended to check the warehouse area of his shop for additional merchandise. <A> It's the same kind of usage as saying "I'm going up/down the street". <S> I don't know if up/down ever had specific usage - <S> but these days, they're fairly interchangeable, and you'll get any number of different phrases like: <S> I'm going down the street to see if Mrs Higgins is okay <S> I'm going up to the pub for a pint <S> There may be some sub-conscious selection for the up/down if there is a gradient between the person's current location and the object location, or maybe compass direction (assume north to be up), but it's more likely to be just personal preference. <S> This can get more confusing if you stop and get directions from someone: <S> Well, you head up this street and take a left. <S> Then go down that road for a half a mile, take a right by the tree, and head up that road until you get to The Black Sheep and then head down the lane to the side of it <A> "I will go to the stores". <S> The "up" is fairly meaningless; it may refer to the stores being "uptown" from one, north of one, above one vertically, or have no real referent at all. <S> It's much the same as the New Jersey, USA colloquialism of "going down the shore", which means "going to the shore" regardless of where one is situated relative to the shore. <A> Honestly the first thing that came to mind is that you were in a parking garage or something below a shopping center. <S> Remove the "up" <S> and I think you are going to a store. <A> I would say that it's a bit of an odd formation, without some context. <S> If you and I both understand explicitly what I mean by "the stores", it's a bit clearer, e.g., I'm referring to stores which I own, or stores we've been talking about. <S> As far as "up", I think it's mostly implying a bit of effort, as in, "Rather than just calling, I will actually go up to the stores." <A> Your quote is not right as it is, it looks like it wants to be: <S> I'm going to the stores. <S> but I think that might be personal word preference. <S> However, I'm going down the shops. <S> is perfectly common, and you can also say: I'm going up/down the road. <S> or even I'm going up/down the village. <S> but on both cases you'd be implying that you're already on the road, or in the village, and you're just going to a different part of it.
| More likely I would say I'm going to the shops .
|
To put on the thinking cap I found this expression: to put on the thinking cap , What does it mean and how to use? <Q> It means to give deep consideration to a problem, or to brainstorm, or to ponder: <S> Gentlemen, this is a serious issue. <S> We need to put on our thinking caps and come up with a good solution. <A> The thinking cap is the cap that Gyro Gearloose wears when he needs to find a solution for a problem. <A> If you're going to use it in conversation the usual ways would be: <S> [That's a difficult problem.] <S> I'll go put on my thinking cap. <S> ... <S> I'll go away and think about it. <S> [That's a difficult problem.] <S> Why don't you put on your thinking cap and we'll talk later? <S> ... <S> Why don't you go away and think about it <S> and we'll talk later? <S> The general idea it expresses is that you're taking time just to sit and think hard about something. <S> You can also say things like <S> I've got my thinking cap on. <S> I'll put my thinking cap on. <S> and so on.
| To put the thinking cap means then to find the solution , think about , reflect on .
|
Are there any cases of a word that originated in English replacing another word in English in common usage? I'm curious if there's any cases of a word that originated in English (didn't come from a foreign source) replacing another word in every day usage? <Q> One example: <S> This Wikipedia page has a bunch of such examples of obsolete words, though most of the replacement words are from other languages. <A> Something like thou ? <S> You is the form which has replaced the archaic thou . <A> The word withershins is rarely used anymore, it is the same as counter-clockwise or anti-clockwise , both with Latinate origin, both still English words. <A> In the U.S., doughnut (first OED citation 1809) replaced the Dutch-origin word olykoek (first OED citation 1795). <S> For olykoek , a 1740 calque [translation] oily cake is cited, so the word olykoek may have been in use well before doughnut . <S> This first OED citation for doughnut is D. Knickerbocker, Hist. <S> N.Y. <S> An enormous dish of balls of sweetened dough, fried in hog's fat, and called doughnuts, or olykoeks.
| Old English lið has been replaced by limb , both of native origin.
|
“She left me for another woman” or “She left me for a woman”? Assuming a male speaker is referring to an ex-partner, which of the following is more correct? She left me for another woman She left me for a woman The phrase She left me for another man has always made sense to me because the omission of another would suggest that she did not have a man before she left (a subtle self-deprecation on the part of the speaker). Similarly, a female speaker would say He left me for another woman . Should the rules change when the new partner is of the same gender? <Q> Contrary to the other answers, I think "she left me for another woman" is perfectly fine, and does not imply anything about her earlier relationships (other than with the speaker). <S> It is true that in a sentence like "she left me for another man", <S> the another means other than myself , a meaning which does not apply (since the speaker is male) to "she left me for another woman". <S> But here, "another" can mean other than herself . <S> For instance, in a sentence like "Shane was pleased to see another Australian in Cairo", the "another" only means "other than himself", and does not imply that he'd seen other Australians before. <S> Similarly, "she left me for another woman" does not necessarily imply that she'd been with a woman before, I think. <S> That said, I think "she left me for a woman" is fine, too. <S> It does not have the problem you mentioned that "she left me for a man" would have (self-deprecation on part of the male speaker), and if some people are going to (mis?)interpret "another woman" as meaning that there was already another "another woman", then it's probably best to avoid "another". <A> Assuming a male speaker, She left me for <S> another woman implies she left the man for a woman, having already been with women in the past. <S> The “another” refers to the fact that there already are women in the woman’s past, and the one she left the man for is one more. <S> She left me for <S> a woman implies she left the man for a woman, and <S> this is the first time she has been with a woman, as far as the speaker knows. <A> Weird sample sentence, but anyway. <S> "another" would seem to indicate that there is some woman in the equation that she is no longer with. <S> In a similar example, you could say. <S> "My wife bought a purse. <S> She didn't like it, so she returned it and bought another [purse]." <S> But: "My wife bought a purse. <S> She didn't like it, so she returned it and bought a belt." <S> The only reason to insert "another" in the second sentence is if you're implying that she already has a belt currently (and that this adds to the collection). <S> In this context, "another" would mean "being one more or more of the same". <S> Definitions from Dictionary.com <A> If you say She left me for a woman. <S> it would imply that she had given up on you and on men in general. <S> If you say She left me for another woman. <S> it implies that you think of yourself as a woman, or she does (or did). <S> If neither of the above is true, it is correct to say She left me for another man. <S> The idea here is that "She left me [to go with] another man." <S> The for in this case is used in its sense of "assigning" one thing to another. <A> "She left me for a woman" is more correct but "She left me for another woman" has a poetic and humorous quality, being a play on a standard form.
| Considering that "another" in this context means "different or distinct", it seems appropriate to use simply "She left me for a woman".
|
What does ‘Receive’ mean in ‘Bush did not always receive a timely consideration of his option'? The Washington Post (Feb 3rd) introduces upcoming Donald Rumsfeld’s memoir in an article titled ‘Rumsfeld remains unapologetic in his memoir.' I felt the word ‘receive’ was used in the following sentence pretty different from the usage I’m familiar with, such as ‘receive a mail (guest, impression, meaning, benefits, TV broadcast)‘. What does ‘receive’ mean in the following sentence? Bush did not receive a timely consideration of his option, nor effective implementation of his own decision. Why could it happen on the Earth that the former President didn't or couldn't (even not always) 'receive' his own option and decision once he made? Does it mean 'seriously deal with'? Is the usage of 'receive' in this notion very common in English, because I can't find an exact counterpart gloss to fit this case in Japanese English dictionaries at hand? Bush 'did not always receive, and may not have insisted on, a timely consideration of his options before he made a decision, nor did he always receive effective implementation of the decisions he made,' Rumsfeld writes. <Q> But instead of mail, the thing that Bush (didn't) receive was this thing: " <S> timely consideration of his option nor effective implementation of his own decision." <S> This is a rather long phrase, so you have to break it down: <S> There are two things that bush didn't receive: <S> (Thing 1) <S> "timely consideration of his option" (meaning, "options were not considered on time") <S> (Thing 2) "effective implementation of his own decision" (meaning, "decisions were not implemented effectively") <S> So the general structure for a sentence like this is "John did not receive Thing_1 nor Thing_2". <S> Where Thing_1 and Thing_2 can be anything, like "mail", "news", etc. <S> For instance "John did not receive apples nor oranges". <S> Your sentence has the exact same structure, except that the things in your sentence are more complicated. <S> If it makes you feel any better, that's a really poorly written sentence <S> and I hope you don't take it as a model for writing! :) <A> In that usage, you could practically replace it with get or obtain . <S> Receive means acquiring from somewhere/someone else. <S> So the statement: <S> ‘Bush did not receive a timely consideration of his option, nor effective implementation of his own decision.' <S> States that Rumsfeld's option (his plan/tactic/agenda) was not considered in a timely fashion (by Bush) <S> , that is to say - it was not considered sufficiently early to be of use. <S> In the second part of the statement, Rumsfeld goes on to say that he also did not receive an 'effective implementation of his own decision'. <S> To put that another way, his decision was not implemented properly; he wanted to obtain a state where his decision was effectively implemented, but that state was not obtained. <A> What he means, Oishi-san, is that Bush wasn't really interested in what Rumsfeld thought. <S> The consideration here is Rumsfeld's deliberation and advice about the options available. <A> I think that in the context of the article, Rumsfield is talking as an observor, not an actor - he is not talking about Bush considering Rumsfield's proposals. <S> Rumsfield is suggesting that some people in the government did not give President Bush recommendations about his plans promptly (because of the "disagreements between senior advisors" mentioned earlier in the article). <S> In this context, receive means the same as get : Mr Bush "did not always receive, and may not have insisted on, a timely consideration of his options before he made a decision ... <S> " <S> means that the President did not get <S> / was not given advice about options he wanted to consider. <S> That is, his advisors did not provide him with policy advice quickly enough. <S> The paragraph preceding the text you quoted provides important context: <S> Mr Rumsfeld also suggests that Bush was at fault for not doing more to resolve disagreements among senior advisers. <S> Mr Bush "did not always receive, and may not have insisted on, a timely consideration of his options before he made a decision, nor did he always receive effective implementation of the decisions he made," he wrote.
| I think "receive" in this case has the same meaning as "receive mail".
|
"Ice possible" or "Possible ice"? Which is proper grammar: “Ice possible drive with care” or “possible ice drive with caution” ? <Q> As written, neither version is OK. <S> They both require some punctuation. <S> Possible ice - drive with caution Of these, the first is probably better. <S> As has been noted, my answer assumes that this is a road sign, where brevity and clarity are paramount. <S> For a road sign, the most important word is 'ice'; the rest is less important. <S> That is another argument for the first version above. <S> If you are writing running text, then you need to do more work, such as: <S> The road may be icy; drive with care. <S> You could use a dash instead of a semi-colon. <S> You could write 'caution' instead of 'care'. <S> You could even treat it as two sentences: The road may be icy. <S> Drive with care! <A> Jonathan Leffler's answer is great for a road sign. <S> For standard written English, though, you need a verb: <S> Ice is possible: drive with care. <A> Risk of ice - drive with caution. <A> If this were a letter to someone I'd say "Drive with care, there might be ice", or similar. <S> But it sounds like a road sign text... <S> I don't understand why the English speaking world is so fond of textual road signs. <S> In Norway and most of continental Europe, symbols is used for almost all types of warning signs. <S> Texts is reserved for directions to place names, and some extra information on warning signs, etc. <S> It's a lot easier to see a standardized symbol, than reading a text that may not be consistently written. <S> In Norway ice is always a possibility in the winter, but if the road is especially likely of causing slippery conditions we use this sign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fareskilt_15.PNG
| Ice possible - drive with care or
|
Is "supply" the inverse of "apply"? We can say "The add function is applied to values 1 and 2". Can we say equivalently "The values 1 and 2 are supplied to the add function"? <Q> It's dangerous to generalize that supply is the inverse (or opposite) of apply . <S> It might sound that way when speaking of functions, or possibly other things, but there are many nuances to the usage of supply and apply that would make most reversals sound strange or contrived. <S> In fact, there would be many cases where they are used nearly as synonyms not reversals. <S> The machine applies a magnetic field. <S> and The machine supplies a magnetic field. <S> Mind you, A magnetic field is supplied by the machine. <S> or A magnetic field is applied by the machine. <S> Are perfectly correct. <S> So what's going on here? <S> How can they be near synonyms and inverse at the same time? <S> I think supply/apply are not nearly the same inverse pair as, say, input/output . <S> It's not that cut and dried. <A> Yes, we can. <S> Similarly we can say The machine is applied to flour and sugar to make cake or Flour and sugar is supplied to the machine to make cake though this sounds a little contrived. <A> You apply a function to one or more parameters, and you supply one or more parameters to a function.
| Supply is the inverse of apply only in certain contexts. In this context, your syntax is correct.
|
How to pronounce GUID How do you pronounce "GUID?" Is it one syllable or two? <Q> Wikipedia's article aside <S> , I think it is more common in the IT industry to hear GUID pronounced as: GOO-id (/ˈguːɪd/) with a hard G sound (at least in Australia, the UK and Canada). <A> I go with the 1-syllable version (gwid) that rhymes with squid and liquid and that matches the pronunciation of "languid" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/languid . <A> According to Wikipedia : pronounced /ˈɡuːɪd/ or the preferred pronunciation /ˈɡwɪd/ <S> So, the single-syllable pronunciation is preferred. <S> I'll probably continue to spell it out when I come across it despite that fact. :) <A> I've heard several pronunciations of this. <S> The frequency I've heard (in London, GB) would be: /ˈɡuːɪd/ (two syllables) /ˈɡwɪd/ (one syllable; my preference) /ˌdʒiː juː ˈaɪ diː/ (four syllables) /ˌɡu(w)ɪ.ˈdiː/ (three syllables: gooey-dee ) <A> I pronounce it with four syllables, as the alternatives sound a little weird to me. <A> I don't know if there is a preference between the two pronunciations, but I would expect that the second pronunciation will become the most used one. <A> I like the version that rhymes with squid (hey, I'm a Southerner), but I understand that it can rub people the wrong way like Bush's pronunciation of nuclear. <S> It seems to me that this may be based both on the linguistic region as well as the technology used. <S> I first heard about this back in the early 1990s from a Microsoft class and they used the squid-guid. <A> All versions sound a little weird. <S> I hear people say "in using the global ID"; "referencing the globally unique ID" more than I hear G-U-I-D; or guid (squid); or goo-id. <S> Unfortunately (or fortunately) there doesn't seem to be a consensus. <A> The purpose of shortening something to an acronym is for ease-of-use. <S> It seems logical that it's easier to say a one-syllable word (squid/guid) than endure the agony of having to pronounce a distinct two syllable (fluid/guid). <A> On the off-chance there is any interest in the actual traditional word "guid" of Scots English, the pronunciations /ɡyd, ɡɪd/ are given in this dictionary entry: guid , though to me, judging from the pronunciation recorded here , it sounds like [ɡɨd] or [ɡɯd].
| Since GUIDs are in the realm of programming and programming is all about logic, it seems the most logical pronunciation is the single-syllable squid/guid. You can pronounce it as four syllables (/ˌdʒi ju ˈaɪ di/), or like a single syllable (/ˈɡwɪd/).
|
Meanings of 'killing moon' and 'killing time' in song by Echo and The Bunnymen I was wondering what the meanings of the expressions killing moon and killing time on the song Killing moon by Echo and The Bunnymen are. Under blue moon I saw you So soon you'll take me Up in your arms Too late to beg you or cancel it Though I know it must be the killing time Unwillingly mine ... In starlit nights I saw you So cruelly you kissed me Your lips a magic world Your sky all hung with jewels The killing moon Will come too soon I assume the song does not refer to some sort of ritualistic murder on full moon. What then are the meanings intended for these expressions? <Q> The song is about the conflict between personal striving and inevitability, particularly the inevitability of death; the figures of the killing time and the killing moon are used to suggest death as something that occurs at a preordained moment. <A> I suspect that there are several word-plays going on here. <S> In American myth and folklore, the full moon of each month is given a name, such as Wolf Moon, Storm Moon, Harvest Moon, Hunter's Moon, etc. <S> A blue moon is a rare occurrence that happens about once every 2-3 years when a single season (three months) experiences four full moons; the third full moon in a season with four full moons is called the Blue Moon . <S> There is no full moon specifically called the Killing Moon . <S> An Old Testament poem tells us that there is a time for everything under the sun; a time to give, a time to take, a time to heal, and a time to kill, etc. <S> Calling something a killing time or killing moon would mean that somebody's or <S> something's death is imminent and unavoidable. <A> Killing moon sounds vaguely astrological, as if some alignment or what-have-you in the heavens is being interpreted as related to killing. <S> Alternatively, moon sometimes means "month". <A> <A> I always felt it was about an arranged marriage, the Sitar playing makes me feel like an Indian girl is being given up to an Indian groom and the "killing Time" is when she gives up her virginity <S> and she cannot change the fact that she really does not want this. <S> "Up against her will" "You will wait until you give yourself to him" He will take her with a cruel kiss, because she has no say in it.
| Killing moon might make perfect sense to a werewolf.
|
What is the correct spelling of "dependent"? Which preposition should follow it? Dependant or dependent really confuses me when to use, especially with the combination of , on , from or to . Mike was dependant to/from/on his mother. The states are dependent to/from/on the federal government. When to use what term with what? <Q> adjective <S> 1. <S> [ predicate] ( dependent on/upon ) contingent on or determined by: the various benefits will be dependent on length of service . <S> 2. <S> requiring someone or something for financial, emotional, or other support: an economy heavily dependent on oil exports | households with dependent children . • unable to do without: people dependent on drugs | welfare-dependent families . <S> noun ( British also dependant) a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support: a single man with no dependents . <A> In British English, dependant is the noun while dependent is the adjective. <S> If X is a dependant of Y, then X is dependent on Y, meaning X depends on Y. However, in American English, dependent is used for both noun and adjective. <A> The adjective derived from the verb depend is dependent , and it takes the preposition, on , just as the verb forms also take the same preposition <S> e.g. depending on , depends on , depended on , etc. <S> Thus, your sentences should be: <S> Mike was dependent on his mother. <S> The states are dependent on the federal government. <S> Dependent is also a noun (usually dependant in British English). <S> When necessary, it takes the preposition of : <S> Mike is still a dependant of his widowed mother. <S> The states are dependents of the federal government.
| As reported from the NOAD, dependent is both adjective and noun; dependant is used as noun in British English.
|
What is the difference between 20$ and $20? I am seeing both 20$ and $20 usages. (20 is nonessential to this question.) What is the difference between them? <Q> In English, the dollar sign is placed before the amount, so the correct order is $20 , as others have noted. <S> However, when you see people using 20$ , it's likely they're being influenced by a few different things: Many other countries (and the Canadian province of Quebec) put the currency symbol after the amount <S> The sign for cents is placed after the amount: 25¢ <S> Because of these inconsistencies, writing <S> 20$ is a very common mistake. <S> I've been known to do it myself. <A> It is the convention of some countries to put their currency symbol before the number, while others put it after the number. <S> At least one country has put it in the middle. <S> So you could assume, in the absence of any context, that the 20$ is a different currency to $20. <A> In American English, the currency symbol is placed before the amount; the same is true for British English. <S> It is $20 , not 20$ . <A> The location of the currency depends on the language in which it appears. <S> For instance , English texts should use "€ 20" while French ones should use "20 €". <A> As others have mentioned in passing, those are not the only two possibilities. <S> In France at least, you sometimes find prices written as 19€95 , as an alternative to 19,95 <S> € <S> (and yes, the decimal separator there is the comma). <A> 20$ is French-Canadian and $20 is English-Canadian/American. <S> French Canadian Dollar in Wiki <A> In Argentina <S> other countries <S> it's the same, $20 <S> , I think it's the most widely used convention. <S> Happens the same with Euro €20. <S> If you think of it as a unit (Not sure if it's considered as such) then it's the only unit I can think of that comes before the number. <S> Consider 23 cm , 6 in , 2" Edit: <S> removed a mention to a country which doesn't seem to be relevant to this site and the English language. <A> $20 is conventional, but to throw a wrench in the whole thing: if it is casual correspondence, either way is OK. <A> For dollars, the correct way is $20. <S> When I see 20$ <S> it means the writer was thinking "twenty dollars" (not "dollars twenty") <S> and accordingly it is natural to type 20$ and <S> if the writer is feeling lazy she will not backspace to correct it. <S> Laziness is more common in casual contexts.
| In spoken English the word dollars follows the amount, e.g. twenty dollars
|
Should there be a space between name initials? In writing authors' initials in research papers (either in the author by-line or the bibliography), should there be a space between intials? R.P. Feynman R. P. Feynman What's the preferred way of writing it? <Q> Indeed, you quite possibly do not want to use any spaces at all. <S> It depends whether we are talking about text generated under the tyranny of the typewriter or text that is to be professionally typeset. <S> With a typewriter, you should not use any spaces, but when typeset, smaller spaces are usually best. <S> One page 30 of version 3.2 of Robert Bringhurst’s Elements of Typographical Style , the de-facto “typesetter’s bible”, he writes: 2.1.5 <S> Add little or no space within strings of initials. <S> Names such as W. B. Yeats and J. C. L. Prillwitz need hair spaces, thin spaces, or no spaces at all after the intermediary periods. <S> A normal word space follows the last period in the string. <S> That was set with U+200A HAIR SPACE between each initial in the two strings of them. <S> And I use “set” guardedly, considering that that was in HTML. <S> Even so, that probably looks terrible to you, but that is because web typography is almost always more primitive than even Gutenberg himself used. <S> Notice for example that the placement of the dot in Georgia is distractingly far from its letter in the case of J and even worse for the W, and how it is so close to the L as to be nearly touching. <S> Properly set with correct kerning, that statement should read more like this: <S> That’s basically what it looks like in the printed book, <S> but I have greatly enlarged the font here to make it easier for you to see the differences. <S> As you see, the dots are now at a constant distance to the right of the letter immediately previous to them, and there are numerous other adjustments to make the text look less like a hastily typewritten ransom note and more like a printed book. <S> Those were set using U+200A <S> HAIR SPACE just as in the HTML above it, but as you see, it looks infinitely better when properly typeset. <S> That’s because it now has correct kerning and ligatures, and because the length of the line is now in balanced proportion to the x-height of the font — something that Stack Exchange has yet to get right. <A> The periods in the initials stand for truncations, so you would put a space after each one. <S> I don't think British English uses the initials, but I have seen various ways of doing it based on different style guides that govern different domains. <S> Check out the APA style guide , where they do use spaces: Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). <S> Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. <S> American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196. <S> doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182 <S> The MLA style guide <S> concurs : <S> Palmer, William J. Dickens and New Historicism. <S> New York: <S> St. Martin's, 1997. <S> Print. <A> Some journalism style guides recommend a space between the initials, and others recommend no space: http://www.apvschicago.com/2011/03/initials.html <S> Peter Taylor's advice (above) is probably best: do whatever is customary in that journal.
| You certainly do not want to use full spaces within strings of initials.
|
What is the difference between "palazzo" and "palace"? I have noticed that palazzo is used not only in Italian but in English too. So what is the difference between palazzo , and palace (in English)? <Q> Strictly speaking, a palace is the official residence of a sovereign (or, by extension, a dignitary). <S> Informally, it may also mean “a building that looks like a palace”, i.e. a vast, beautiful and richly-decorated house. <S> The NOAD has for palazzo : “a palatial building, esp. <S> in Italy”. <S> So, I expect that the main difference is this “in Italy” . <S> Other than that, I think it's quite close in meaning, at least to the informal meaning of palace . <S> As for usage, palazzo is much less used than palace : the Corpus of Contemporary American English has 7622 occurrences of “palace” vs 597 for “palazzo” or “palazzi”. <A> "Palazzo" is mainly used in English to communicate that the building is called a palazzo in the regional language of its location. <A>
| Palazzo is, indeed, an Italian Palace, but it could also be an impressive public building or a private residence( in english).
|
"from one year to another" vs. "from a year to another" Which one (#1, #2 or #3) is grammatical? This is calculated as... 1) ...the price difference from one year to another. 2) ...the price difference from a year to another. 3) ...the price difference from one year to other. I was about to write #1 in a document, when I thought that maybe I should not mix a numeral ( one ) with an article ( an in another ). UPDATE: In his answer below, FX_ says that he would say #1 and that thinks that #2 is also correct. I'm starting a bounty to check if there any different answers. <Q> "From one year to another" is definitely the correct choice among those three. <S> I would be more inclined to say it "from one year to the next", though. <S> You could also say "the price change from year to year" or "the year-over-year price change" or even "the annual price differential." <S> (edit: I should also say that while "from a year to another" may well be grammatically correct, it is absolutely not idiomatic and will sound bad to most if not all native speakers.) <A> The issue here is that "the price difference" is from one particular year to another. <S> Therefore it is erroneous to be vague about "the price difference" being from a (general) year to another year. <S> Because this construction is usually made with particular years in mind, the idiom has become "from particular" to "another" (meaning next). <A> The third sentence is definitely not correct: you already have mentioned one thing, so you have to use another and not other . <S> The first one is correct, and is the way I'd say it. <S> The second does not sound as good to me, but I think it is also correct. <A> The second one, while not technically wrong, sounds somewhat unidiomatic in my opinion. <S> Here's a little trick to check the contemporary usage of an expression or a phrase: just Google the two phrases and compare the usage contexts. <S> Also, try to figure out which form is preferred by native English speakers. <S> For instance: 1 "from one year to another" 2,210,000 results (with links to Britannica, etc., which gives us a clue that this usage is acceptable to certain authoritative users of the language) <S> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22from+one+year+to+another%22 2 " <S> from a year to another" 177,000 results, <S> and it occurs more often in the writings of non-native speakers of English. <S> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22from+a+year+to+another%22 <S> At any rate, in your context, I think you'd be safer with #1 than #2. <A> In English, 'a' can be interpreted as meaning, literally, 'one', but it can just as easily be interpreted to mean 'any'. <S> In sentence #2, 'a year' will be viewed as 'any year' by many, if not most, native English speakers. <S> It is, of course, a very subtle distinction, because the same argument might be made that 'one' can be taken as meaning 'any' within the right context. <S> English can be a very imprecise language.
| The first one is definitely correct.
|
"For how long have you been..." vs. "how long have you been..." Ante-scriptum: The question should be quite a frequently arising one, so this might be a duplicate. If it is, I haven't found it previously asked here I don't know if the title is meaningful, but here's the question, anyway. What I want to know is whether the for at the beginning of the following question should be removed or not: For how long have you been eating? I consider the sentence to be correct, but some days ago, a teacher (not mine) told me that it was not. And then I remembered that someone else had told me that while it is OK to use the for , the tendency is to get rid of it. So what's your take on it? <Q> The Corpus of Contemporary American English has only one occurrence of “For how long have you been”, but many occurrences of “how long have you been” used in this sense. <S> So, it seems that, at least in American English, for is not used. <S> The numbers are such that I'd say it probably holds in other dialects. <A> How long itself expresses duration. <S> So it may not be necessary to use to use 'for' in the beginning of the sentence. <A> It follows the same pattern as others, where the word 'for', 'with', etc are placed at the end of the sentence. <S> For example: How long have you been waiting for? <S> ; How long have you been living here (for)? <S> ; Who are you going to the concert with?
| Definitely "For how long ..." is not common and is likely "old English", much like "With whom ....".
|
What should be the proper term when someone wants to "give back" to the community I recently asked this question on Programmers.SE: Ways to use your skills as a developer to give back to the community/charities. You hear a lot about "giving back", but is it really what should be used? I got the following comment on my question that spurred some thoughts: Hate the term "give back". To "give back" means that you took something in the start. "Donation", "Endowment", "Charity" are much better descriptors. Is "giving back" correct when: I was originally given the same thing? (they gave me a can of food, and I give back the can of food later on in life) I was originally given something different? (they give me a can of food, I build them a website later in life) I was never given anything? (they give me nothing, I build them a website) <Q> The way I see it, "giving back" is a short form of "giving something back in return for the help you previously got from the community". <S> The comment might have a point, it's not as if you are obliged to give anything in return, but one could argue that other people took some of their time to help you when you needed it, and now you are giving back that time. <A> It's not really supposed to be a very precise concept. <S> It's meant to invoke a general sense that we all depend on each other's participation in society for our well-being, and that much of what we "have" in many senses may be meaningfully thought of as "given", so that for us to go out of our way to contribute to society at large <S> is, in some sense, "giving back" -- sharing the fruits of our advantages with others, as we received in our turn. <S> It mostly only makes sense, in the way you're asking about, when one is speaking of "giving back" to society in general, rather than particular people or organizations. <S> Part of the idea is that, at that level, your third case, that you were never given anything, cannot really ever be the case unless your name is Tarzan. <S> For the first and second cases, sure, there's no implication that what you "give back" should or should not resemble anything in particular <S> you were "given". <S> In its best forms, I feel, there's also no particular implication that this is something you have to or are obligated to do; it's a nice thing to do if you feel it's appropriate. <S> It's saying you want to live in the kind of world where people do things like that for each other. <S> It also has a pleasing element of humility to it; using the term says that one is not sitting on high dispensing charity and favors to the "less fortunate", one is helping others as one was helped. <A> As @chaos said, the nature of that benefit can be somewhat fluid. <S> An alternative phrase for this concept that I've heard in recent years is "paying it forward" -- rather than "payback", which looks backward to what you got, it evokes a notion of providing a foundation for those who will follow.
| As @GreweKokkor said, "give back" implies that you got some benefit from the community to which you're giving.
|
Pluralization of currencies like the baht and the ringgit Some currencies like the baht (Thailand) and ringgit (malaysia) seem to be either singular or plural depending on context. As far as I know, these two countries don't use bahts or ringgits to denote more than one unit of their currency. For example: 1 baht, 100 baht; 1 ringgit, 100 ringgit. When we want to use the plural in writing and speech, should we use bahts and ringgits or baht and ringgit? Merriam-Webster gives the plural of baht as: baht, also bahts; and the plural of ringgit as : ringgit, also ringgits. What should I write? <Q> I've never heard anyone use an ending 's' when describing Chinese yuan, Japanese yen, or Italian lira (of course the plural for lira is lire , which sounds about the same.) <S> I've also not heard anyone say bahts . <S> There are other words in the English language where the singular and plural use the same words, such as moose , sheep , and deer , so there's really no reason to create a new plural word if the singular form is already acting as the plural. <A> Malay rarely uses any grammatical plural, especially if there is a number or quantity word associated with the noun, though reduplication is generally available if there might otherwise be ambiguity. <S> So it says "RM100" and "seratus ringgit" on the banknotes ( seratus means hundred ), and hence in Malaysian English. <S> But if you were to say 100 ringgits, you would be understood. <A> I've never dealt with ringgit. <A> I'm late to the conversation, but as many have said above, the plural of ringgit is ringgit. <S> We don't use ringgits in conversation, except for fun, and when in Thailand, I have not heard at any time for the Thais to use bahts either. <S> As an aside, to say "hundreds of ringgit" one could say "beratus-ratus ringgit", "ratus" being hundred as mentioned earlier. <S> Interestingly to note, our imported parking payment machines, with spoken instructions being in English and with fairly neutral U.S./U.K. accent, use ringgits . <S> Which can cause occasional sighing and gnashing of teeth upon paying. <S> Like Gilead says, we do use "dollars" and "bucks" frequently in daily conversation. <S> Also, we use "cents", despite also having the Malay alternative of sen (also plural) <S> , i.e. 20 cents/20 sen. <S> And having said that all, being a multiracial country, you could hear us speak of money in three or four different languages simultaneously, and this can also vary within the same language from state to state. <S> [I am Malaysian of Chinese descent, living in the capital, but English is my first language, with Malay and Cantonese in decreasing ability] <A> You've answered your own question: the dictionary says either "baht" or "bahts" works, but it gives a slight preference to "baht". <S> Whichever you choose, be consistent. <A> I don't think pluralization as in the native language is the right thing to do in English: otherwise you should also follow the declination rules: <S> E.g. in Lithuanian, we have: 1 litas, 2 litai .. 9 litai, 10 litų, 11 litų .. <S> 20 litų, 21 litas, 22 litai .. <S> in Polish: 1 zloty, 2 zlote, 3 zlote .. 5 zlotych .. <S> 10 <S> zlotych .. <S> 22 zlote .. <S> Russian: 1 rubl, 2 rublya .. <S> 5 rublei .. 20 rublei, 21 rubl, 22 rublya and <S> that would mean that any English speaker dealing with currencies would have to learn the basic grammar of every language, which would be crazy. <S> so when you speak English, pluralize the English way; when you speak another language, pluralize accordingly. <A> If you are writing American English, M-W is (at least where I work) <S> the defacto go-to dictionary, so either could be used (baht/bahts). <S> If writing UK English, then you'd probably to refer to the Oxford English Dictionary , which seems to define only "baht" (plural same). <S> My point is that you should do what the grammar rules of the target language define.
| Apparently Thai does not have a grammatical plural either. I have only ever heard/seen "100 baht", not "100 bahts".
|
Idiom for "very little, compared to real value"? Norwegian has an idiom that means roughly "small change compared to the real cost or value", which would translate literally as "buttons and scraps". Is there a similar idiom in English? Some usage examples translated from Norwegian: "We cannot accept that our part of the country would be left with [buttons and scraps] while valuable resources disappear before our eyes" ( Local politician in a discussion on oil. ) "Offered [buttons and scraps] - that's why we're going on strike" ( Newspaper headline ) "Unless they are in the porn or games business, media companies must accept that their future income from internet content will remain [buttons and scraps]" ( Newspaper opinion piece ) If you are on the buying end the English idiom "for a song" ("I got it for a song") is pretty much the same, but I don't think it can be used in contexts like above. Is there an idiom that can? <Q> Some options from a thesaurus (some better than others): peanuts , crumbs , chicken feed , chump change , nickels and dimes , pittance , small potatoes , scraps , drop in the ocean , trifle . <S> Of these, "peanuts" and "small potatoes" are probably the ones closest to appropriate in your sentences. <A> "We cannot accept that our part of the country would be left with bupkis while valuable resources disappear before our eyes" (Local politician in a discussion on oil.) <S> "Offered bupkis - <S> that's why we're going on strike" (Newspaper headline) <S> "Unless they are in the porn or games business, media companies must accept that their future income from internet content will remain bupkis " (Newspaper opinion piece) <S> The link describes bupkis as 'small goat droppings', but in my experience most people use it to mean 'void' or 'nothingness'. <A> The best I can think of in American English would be "beads and trinkets" (or "trinkets and beads", depending on what sounds best), a reference to the purchase of all of Manhattan Island from a tribe of Indians in exchange for a bunch of low-valued items. <A> There isn't a similar idiom in English, but I may be proven wrong. <S> I was paid a pittance for the work <S> I did. <S> Americans might use chump change , which means a trifling or pitiful sum of money. <S> Without using an idiom , you could write: <S> The payment we received does not reflect the value of the service rendered.
| The closest option I can think of is pittance , which means: A very small amount or a meagre remuneration Example of usage: In American English you often hear the word ' bupkis ' used to describe about the same thing.
|
Is "since" a synonym of "because"? Possible Duplicate: When are “because”, “since”,“for” and “as” interchangeable? A few years ago, I was told that "since" should only be used to designate a time period. For example: Since 2 o'clock, I've been waiting for you. However, since creeps into the place of "because" quite often. Since I don't have the time, I won't be joining you. This second example sounds slightly slangy to me now that I've been avoiding using "since" in this way for the past few years, but is "since" really a synonym of "because"? <Q> Since is used with three different meanings. <S> In phrases like "since two c'clock," "since the war," it refers to the period of time between the event and now. <S> In sentences like "the settlement had vanished long since. <S> " it means ago . <S> In other sentences, it means "because," "for the reason that." <S> The NOAD reports a note about the usage of since . <S> For example, in the sentence "Since Mrs. Jefferson moved to Baltimore in the 1990s, she was not aware of the underlying complexities. <S> " it is not clear, especially at the beginning, whether since means "because" or "from the time when. <S> " It is often better to simply say because , if that is the intended meaning. <A> The double meaning of since as after and because is a well known case. <S> It is for instance cited by famous linguist John McWorther in " The power of Babel ". <S> Here is the complete excerpt: <S> A thousand years ago, in the language called English, since was a compound word siththan [siððan] from the words from after and that <S> [ sið and ðan ] <S> 1 and was only used in the chronological " <S> after that" sense of - She has been sad since the day her fish died . <S> The because usage - He has to have been there since they found his umbrella in thebasement would only become established five hundred years later. <S> Please note that the same thing happens today with after in the news when the news media tries to avoid being liable for making unfounded accusations. <S> The man was arrested by the police after the purse of the victim was found in his car Note 1 : <S> The OE words <S> sið and <S> ðan can be compared respectively to Present Day German seit and dann , which are often seen together in the sense of "since then" or "thereafter" but without marking causality. <A> My dictionary (Collins 2nd Ed.) <S> and Dictionary.com both sanction the use of since to mean <S> because , although Merriam-Webster doesn't mention it. <S> It seems to me a normal and natural usage, as it has the sense of 'following on' from some previous assertion.
| When using since as a causal conjunction to mean "because," or "given that," be aware that in some contexts or constructions the word may be construed as referring to time.
|
What is the meaning of "I've gotten over __ recently"? I came across the phrase "I've gotten over [tool] recently" in an article written by someone who had tested the tool. From the article's context, it seemed that the author was not particularly fond of the tool and that therefore the phrase means something like "I stopped using [tool] recently". Is that correct, or is there another meaning behind the phrase? <Q> A possible reading of the phrase <S> That he has gotten over it. <S> A similar common usage would be, "I really loved jogging <S> but I've gotten over it. <S> It's too tiring". <A> Without further context and using only the fact that the author was not particularly fond of the tool, it could mean one of the following. <S> (1) <S> He liked it very much in the past but dislikes it now. <S> (2) <S> He found it difficult to use but has mastered it now. <S> (3) He had a bad time using it but is not troubled by it now. <A> Original sentence: <S> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57627/msys-vs-cygwin <S> I've gotten over cygwin recently. <S> There's a lot of impedance mismatch between cygwin and the native platform <S> I read that as the user of cygwin no longer is annoyed with the shortcomings but initially it sounded to me as he no longer use it and has gotten over that fact - <S> perhaps we ask him? @AdamMitz <A> Looking at the NOAD, I found two different phrasal verbs. <S> to get over : to recover from an ailment or an upsetting or startling experience; to overcome a difficulty. <S> to get [something] over : to manage to communicate an idea or theory. <S> In the sentence you wrote (where tool is referring to a software tool), I would understand to get over as to overcome the difficulty to use the tool . <A> When someone "gets over something", it might mean that he or she is no longer affected by some event, or no longer gives a lot of thought or concern to something. <S> "She got over the breakup. <S> " <S> "She is over him." <S> Also, see T. Logos's answer.
| "I've gotten over tool recently", is that the speaker was once very interested in tool , but has now lost interest in it.
|
What does ‘Young Americans are far less “white” than older generation’ mean? I stumbled on a phrase, Young Americans are far less white than older generation , in an article of today's New York Times titled In Census, Young Americans Increasingly Diverse . I don’t think white refers to the color, of course. In a dictionary at hand, there is a definition of white as a slang meaning (1) fair and righteous , (2) credible , (3) generous, well-intentioned , (4) happy, well-off . Does the phrase today’s young Americans are far less white here implies they are far less well-off (or happy) than old generation? Is the word ‘White’ used in this notion very often? The text in question reads: Demographers sifting through new population counts released on Thursday by the Census Bureau say the data bring a pattern into sharper focus: Young Americans are far less white than older generations, a shift that demographers say creates a culture gap with far-reaching political and social consequences. <Q> In the context of that article , white refers to people whose "race" is identified as "White". <S> Race is <S> one of the things demographers and census-takers are interested in. <S> Mississippi, Virginia, New Jersey and Louisiana all had declines in their populations of white residents ages 18 and under, according to the bureau’s first detailed report on the 2010 Census. <S> […] The number of whites under the age of 20 fell by 6 percent between 2000 and 2008[…] <S> Instead, growth has come from minorities, particularly Hispanics, as more Latino women enter their childbearing years. <S> Blacks, Asians and Hispanics accounted for about 79 percent of the national population growth between 2000 and 2009, Mr. Johnson said. <S> The result has been a changed American landscape, with whites now a minority of the youth population in 10 states, […] <S> In contrast, the number of mixed-race children doubled, Hispanic children doubled, and Asian children were up by more than two-thirds, according to Mr. Johnson. <S> “Living in the suburbs used to mean white family, two kids, a TV, a garage and a dog,” he said. <S> “Now suburbia is a microcosm of America. <S> It’s multiethnic and multiracial. <S> It tells you where America is going.” <S> So you see that "Whites" is contrasted with Blacks, Asians and Hispanics, and terms like multiethnic and multiracial are used. <S> This leaves no doubt about the meaning of the sentence. <S> See Wikipedia on white people and Caucasian race for more discussion on the definition. <A> The dominant race/culture/population of Americans has historically been white (sometimes called Caucasian). <S> It is one of the racial categories listed on the census form, which all Americans were supposed to fill out in 2010 (and every ten years). <S> A census is used to count a population. <S> Because the article talks about demographers , whose profession is to count populations and parse them into various groups, and says these professionals are "sifting through new population counts" we may infer that they mean this is changing. <S> Children of other races are in the ascendancy, especially children of mixed race. <S> It does not mean what the adjectives in the list you mention mean. <A> As the text speaks of culture gap with far-reaching political and social consequences , I think that writer is using white as counter-revolutionary or reactionary . <S> That is one of the meaning of white reported by the NOAD, which marks this usage of the word as historical. <S> I guess the word is not used so often with that meaning, but (in contexts like the one reported here) people would be able to understand the sentence correctly.
| The sentence "Young Americans are far less white than older generations" is somewhat odd at first sight, but it's explained later as being about the total number of White people, not that fixed individuals are turning less "white" for some meaning of white.
|
Word for "someone who does the same job as me" Is there a word that means something like "someone who does the same job as me"? I've thought of colleague and co-worker . These both indicate that someone works at the same place, or some other kind of work relationship, but they don't indicate that the job is the same. The best I've come up with is my fellow-X , but this feels cumbersome. <Q> When organizations of similar size, states, or armies liaise, I have seen "counterpart" used quite often. <S> Example ; ...said Navy Capt. <S> John Kirby, spokesman for the top U.S. military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, who spoke briefly by phone on Monday and Wednesday with his counterpart in Cairo, Army Lt. <S> Gen. Sami Enan. <S> obviously, it's only usable in that limited context of two structures/organizations interacting (as @Dour points out it can not be used to describe two equal-ranking colleagues on the "same side"), so it may not be what you are looking for. <A> Although it isn't a word I've often used, <S> I believe compeer is the word you might be looking for. <S> Defined as: a person of the same rank or status; equal; peer. <S> It is the best I think you will find, unless you just go with one of the above answers which do makes sense. <A> My Webster's lists the following synonyms for colleague : <S> coworker, fellow worker, workmate, teammate, associate, partner, collaborator, ally, confederate. <S> None of these really work in the sense you're looking for, something that means "in exactly the same job" as you. <S> If no one strikes gold for you here, I would suggest that one alternative for you is to be more specific about the actual job function: <S> My wife is a periodontist, just like me. <S> Jean and Kate were both trial lawyers. <S> Here are a few traits I share with my fellow QA consultants at IBM: [List] <S> Ed and Bill <S> and I have a lot of disagreements, but we're all teamsters and we stick together. <A> It comes from the French, and is masculine. <S> The feminine equivalent (in French) is consoeur though, in certain contexts you could also use guildsman, union-worker <S> These last two terms refer to another person of the same job-class. <S> Though not colleagues, there is still an implied federation (that I think you were trying to avoid). <S> The question is also a bit of a repeat <A> The meaning of colleague is a person with whom one works, especially in a profession or business . <S> Even if there isn't any reference to the working place, the word is used when two people have contacts. <S> The meaning coworker is fellow worker ; looking at the meaning of fellow , on the NOAD <S> I read the following definition: <S> informal a man or boy: <S> he was an extremely obliging fellow . <S> • a boyfriend or lover <S> : has she got a fellow ? <S> (usu. <S> fellows) <S> a person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another: he was learning with a rapidity unique among his fellows . <S> • a thing of the same kind as or otherwise associated with another: the page has been torn away from its fellows . <S> a member of a learned society: <S> he was elected a fellow of the Geological Society . <S> • (also research fellow) <S> a student or graduate receiving a fellowship for a period of research. <S> • <S> Brit. <S> an incorporated senior member of a college: a tutorial fellow . <S> • a member of the governing body in some universities. <A> Colleague has the meaning you're looking for when the speaker is a member of a licensed profession (doctor, lawyer, that sort of thing). <S> Copractitioner may be slightly preferable to your fellow-X construction sometimes. <A> Counterpart means someone who does the same job in a different location <S> but you could extend it to different part of the same organisation.
| I would use fellow worker to mean a worker involved in the same activity . I think the word you're looking for is confrere
|
What is the origin of "earthling"? What is the origin of the word earthling ? Are there other words with a similar meaning ( marsling , venusling )? <Q> As reported on Etymonline : <S> Old English <S> yrþling "plowman" (see earth + -ling ); the sense of "inhabitant of the earth" is from 1590s. <S> Earthman was originally (1860) <S> "a demon who lives in the earth;" science fiction sense of "inhabitant of the planet Earth" first attested 1949 in writing of Robert Heinlein. <S> Earlier in this sense was earthite (1825). <S> However, I found this too: Ælfric (955–1020) <S> Teacher : <S> hwæt sægest <S> þu <S> yrþlingc <S> hu begæst þu weorc þin <A> Here earth can either refer to the planet, or to the soil. <S> It's now mostly used in science fiction to mean humans from earth, but it existed even before that. <S> One older use is in the meaning of farmer or ploughman , another is in the meaning of mortal as contrast to heavenly creatures or gods. <S> In science fiction the term <S> Terran is also commonly used. <A> NOAD gives for “-ling”: forming nouns from nouns, adjectives, and verbs (such as hireling, youngling). <S> forming nouns from adjectives and adverbs (such as darling, sibling, underling). <S> forming diminutive words : gosling | sapling.• often with depreciatory reference : princeling <S> This gives you some more examples... <A> Origins are well covered. <S> Another synonym is Earther . <A> 'Earthling', before the sci-fi era, had somewhat the same connotations as 'troglodyte', an lesser, earthy person (see the etymonline provenance as in mplungjan's answer). <S> This is what probably inspired Heinlein to use it to have people not from Earth refer to people from Earth. <S> The sci-fi literature has created a number of alternatives, like 'earther' and 'terran'. ' <S> Earthling' has too much of a 1950's scifi connotation and is not used in contemporary sci-fi, except for pejoratively. <S> As to other planets, generally recognized inhabitant names, though having only imaginary referents, are: Venusian Martian <S> Jovian Saturnian 'Mercurial','venereal', 'martial', jovial, and 'saturnine' are the respective metaphorical versions (that is, not referring to an inhabitant, but to 'slippery/fickle', 'sex-related', 'military-like', 'convivial', and 'gloomy', respectively). ' <S> Earthy' would be the closest analog for Earth. <S> The other planets don't really have commonly recognized inhabitant names, but they can be easily created anew: <S> Mercutian, Uranian, Neptunian, Plutonian (yes, I know... <S> then Erisian, Cerean, Haumean, Makemakean...).
| The word earthling is formed from the word earth and the suffix -ling , meaning something from earth, or something related to earth.
|
What is the correct name for posts made on twitter? Well, I honestly tried to search for this but I drowned in twit* and tweet* results. Should I write: "my tweet" or "my twit"? "I am tweetting" or "I am twitting" ("to twit" vs. "to tweet")? Referring to messages on twitter.com, what are the differences in their usage and meaning? <Q> Looking at http://blog.twitter.com/ , <S> I see they describe the messages as Tweets (singular: a Tweet), with a capital T, and the action of sending them as tweeting (verb: to tweet ), no capitalization. <S> That rule should be followed until established usage starts to differ from what the brand proposes, either because people think it's silly (like writing Yahoo! <S> with its exclamation mark all the time) or because they think it's ugly <S> (I would personally not use a capital T for tweets, as it disrupts the standard rules of capitalization). <A> To tweet a tweet Twitter.com prefers the noun Tweet to be capitalised but dictionaries have it without the capital T <S> Please tweet this to your followers <S> I was tweeting about Twitter yesterday <S> Oxford dictionaries: tweet : <S> A posting made on the social media website <S> Twitter: <S> he started posting tweets via his mobile phone to let his parents know he was safe Oxford <S> Dictionaries.com <S> Twit : <S> A silly or foolish person. <S> Oxford <S> Dictionaries.com <S> Mostly used in British English <A> It also depends on the level of formality of your writing. <S> In the summer of 2010, the standards editor for the New York Times declared the policy for the NYT : <S> Except for special effect, we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. <S> And "tweet" – as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on Twitter – is all three. <S> Yet it has appeared 18 times in articles in the past month, in a range of sections. <S> ... <S> "Tweet" may be acceptable occasionally for special effect. <S> But let's look for deft, English alternatives: use Twitter, post to or on Twitter, write on Twitter, a Twitter message, a Twitter update. <S> Or, once you've established that Twitter is the medium, simply use "say" or "write."
| Twitter is a brand and, as such, you should follow the usage established by the brand itself.
|
When referring to a previously sent text, would you say 'I text you about that' or 'I texted you about that'? I realize texted is not a word, but text doesn't seem appropriate in the above sentence. What would make more sense? <Q> If text is used as a verb, which it is, then its past tense and past participle are texted . <S> As in <S> I texted you yesterday <S> I have texted you earlier today <S> I am texting you right now <S> I will text you tomorrow <A> I think "texted" is a perfectly acceptable, if informal word. <S> I regularly say that I "grepped" something (from 'global regular expression'). <S> It's a neologism - a newly emerging word. <S> If the informality bothers you, I would say that the more formal version would "text-messaged". <A> text , in that sense as a verb, was not a word until they adopted it for the new technology. <S> Personally I adopted <S> texted at the same time for past tense usage. <A> I agree that texted is not a "word". <S> But as far as words go, I would personally use texted. <S> It does sound awkward, however the official past tense of to text is texted . <S> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/text <S> He texted a long wish list to his parents two days before his eighteenth birthday. <A> See the byspels at both Merriam-Webster : <S> I texted her a little while ago. <S> I texted a message to her. <S> She just texted me back. <S> and the ODO : send (someone) a text message: if she was {sic} going to go <S> she would have <S> texted us <S> * <S> If she were going to go ... <S> (subjunctive)
| Texted is a word and is the past tense.
|
"I'm having" - an illness? What is I'm having in grammar terms? Is it something near the present, the near future? As in I'm having a party tomorrow ? Example (not about the near future), I'm having trouble coming up with a reliable method of comparing sets of data. Couldn't it be the following simpler version without any change in meaning? I have trouble coming up with a reliable method of comparing sets of data. <Q> In the question, the first sentence means that I am having trouble now while the second sentence means that I usually have trouble coming up with a reliable method of comparing sets of data. <S> The present continuous tense is also used to talk about something that will happen in the near future. <S> For example: I am going home tomorrow. <A> I am having trouble is written using the present continuous tense (also called present progressive tense ). <S> The progressive tenses are used to put emphasis on the described event being in progress; the progressive also indicates habitual actions ( I am walking a lot more now ). <S> The interpretation that I would give to the sentences you wrote is <S> "I'm having trouble coming up with a reliable method of comparing sets of data." <S> — you are searching a reliable method also in the moment you are saying/writing that. <S> "I have trouble coming up with a reliable method of comparing sets of data." <S> — You cannot find a reliable method for comparing sets of data and you are searching a reliable method when you are saying/writing that, or you stopped searching for such method. <S> There is a difference between I have trouble and <S> I had trouble , as the latter one means that you found a way to compare sets of data in a reliable way (and your trouble is done). <A> I'd like to touch on your description: <S> I'm having an illness . <S> It seems the progressive is not used with illnesses, at least not in the UK. <S> Medical problems should instead be referred to using have in the simple present tense . <S> Therefore, we should say: I have a cold. <S> rather than <S> I'm having a cold may imply other ridiculous meanings such as: eating or drinking: having dinner/ having a cold (eating dinner/eating a cold) hosting a social occasion: having a party/having a cold (hosting or giving a party/ hosting or giving a cold) <S> When I was at university, my English flatmates laughed at me when I said <S> "I'm having a cold." <S> That stuck with me ever since. <S> [No pity votes, please. :-)]
| I am having a cold. Am having is the present continuous tense and have is the simple present tense of the verb to have .
|
Are people being literal when they say "I like to think that …"? Sometimes people start a sentence with I like to think that . I like to think that my business plan will attract investors. Are they being literal? In other words, are they stating that they like something so they believe it? If so, do you think these speakers know that they are giving the listener a reason to distrust them? Or, are they employing an idiom that means I believe . Or, (after seeing Nick's answer, I am adding this third possibility) that people are employing an idiom that means I hope . <Q> I like to think introduces a pleasant or hopeful wish, but with some uncertainty. <S> I like to think that people are mostly good. <S> I like to think that I'm good in bed, but how should I know? <A> I like to think that is actually used literally most of the time. <S> On the other hand, they may simply be optimistic or hopeful about a thought, yet realize that there may be evidence to the contrary. <S> Still, the thought is nice to think. <S> In the following examples, the speaker likes the thought and most likely truly believes it too. <S> I like to think that my business plan will attract investors. <S> I like to think I'm a good person. <S> I like to think I can always count on my friends. <S> If the speaker adds context to the contrary of their <S> I like to think that statement, then the speaker likes to think the thought (because it's nice and/or feels good) and generally believes it, but doesn't necessarily believe it all the time or believes that there are exceptions to the thought. <S> This is the case in the following examples. <S> I like to think that I'm a good person, but I have my faults. <S> I like to think that I'm fit, but I could exercise more. <S> I like to think that I'm attractive, but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. <S> I would like to think has a very different meaning, in that the speaker doesn't actually think the thought, but acknowledges that it would be a nice thought if he actually believed it to be true (which he doesn't). <S> I'd like to think that I'm good at math ( <S> but I'm really not). <S> I would like to think that I could take a day off and the team would be able to finish the project without me ( <S> but I don't actually think they could). <S> I'd like to think that all people are always well-intentioned (but too much evidence contradicts such a nice thought that I would simply be naive to believe it). <A> (taking the phrase as "I'd like to think X...") <S> I don't think that the literal meaning is "I like something <S> so I believe it." <S> and either way there's no matter of distrust. <S> The literal meaning would more likely be "I would enjoy having the thought X, but there might be evidence that contradicts the thought". <S> What a statement "I'd like to believe X" is intended to mean <S> is that "I really hope X, there might be some evidence to the contrary <S> but I'm sticking with my hope". <S> So it is somewhat metaphorical/an understatement. <A> I recently interviewed where the interviewer asked, "You are really good at your job?" <S> My response, "I like to think so." <S> The idea was to convey my subjective view point of my job performance without displaying too much hubris or conceit. <S> In reality, a person's opinion is subjective and can not be stated with complete certainty. <S> Though most people just state things as fact, this statement confirms you acknowledge that it is all subjective belief. <A> Frequently the "I like to think" is actually dropping some conditional (or perhaps it is added in certain dialects?), such as would. <S> At any rate the "like to think part" is operating on some inability to actually think that way, hence the phrase indicates not a literal usage. <S> There is a functional usage, but not in the sense that "I enjoy thinking" would have. <S> I would like to believe in the goodness of mankind. <S> However, there is so much contradictory evidence when one goes through the history books. <S> The conditional is signalling that they want to hold a belief, but that there is some kind of barrier or burden of proof that they have difficulty overcoming.
| People like to think a certain thought, which they may actually believe (though not as a result of liking it).
|
Thanks or no thanks I'm currently translating an article of Joel Spolsky's which is called Thanks or No thanks and I'm a bit confused about the meaning of the title. The only two possible meanings that I could guess are the following: "Thanks!" or "No, thanks", referring to whether the character of the article will accept the offer, or he will reject it. Deciding whether or not we should thank the character Which one is correct? <Q> I would relate "Thanks" to the extrinsic motivation, and "no thanks" to the intrinsic motivation ("what drives you to do something regardless of whether you will receive a reward") <S> Joel mentions in his article. <S> In that regard, your second interpretation is closer to the point of the article. <S> I don't know the target language for your translation, but you need to consider the multiple meanings of "Thank" (gratitude, help from, because of, ...), all of them having some sense in the context of Joel's paper. <S> But a literal translation of "Thanks" might not have those same definitions, so you will need to rephrase and simplify this title. <A> Joel Spolsky is a good writer with a playful sense of humor who likes plays on words. <S> It is entirely possible that he could have used the title Thanks or No <S> Thanks as an echoic reference to the phrase " <S> It is also possible, since he was writing for a professional publication ( Inc. magazine), that the headline was added or altered by an editor. <S> Editors (especially of print publications, and Inc. was originally and remains also a print publication) <S> love punny healines (or heds , as the journalistic community refers to them). <S> Only Joel and the editor would know for sure, and they may have forgotten. <A> I think you could match the phrase "Thanks, but no thanks" since that is what the person in the story ended up "saying" by not accepting the conditioned offer. <S> But I would think you can just go <S> Спасибо или нет Спасибо <S> Actually, thinking more - you can use the Hamlet format: To thank or not to thank- with a bit of help from google translate and from the standard translation of Hamlet, would this work? <S> благодарить иль не благодарить
| Thanks but no thanks" (which one says to express gratitude at having been offered something while at the same time declining to accept it).
|
What are games with phrases used by English speaking people? What are word-games used by English speaking people? Mention any!Links to online games or descriptions are welcome! Context of question: something similar to How would an Englishman join “Awake and awkward” into one word? <Q> I'm ignoring the possible meaning of verbal maneuvers. <S> So, off the top of my head, there's hangman , guess the word or words before the hangman is drawn, <S> I spy with my little eye, <S> One person picks an object that he can see and says, " I spy with my little eye something beginning with (the first letter of that word). <S> " The other person then has to guess the object. <S> Kids often play this game on car journeys. <S> Pictionary , Possibly, charades , although this sometimes covers whole sentences rather than a word or two. <A> Boggle Apples to Apples ( spectacular game) <S> Taboo Balderdash <A> My all-time favorite word game is Superghosts <S> (a variation of Ghosts ). <S> In Ghosts, you start with a letter, then the next person appends a letter, and so on. <S> The object of the game is to append a letter without completing a word. <S> If you complete a word, you're out, and the game goes on without you <S> (i.e. you become a "ghost"). <S> Last person non-ghosted wins. <S> The strategy is to try add letters that will maneuver your opponents into completing a word. <S> You can challenge a person's letter if you do not believe there are any real words that contain the present combination of letters. <S> If you are right, the challenged one is ghosted; if you are wrong, you are. <A> Crosswords are extremely popular in America. <S> The most well known crosswords come from the New York Times. <S> You can play their older ones for free online or their daily new puzzles with a subscription. <A> Mornington Crescent is an english word game played mainly (but not exclusively) with London Underground stations and above-ground rail stations. <S> Depending on the local rules (which are many and varied) <S> other place names, current, historical or fictional may be played. <S> The primary object of the game is to be the first to say Mornington Crescent. <S> But you can't say it too soon, or you may be disqualified. <A> One of my favorites is HIPE . <S> It's sort of a riddle game where a player #1 gives player #2 a three or four letter combination of letters that exists somewhere in the middle of another word (known to player #1). <S> Player #2 has to figure out what the word is. <S> For example: LANN -> FLANNEL <S> The name "HIPE" comes from a particularly challenging instance of this game.
| scrabble , the word boardgame of choice. Superghosts adds the concept of prepending characters to the collection.
|
Is "the USA" singular or plural? On the one side, the USA is just one country. Logic says it should be, then, singular, just like the United Kingdom is. Example: The USA owns this domain. On the other side, if I however expand "the USA" to "the United States of America", I'd tend towards using plural — the noun the verb agrees with, "States," is definitely plural. Example: The United States of America own this domain. → The USA own this domain. What form should I prefer? <Q> Long answer: <S> Language Log has documented this in great detail . <S> In the 18th and much of the 19th centuries <S> United States was treated as plural, but in the latter half of the 19th century the singular usage became more common. <S> Today, the singular usage is the only accepted usage, except for the case of a few fixed phrases. <S> In fact, "in 1902 article in the Washington Post reported that Foster's work (which evidently was reprinted as a pamphlet) had persuaded the House of Representative's Committee on Revision of the Laws to rule that the United States should be treated as singular, not plural." <A> The United States of America own this domain <S> To me this sounds a little bit awkward, as the United States of America is one entity. <S> Actually, it's likely because the pluralism is buried in the middle of the term. <S> If you were to use simply The United States... <S> I would accept either own or owns, depending on what you're trying to emphasize: the collection of states as one entity or the collection as a group of states. <A> Both "USA" and "The United States of America" are a single proper noun. <S> They are names . <S> I don't believe you can point to a word within a name to call the name a plural. <S> Both names refer to a single entity. <S> They should be followed by the singular form. <S> The exception is in some British English where singular nouns representing collectives (companies, teams, governments, etc.) are treated as plural. <S> Some reading on that: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=877 <A> Very late additional answer: As others have noted, today "the United States of America" is just about always treated as singular. <S> However, you will occasionally hear someone refer to "these United States of America", or say "the United States are ...". <S> Sometimes this is done for political reasons: a hot subject of debate in the US is what the relative power of the federal government versus the state governments should be, and some who believe in greater autonomy for state governments will deliberately say "these United States" to emphasize the idea that there are, or should be, multiple sovereign state governments. <S> More often it's because people want to sound "old timey". <S> Readers Digest magazine used to have -- I'm not sure <S> if they still do, I haven't seen a copy in a while -- but they used to have a feature with jokes about American life that was called, "Life in These United States". <A> I think you chose whichever sounds best to you, as there's clearly not right or wrong. <S> Style guides, for example those internally used by the BBC, suggest you pick one and stick with it, at least for that article/feature. <A> Agree with the form you're using; "the USA owns", "the United States of America own". <S> The initialism doesn't need to be treated as if it were expanded. <A> As the great Civil War historian Shelby Foote put it, the War "... made us into an 'is'". <S> Before the War the States were referred to in the plural; afterwards, it was painfully clear that they form one entity: <S> the UNITED States, hence, one polity. <S> Of course, within the United States itself, one could refer to more than one State in the plural, as they retain some individuality (State constitutions, legislatures etc.) <S> within the national - and singular - whole.
| Short answer: in contemporary English, both USA and the long form United States of America are treated as singular nouns.
|
Is "Pick up those blocks" grammatically incorrect? I had someone correct me today as I instructed my child to "pick up those blocks." This person insisted that it should just be: Pick up those. since "those" is already plural. Is this person correct? <Q> The English demonstratives— this , that , these , and those —can all be used as either adjectives (“Those blocks are square”) or pronouns (“Those are square”). <S> Also, how would you distinguish “those blocks” from “those dolls” if you could only say “those”? <A> "Pick up those blocks" is perfectly correct. <S> The fact that "those" is plural doesn't mean that you can leave out the object, "blocks. <S> " How would the child know what to pick up? <S> There's something off about the sentence <S> "Pick up those," because the antecedent of "those" is missing. <S> "Should I pick up these or those?" <S> "Pick up those." <S> is OK. <S> But by itself, it sounds wrong. <A> Removing the noun isn't a function of something being a plural. <S> Your way is better. <A> It depends, actually, on the greater context. <S> Two piles of blocks on the floor and my mother says to me ' pick up those blocks '. <S> I start picking up one pile of blocks, but apparently it's the wrong pile because my mother says, ' no, pick up those '. <S> You can't make deixis work correctly without a shared referent.
| In the right context, it's fine, but only within a defining context.
|
When and how should I use multiple exclamation marks? Now, I never do this, but in some few cases I have seen people use multiple exclamation (or question) marks like this: Hey!!! Is that grammatically correct? (Or just okay). In case it is, how many marks are grammatically allowed/accepted? <Q> 'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.' <S> -- Eric, Terry Pratchett <S> More on this subject on the Discworld and Pratchett Wiki . <S> It's just for added emphasis. <S> I do not believe it is strictly grammatically correct, but then using ALLCAPS is not, but people do that too, emphasis once again. <A> It's fine in informal communication, email, poetry, and advertising headlines. <S> Three would be most common. <S> Two, four, or more is rarer. <S> It's never "officially" correct. <S> The people who write books about how punctuation should be used in English tolerate only two levels of enthusiasm: not enthusiastic and enthusiastic. <S> The idea that somebody might be very enthusiastic is too alarming to contemplate. <A> Never. <S> At least not for grammatical purposes. <S> More than one exclamation mark doesn't have any meaning. <S> An exclamation doesn't get more "exclamationy" by more marks. <S> Of course, you could still use them, but the interpretation would be entirely up to the reader. <S> Use of punctuation that doesn't have any grounds in grammar would be more like decoration. <S> I've seen people invent their own style of punctuation,,,like tripple <S> commas,,,but that of course doesn't have any meaning <S> either,,,it mostly makes the person look unstable... <S> Multiple exclamation marks are sometimes seen in leetspeek, often intermixed with intentional mistakes in the form of 1 , one or eleven : <S> pwnd!!!!11!!111!one!!eleven!!!! <A> "Keep your exclamation points under control. <S> You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. <S> If you have a knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful. <S> "(Elmore Leonard) <A> One is enough to convey your feelings in conventional English but people seem to be taking it symbolically to mark the full intensity of their emotion and playing with it sometimes putting more than three exclamatory marks for a simple wish; However, we do not take care of it when it comes to conversation. <A> Punctuation isn’t grammar. <S> There will rarely be a need for any at all in an academic paper. <S> If, on the other hand, you’re writing the captions and speech bubbles for a comic strip, let your maxim be, the more the better. <A> No. <S> Stop. <S> Period. <S> End. <S> That's it. <S> Do all those extras add to the meaning that I say No <S> and no more than that, grammatically? <S> Same with exclamation marks, I guess. <S> Or else it would undermine the power of the Wonder mark.
| Where and how often you use exclamation marks and how many you use at any one time is a matter of stylistic judgement.
|
Meaning of "bloody" in "Full Bloody Italian" I have once seen somebody in a chat expanding FBI ( Federal Bureau of Investigations ) as Full Bloody Italian , after I said I was from Italy. While I can understand to what the person who wrote it was referring, I don't understand what bloody would mean in the phrase. What does full bloody mean in full bloody Italian ? Should blooded be used instead of bloody , in this case? Would full blooded Italian be understood as who completely has Italian blood ? <Q> I am sure it is a misprint of full-blooded Italians which is a tag team <S> Full-blooded: Of unmixed ancestry; purebred. <S> Update: There is no such thing as Full Bloody Italian unless it is a mistake or a deliberate slur/joke on the Full-blooded. <S> Bloody is a swear word <S> so Bloody Italian would be said by someone annoyed by Italians. <S> I have never heard that there would be a lot of Italians in FBI either. <S> Historically a lot of Irish on the NYPD... <S> Try http://www.google.com/search?q=fbi+full+italian to see there is no popular usage of Bloody in that context <A> <A> What does full bloody mean in full bloody Italian? <S> I'm not sure of the intent, but possibly the word is used as an intensifier or mild expletive in the phrase. <S> I imagine the word chosen would be different if it were the FFI. <S> :) <S> Should blooded be used instead of bloody, in this case? <S> If it were meant as an intensifier (bloody Italians!) <S> , no. <S> Would full blooded Italian be understood as who completely has Italian blood? <S> Yes. <S> Full-blooded Italian would mean someone whose ancestry is completely Italian — or at least someone who is steeped in and fully exhibits the Italian culture.
| "Full bloody Italian" then would roughly translate to "completely g*ddamned well Italian". I believe in this case that "bloody" is intended as the mild oath (a contraction of "by our lady", if memory serves).
|
When ending an email, should I use "Yours faithfully" or "Best regards"? I've been taught to end business letters with "Yours faithfully" but I can see from my daily correspondence that "Best regards" is more commonly used but seems more informal. What term should be used and under what circumstances when writing email these days? NOTE: If other terms exist too (for colloquial use or extreme formalism) I'd like to know that too. <Q> The traditional British style would be to use yours faithfully for letters starting Dear Sir , Dear Madam , or something grander such as My Lord , and to use yours sincerely for the slightly less formal letters starting with a name such as Dear Mr Smith , Dear Baroness Jones , Dear Sir James etc. <S> The point of both is say that the writer has been telling the truth. <S> There are some minor religious connotations in yours faithfully so for example Rothschild's investment bank will often sign yours very truly . <S> There was an old-fashioned ending along the lines of <S> I have the honour, <S> Sir, to remain your obedient servant sometimes shortened to <S> I have the honour etc. <S> but that is now rarely seen. <S> Best regards <S> is clearly informal, and should be used for informal contexts. <S> Examples might include email or letters starting Dear Jane <A> When working in England, I've found that "Regards" is most common, even amongst parties that have a good relationship. <S> When working in Australia, "Best regards" is much more commonly used. <S> Using simply "Regards" would seem quite standoffish. <S> I'm not sure which is most applicable in Denmark. <A> I was always taught to use 'Yours faithfully' in letters when addressing someone I didn't know, and 'yours sincerely' for people I did. <S> However no such rules exist for emails, and using either of these valedictions would seem quite stuffy and overly formal. <S> I'd use them only (if you wished to use them at all) in formal, written correspondence. <S> 'Best regards' is a fairly standard valediction that is neither too formal or too informal and would be suitable for any business email. <S> Tragicomic's comment on your question gives you a number of suitable alternatives. <A> If you do know the name, you start with "Dear Mr X", and end with "Yours sincerely". <S> But again it would only be used when you know the person's name - and I would probably say, only when you actually know the person themselves. <A> I'm surprised no one's mentioned <S> Yours truly . <S> It strikes me as a shade less officious than yours faithfully but not as boilerplate as Best regards or its weird sister, Best . <A> Yours faithfully , used to end a letter, is chiefly British and it used in a formal letter to someone whose name you do not know. <S> Best regards can be generally used, and it would be my preference. <A> There is a trend that I approve to stop using those complimentary openings and closes. <S> They are relics and literally are usually ridiculous: <S> Dear Sir: <S> Your employment will be terminated on 31 March 2011. <S> Yours faithfully. <A> What I see increasingly in e-mail correspondence is 'BR'. <S> It seems to me that this, along with the strange and pointless-seeming 'best regards' itself, is essentially business-speak and meant to make the correspondence, and by extension the writer, seem 'professional'. <S> I can't bring myself to use it myself, so in such correspondence I tend to sign myself best <S> Christopher <S> But I doubt it will catch on. <A> Despite the name, emails are not letters. <S> Many people try to equate the two, but they are completely different mediums, and different rules have historically applied. <S> In former times many people had very limited bandwidth and email storage capacity, and would in fact get annoyed (if not downright hostile) with people who put large amounts of unnessecary information in an email. <S> This includes salutations (which are redundant with the email's automatically attached header), and excessive or unnessecary signature/footer information. <S> Return contact information used to be common in footers, just in case it got somehow mangled in the email header. <S> However, it has always been considered common etiquette (aka: "netiquette") to keep footers to 4 lines or less. <S> A lot of this has been formalized in RFC 1855 (section 2.1.1 is for email). <S> These days those issues are by-and-large moot. <S> However, getting right to the point, and quitting when you are done, are still considered better form that adding a whole lot of polite chuff around the meat of your conversation. <S> For further detail, you may consider picking up a copy of The Elements of E-Mail Style , although it is about 20 years old, so it may be a bit dated.
| However, as you note, "Best [or kind] regards" is much more common these days. The formal rule, at least in Britain, is that if you're writing a letter to a person whose name you don't know, you start with "Dear Sir or Madam", and you end with "Yours faithfully".
|
Is "best regards" a pleonasm? If the meaning of regards is best wishes , would not best regards (used to express friendliness in greetings, especially at the end of letters) a pleonasm, in the context of letters? Best regards, kiamlaluno Best best wishes, kiamlaluno <Q> I think there are two main points here: <S> Regards <S> does not only, nor originally, mean best wishes . <S> In some particular contexts — most often, as closing salutations in letters or emails — they’re indeed effectively synonymous. <S> But regards has other meanings as well. <S> Originally, regards carried no specific connotations of being good ; it just so happened that one of its most frequent usages was for sending people kind wishes, and so in that context, it picked up those connotations. <S> Even if that were its only meaning, synonyms are not exact , and meaning is not substitutive — synonyms are very, very rarely so exactly synonymous that you can always substitute them for each other without changing meanings. <S> For instance, as synonyms go, puppy and young dog are pretty close — close enough that one might reasonably say “ puppy is defined as young dog ”. <S> (Indeed, checking a couple of dictionaries, it is.) <S> But a young puppy is not redundant: we know it means (in most contexts) <S> a dog that is young even for a puppy. <S> Nor is an old puppy an oxymoron. <S> In isolation, puppy means almost exactly young dog ; but it’s picked up different connotations, so in many contexts, replacing puppy with young dog can change the meaning of a phrase significantly. <S> This is why pleonasm is often rather effective: ‘technical’ redundancy can be an illusion. <S> Substituting synonyms to check whether something makes sense is often helpful nonetheless, as a very rough rule of thumb. <S> But when it doesn’t work, one shouldn’t be too surprised. <A> a) <S> The answer to the question is <S> No. <S> You might regard someone with a complete lack of respect ! <S> So using regards alone doesn't clearly show how you feel about someone you're corresponding with. <S> Of course in correspondence using "regards" alone doesn't have a negative connotation and is used to show good wishes. <S> b) <S> Sometimes pleonastic usage is welcomed. <S> The usages are: Idiomatic expressions Professional and scholarly use <S> Stylistic preference <S> Literary uses For getting more information visit <S> Wikipedia <S> So for emphasizing or making the purpose clear we might use redundancies. <S> For example: "This was the most unkindest cut of all." <S> —William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar. <A> No, because I might regard you with disdain, or my worst regards. <A> Most people probably just understand it as something like "good wishes" or some other non-superlative and bland but positive way to express friendship. <A> You can also give someone kind regards, or warm regards, so specifying best regards is not redundant. <S> As PLL points out, "regards" by itself does not equate to "best wishes"; I think of it in this usage as "the worth or estimation in which something or someone is held" ( Merriam-Webster definition 4a). <S> In effect, you're closing with a little note letting the person know that you have a good opinion of them. <A> Regards is used to hide the emotional content of your salutation. <S> I once had a manager who told me there is no room for emotion in business, which I do not find to be true. <S> However, when needing to maintain a professional air surrounding emails and letters, regards is a snappy quick way of saying (more often then not) 'best wishes'; which therefore makes 'best regards' a redundancy.
| So Best regards at the end of a letter, if it got noticed at all, would simply be read as equivalent to Best wishes . Regards doesn't carry with it a very open and public sense of best that you're talking about.
|
Is it redundant to append "bye" to "speak to you later"? Are the closing greetings "see you later", "talk to you later", and the like sufficient to end a conversation (especially a phone conversation) or must they be succeeded by "bye" or another word of definite finality? In other words, is it redundant to append "bye" to "speak to you later" or a similar wish? <Q> I think it definitely has a use in some cases. <S> The use is to get the person on the other end of the line to actually stop talking so you can end the call. <S> Usually one starts signalling a desire to end the conversation by abandoning substantive answers in favor of simple affirmatives, transitioning at last to repeated versions of good-bye . <S> Here's how such a dialogue sounds from that side of the conversation: <S> Yeah, that's a great idea <S> , I'll take a look ... <S> yeah ... <S> uh-huh ... <S> I'll have a look ... <S> uh-huh ... <S> yeah ... <S> yeah ... <S> uh .... <S> uh, OK ... <S> OK ... <S> OK, talk to you later ... <S> bye .... bye-bye. <S> [Hangs up] <S> I made up my own term to describe this kind of dragged-out phone-call-ending: conversational dieseling (from dieseling as used in automobile parlance). <A> You can definitely say "see you later" or "talk to you later" as the final utterance before ending your conversation. <S> You can add "bye" afterwards if you choose — it wouldn't sound strange, but it is not needed. <A> It is redundant from an information standpoint as you communicated your desire to hang up. <S> With that being said, however, phone conversations can have tricky social protocols that vary from place to place. <S> Many people treat a mutual bye (or goodbye ) as a necessary step to end a conversation politely. <S> (Think of it as an informal, though widespread, voice procedure .) <S> Usually it manifests something like the following: <S> A: <S> Ok, I'll talk to you later. <S> B: <S> Alright, bye. <S> A: <S> Bye Mutual Hangup. <S> In some locales, its common on calls to friends/family to make up an excuse for why you need to end the conversation, even if its obvious to both parties that you've just run out of things to say. <S> Presumably, this is due to wanting to be especially polite and indicate that you find the person so delightful that you'd love to just keep chatting away if it wasn't for that darn cat that needed to be let out or dishes that needed to be washed, etc. <A> Yes it's redundant, and yes it's annoying, but <S> my mother (sorry Mum) does it all the time. <S> I speculate it came about as a way of softening potential awkwardness when terminating a phone conversation. <S> So, rather than simply hang up, my mother (for instance) repeats (more than once) <S> the word "bye" in a decreasing volume and tone, thus blurring the end of the exchange, until one or both hang up. <S> That, or its a nervous tic. <S> Oh, and also see this . <A> "See you later" and "bye" may be redundant in meaning; however, they have some meaning if you examine the different levels of discourse in a conversation. <S> Here are two discourse-level observations. <S> First, the sentences in conversations tend to get shorter to signal its end. <S> (For example, think of a couple having a conversation in which one party answers in monosyllables. <S> He may be indicating that he wants the conversation to end.) <S> Second, there are no gestures or body language over the telephone. <S> The parties are signaling their mutual desire to end the conversation without recourse to the gestures of shifting weight, pointing feet toward the door, closing a notebook, or getting up. <S> "OK, talk to you next week." <S> "OK, See you." <S> "See you." <S> "Bye." <S> Hope that helps. <S> Bye. <A> Since 'bye' is a shortened version of 'good bye', which is derived from Middle English 'godbwye', meaning "God be with ye", it is not out of line to say "See you later, bye", litterally "See you later, God be with you." <A> In conversation, what is heartfelt is never redundant. <S> But what is said out of habit and often repeated each time can be redundant. <S> "See you later"/"talk to you later", if used to inform and supply some yet unknown intention, is not redundant. <S> But "talk to you later" used to inform one's purposeful intention to call someone back that evening, is necessary information and therefore not redundant.
| The other person may respond with "bye" (but could also say other things like "see you"), but it is not necessary for you to then say "bye" in return if you have already said "see you later" (although there is nothing wrong with it).
|
What is an "unsurance" In semi-offical letter from non-native speaker the "medical unsurance" is offered to me. What is an unsurance really? U & I as required in comments: <Q> You should try to determine if the letter is meant seriously, or if it's all a joke. <S> If it's a serious letter, it's just a typo of insurance . <S> As RegDwight suggested the letters U and I are close to each other, so it's an error easily made. <S> If it's a joke letter, it's a word play, probably between the words insurance and unsure . <S> It's then insinuating that the medical insurance would not be so reliable. <S> It may be written to resemble a Freudian slip, which is when you accidentally say what you think instead of what you ment to say. <A> "unsurance" is almost certainly a typographical error, made carelessly or ignorantly, as is often the case in offshore phishing emails promising illusory benefits. <S> I'm guessing that someone is trying to sell the recipient a bogus insurance policy for some upfront fee. <S> The insurance will prove to be illusory, and the fee will disappear into the scammer's wallet. <A> It should have read medical insurance .
| This is a typographical error, as the word * unsurance does not exist.
|
Is it proper to omit periods after honorifics (Mr, Mrs, Dr)? I've been reading the Economist lately and they apparently don't punctuate honorifics like "Mr.", "Mrs.", e.g. The popular rejection of Mr Mubarak offers the Middle East’s best chance for reform in decades. I believe it's a British magazine, but is such a use proper or common in American English? <Q> It's not too common in American English, and not strictly proper. <S> I believe it's common in British English, and most likely perfectly proper. <S> (I've got both American and British Harry Potter books, and the British ones leave out those periods.) <A> In British English, these abbreviations have been in use so very long that for the most part, they are considered first-class words in their own right and thus no longer retain the full stop at all times. <S> It is however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation. <S> Mid-sentence is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop cropping up in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality. <A> I read somewhere once that if the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word -e.g. <S> Mister, Mistress, Doctor- <S> then no closing full stop is necessary. <S> That said, N.Americans will always place one at the end of those honorifics. <S> [Because id est and <S> exempli gratia <S> are two separate words <S> , they're properly abbreviated as i.e. and e.g..] <A> The two most widely followed style guides in mainstream U.S. publishing are The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook . <S> They agree in endorsing the use of a period after Mr or <S> Mrs . <S> From AP Stylebook (2002): <S> Mr., Mrs. <S> The plural of Mr. is Messrs. ; the plural of Mrs. is Mmes. <S> These abbreviated spellings apply in all uses, including direct quotations. <S> And from Chicago <S> (fifteenth edition, 2003): 15.16 Social titles. <S> Always abbreviated, whether preceding the full name or the surname only, are such social titles as the following: <S> Ms. Mrs. Messrs. Mr. Dr. Publishers that follow either of these guides require a period after such social-title abbreviations, unless their house style guide overrules the standard guide on this point. <S> As a counterpoint, MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing , second edition (1998) opposes using formal titles at all: 3.6.2 Titles of Persons <S> In general, do not use formal titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Reverend) in first or subsequent references to men or women, living or dead (Churchill, not Mr. Churchill; Mead, not Professor Mead; Hess, not Dame Hess; Montagu, not Lady Montagu). <S> [Exceptions for certain "women in history," such as Mrs. Humphrey Ward and Mme de Staël, and for certain titled nobles, such as Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, omitted.] <S> The tendency in British style appears to be against end punctuation of social titles. <S> The Oxford Style Manual (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and the like without periods. <S> For example: Titles used as identification or clarification after a name normally are not capitalized, especially in US usage): [Relevant examples:] <S> Mr Gladstone, the prime minister; Dr Primrose, the parish vicar <S> And in the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" section of The Oxford Style Manual , the entries are similarly consistent: <S> Dr doctor (before name) <S> Mr Mister. <S> pl. <S> Messrs <S> Mrs Missis, Missus (corruptions of Mistress) <S> Ms <S> the title of a woman whether or not married (no point) <S> Oxford doesn't apply its "no point" rule across the board, however. <S> The style manual takes the opposite approach in its treatment of military abbreviations—Cpl., Sgt., Lt., Capt., Maj., and Gen., for example—and of Jr. after proper names. <A> I was taught in school (British, Primary) that a Full Stop or Period was used at the end of Abbreviations i.e. it stood for the rest of the letters. <S> So - Rev. for Rev*erend <S> *, Capt. <S> for Capt*ain*, Col., Prof. etc <S> But Mr, Dr, and the anomalous <S> Mrs are contractions. <S> A Full Stop after them conveys no added meaning. <S> Logically, I suppose, Mr should be writtern M.r and Dr D.r, but that would be too confusing and, in any case, the meaning is clear without any Full Stop following. <S> That is not true of at least some abbreviations e.g. 'Rev <S> the engine, Rev.' [your getaway driver is a clergyman!] <S> ; 'Col' means the lowest point between two mountain peaks; 'capt' is a poetic variant of 'capped' and appears on Shakespeare's memorial in Westminster Abbey; 'The Cloud capt Tow'rs,[http://www.westminster-abbey.org/ <S> our-history/people/william-shakespeare ] <A> Americans tend to place a period after Mr , Mrs , etc. <S> The British and related speakers often don't. <A> I think it depends on the style guide. <S> so: <S> eg, ie, vs, Dr, Mr, etc. <S> This is probably just the magazine's house style. <A> I follow the following convention: <S> Male: <S> Mr. Female: Mrs., Miss, and Ms " <S> No need to put a period after Ms (as in, Ms Prescott) since it's not an abbreviation." <S> -Lionel Trilling Professor in the Humanities, Guggenheim Fellow, and founder of the Logic and Rhetoric <S> writing course at Columbia University, Professor Edward Tayler (Self-Help, page 8). <S> I take his advice on style above anybody in Chicago. <S> I am indifferent about the American way of doing things otherwise. <S> I should like to actually use the period after Miss, for indicating the presence of more letters, as described by Fowler, but it seems unpatriotic.
| American Medical Association style is to omit periods in all abbreviations except middle initials,
|
What is the plural of "scenario"? What is the plural of "scenario"? I have always used "scenarios", but have recently come across "scenaria" and "scenarii". Should I be treating it as an Italian or Latin word? <Q> Here are the stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English and the British National Corpus : COCA BNCscenarios 3683 <S> 216scenaria <S> 0 <S> 0scenarii <S> 0 <S> 0 <S> Merriam-Webster , Wiktionary , the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and the Collins English Dictionary only mention scenarios . <A> I am sure they were hypercorrecting: http://www.google.com/search?q=scenario+plur <S> However they might have been old Italians: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A9nario <S> Le mot provient de l’italien scenario, « décor de théâtre ». <S> En français, le mot s’est d’abord utilisé sans accent comme en italien, mais cet usage est archaïque. <S> Ni le pluriel italien archaïque scenarii (ancienne orthographe[1]), ni sa variante francisée scénarii (avec accent aigu) <S> ne <S> sont d'usage courant : <S> le pluriel scénarios est le plus commun en français[2]. <S> Selon l’Académie française, en effet, le mot scénario étant français ( <S> en italien, il n'aurait pas d'accent aigu), le pluriel « scénarios » s'impose - exactement comme pour lavabos ou pianos.[3] <S> The word comes from Italian scenario , “theatre scenery”. <S> In French, the word was originally used without an accent as in Italian, but this is archaic. <S> Neither the archaic Italian plural scenarii (old spelling[1]), nor its French variant scénarii (with acute accent) is currently used: the plural scénarios is most common in French. <S> Indeed, according to the Académie Française, since scénario is a French word (in Italian, there would be no acute accent), the plural scénarios is required — just as in lavabos , pianos .[3] <S> A Scenario in Italian is Sceneggiatura according to Wikipedia. <S> Not what we are looking for here according to Francesco <A> Wiktionary reports that the plural of scenario is scenarios . <S> It also reports that the "hypercorrect" plural of scenario is held to be scenarii (which is nonstandard and rare) since its etymology is Italian. <S> From scenario, the terminal o having been replaced with an i to form its plural, as per the Italian -o <S> → -i pattern for forming plurals, by analogy with concerti and virtuosi. <S> However, the plural of the Italian word scenario is scenari, making “scenarii” etymologically inconsistent. <S> The Corpus of Contemporary American English reports 3683 instances of scenarios being used and none of scenarii . <A> “scenarios” is the correct one. <S> And by the way, in Italian the plural is “scenari” (single i). <A> Senario is a greek word. <S> The correct plural is senaria.
| According to Merriam-Webster and the OED , the accepted plural of scenario is scenarios .
|
Humorous synonyms for "lie" What are some funny synonyms for to tell a lie ? E.g. fib , pull a Bill Clinton , etc. <Q> Telling porkies . <S> (British & commonwealth slang, from rhyming pork pies = lies .) <S> Spinning a yarn . <S> (Esp. for long, elaborate lies.) <S> Being full of <S> **shit . <S> (For a serious but barefaced attempt to pass a lie off as true. <S> Also with horseshit , bullshit , or euphemistically just it .) <S> Pulling (someone’s) <S> leg . <S> (Esp. for humorous, inconsequential lies.) <S> Having (someone) on . <S> (Brit/commonwealth again, I think? <S> Not to be confused with having it off .) <S> Edit: <S> oh, and how could I forget the classic euphemism: Being economical with the truth . <A> I always liked "bamboozle." <A> prevaricate : to lie. <S> slip one past : to get away with a (usually small) deceit, often used in the negative: "You nearly slipped that one past me." <S> pull the wool over one's eyes : to successfully deceive someone. <S> pull a fast one : <S> To lie your way out of trouble, generally off-the-cuff, spur-of-the-moment talking. <A> Cry wolf means to raise a false alarm (rather than to lie in general).
| tell a tall tale : relate a story that starts off believably but eventually is obviously false. "Hoodwink" and "hornswoggle" are good too.
|
Why are people from Sunderland called "mackems"? In the north-east of England, if nowhere else, people from Sunderland are called "mackems". Does anyone know why this should be? Wikipedia suggests a number of possibilities. Are any of these correct? <Q> As Sunderland was once known for shipbuilding there was only 2 main forms of employment...shipbuilding by day and stealing from the ships they'd helped build by night. <S> Apparently there was a saying " <S> they mak'em <S> then tak'em <S> " meaning they build (the ships) then steal from them. <S> The mak'em bit stuck <S> and so we are now known as 'makems' or so they say!!? <A> The Wikipedia entry has sourced its answer from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for 'mackem' . <S> As far as word origins are considered, probably as authentic as it gets. <S> EDIT : <S> As it seems that everyone cannot access the OED link, here's an excerpt. <S> There are two possible origins attributed: Probably with allusion to the phrase mack <S> 'em and tack <S> 'em <S> and variations thereof, freq. <S> said to refer to the shipbuilding industry of the region or.. <S> Perhaps partly also with allusion to the pronunciation of make typical of Wearside, as contrasted with that of Tyneside. <A> Geordies would say "maek" and "taek", Wearsiders "mak" and "tak". <S> Nothing to do with shipbuilding. <S> There was probably more shipbuilding on the Tyne than the Wear. <S> I should add that my uncle and my parents were born in the 1920s and knew this usage from childhood. <S> It's not a recent coinage. <A> It may have been a derogatory term at first. <S> As the people of Sunderland Mak or made the ships but all the money stayed in Newcastle! <S> As a mackem of today and a proud inhabitant of Sunderland <S> it is a local term we love as it defines us as separate from the people of Newcastle. <S> The most insulting term you can call anyone from Sunderland is a geordie . <A> I'm a born and bred Sunderland lad and a proud Mackem. <S> I can confirm the term comes from the ship-building history as we used to "Mak" the ships, or make the ships. <A> <A> To just add to the comment about "Mackem" also being related to football, the word effectively seems to have two meanings now: someone who's from Sunderland, and someone who supports Sunderland AFC. <S> Clearly, many or most Sunderland fans will be from the city anyway, so there's no distinction for those people. <S> But, someone from outside Sunderland, and who therefore isn't a Mackem in the "traditional" sense of the word, will be referred to as a Mackem if they support that team. <A> As a child in Newcastle, it was explained to me that the Wearside (Sunderland) ship-builders would vigorously underquote those on Tyneside (Newcastle). <S> They would make the ships, but run out of resources, and hence the more reputable shipbuilders on Tyneside would take the partially finished ships and complete the work. <S> Hence "They mack'em and we tack'em". <S> This is translated as one of the following: <S> They make them and we take them <S> They make them <S> and we tack them, i.e. fix them up. <S> As you might guess, this explanation was given to me by a loyal and wildly biased Geordie, who would never have a good word to say about "the great unwashed" from local rivals Sunderland, so is added more as an aside, rather than genuine etymology.
| It comes from when miners, Geordies (Newcastle) called Sunderland makems. My uncle was from Sunderland and was clear that it was a reference to the difference in accent which differentiated a Tynesider from a Wearsider. It's also to do with football and the rivalry, but the name "Mackem" came from the mining days and is an insulting word towards people of Sunderland.
|
Differences between "price point" and "price" Apart from its use among the bean-counters who talk about maximising company profits, I can't understand why price point has spread so widely in popular American parlance. As far as I can tell, the term is exactly synonymous with price ; do people use it the way they do the word 'monies' — to sound clever on the cheap — or is there actually a difference between the two terms? <Q> It basically signifies that one is discussing price specifically in terms of how it relates to the demand curve . <S> If I had to guess, I'd say its gratuitous use probably started with conversations between corporate executives and accountants where the term was being used precisely, moving from there to other executives who were at the meeting, didn't understand the term but thought it sounded good and so tried to imitate the people who knew what they were talking about, gradually spreading out into the culture from there. <S> So, yeah, fundamentally people imitating each other to try to sound clever. <A> People can use a phrase used in a specific context and give it a different, or a wider usage. <S> The phrase price point doesn't seem so widely spread. <S> Looking at the Corpus of Contemporary American , I get the following data (the chart reports the frequency per million). <S> The chart shows how many times the phrase price point is used. <S> As comparision, this chart reports the frequency of phrases where the word price is not followed by point (which includes also the case where the word price is followed by a punctuation mark). <A> There is no difference. <S> For any use of "price point", one can substitute the word "price" as a synonym. <S> The widespread use of the term price point reflects the insidious encroachment of corp-speak and jargon into everyday parlance. <A> Price point refers to a hypothetical, potential price. <S> We expect to sell 100 loaves of bread at the $2 price point. <S> Price is used to refer to an actual price. <S> The price for a loaf of bread is $2.
| Price point means a point on a scale of possible prices at which something might be marketed ; its meaning is different from the meaning of price , which is (principally, but not only) the amount of money expected, required, or given in payment for something . The reasons people would "adopt" a phrase giving it a different meaning, or would use a phrase in contexts different from the original one can be many, and include imitation.
|
How long does it take to mull something over? I used the phrase "we'll mull it over" in an e-mail. My intent was to let the readers know that we (the team) needed to give it due consideration and come up with a considered response to their obviously important question. To my mind, we clearly needed to think things over, but for how long? I meant overnight (though didn't say so), but my audience assumed we would take a week. What period of time (if any) does the use of the word mull convey? <Q> If you're mulling wine, you heat gently, and add spices; it might take twenty minutes. <S> If you're mulling over a life-changing decision, you might take several weeks, possibly longer. <S> Anywhere in between might be counted as mulling. <A> I don't believe that the word mulling in your context has any period of time associated with it. <S> It refers to the act of thinking something over or considering something in one's own mind or as a group. <S> Your audience may have assumed a week for a response simply because they estimated it would take that long. <S> If their question was indeed important you may have been better off giving them an explicit timing for your response: "...we'll mull it over and give you an answer tomorrow." <A> Mulling something over is vague time-wise; you can safely assume a week, and probably longer. <S> The phrase is troublesome not just because it is vague, but also doesn't convey a sense of serious consideration; it sounds half-hearted. <S> It's best to avoid it in a business e-mail. <A> To mull , in the context given from the question, means think about (a fact, proposal, or request) deeply and at length . <S> The word is a little vague on how much time thinking will take. <S> Instead of mull <S> you can use ponder , <S> consider , think over, think about , <S> reflect on , or give some thought to . <A> In this particular case, it could very well have meant "We have no intention of getting back to you EVER, but we're not going to come out and say that, we're going to leave you hanging." <S> It is the fact that it is so vague that allows it to be used this way. <S> In business or other negotiation/communication, being anything less than definitive frequently means either saying "No" or revealing your own lack of understanding. <A> To expect your mail recipient to consult a dictionary for the literal meaning of to mull would be stretching it a bit too far. <S> The impression it gives is one of casual dismissal, which is not appropriate in business communications. <A> I always thought the word mull was associated with the Old English word fortnight (two weeks).
| If you meant "a week" it would have been courteous, more informative, and an indication of sincerity to have said "we'll mull it over and get back to you in a week". Mulling takes an indeterminate time.
|
Equivalent of "former" and "latter" for more than 2 items Former and latter are valid only when there are two choices. If I have a list of more than two items, is there an elegant way to say the first one or the last one ? <Q> Of winter, spring, and summer, I find the last most enjoyable. <A> Interesting question. <S> First and last will do, but suppose you wanted to refer to the middle option, or the fourth option? <S> Consider for example a scenario where a party of adventurers must choose from a list of options; <S> Go forward into the forest, singing a song of sixpence <S> Go back to base to retrieve some hats <S> Go back to base to dispute the pronunciation of the word "tomato" <S> Stay put, weave baskets, and hope for rescue Stay put, weave baskets, and try to summon a helpful genie <S> Now if I were in this party considering these options, I might suggest we take the second option, but it is far more likely that I say something like we need our hats , implying that we should take the second option where we also go back to base. <S> In other words, with more than two options, the most elegant way is to refer to the unique attributes of the option. <S> In fact, with just two options I still think this is more elegant than <S> former and latter since it relieves the reader of the burden of remembering which is which. <A> I don't think there's anything inelegant about first or last . <S> You can always use ultimate , penultimate , and antepenultimate if you want to be certain no one understands you. <A> 'latter' is NOT only valid when there are two items! <S> According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the 2nd meaning of 'latter': <S> 2 : of, relating to, or being the second of two groups or things or the last of several groups or things. <S> This also puzzled me, a non-native speaker in the beginning. <A> There are other words you can use in place of "first" and "last" - for example, "foremost" and "lattermost" - but whether that is more elegant , or just more pretentious, could be debatable. <A> It has to be 'first' and 'last', as they are simply the superlatives of which 'former' and 'latter' are the comparatives.
| You can say first and last (without one ).
|
When to use "have" and "have got" When do I use have and have got ? Are "I have the answer" and "I've got the answer" both correct? <Q> I have the answer <S> sounds more formal and somber, and it is often used as a statement of fact or as a direct response to the questions: <S> Do you have the answer? <S> Who has the answer? <S> etc. <S> I've got the answer <S> /I have got the answer is more of an eureka moment remark, something one is likely to hear often in such a place as a college physics common room where students are bashing heads on seemingly intractable problems. <S> The have got construction is more of a Britishism. <S> In the US, one would be more likely to hear: <S> I got the answer <S> /Got the answer <A> "Have got" is certainly more informal. <S> So if you never use "have got", you will be fine. <S> However, if you want to use "have got", this is how it works. <S> Have and "have got" are sometimes interchangeable and sometimes not. <S> When have is being used as a modal verb (or helper verb), then you cannot use "have got". <S> I have been there before. <S> *I have got been there before. <S> (wrong) <S> This is true for possessive uses of <S> have : <S> I have three dollars. <S> I have got three dollars. <S> *I had got three dollars. <S> (wrong, if you mean possession and not acquisition) <S> *I will have got three dollars. <S> (same as above) And also obligation: <S> I have to go. <S> I have got to go. <S> *I had got to go. <S> (wrong) <S> *I will have got to go. <S> (wrong) <S> Lastly, if you are constructing an imperative sentence, you can only use have : <S> Here, have an apple. <S> * <S> Here, have got an apple. <S> (wrong) <S> A note on "have got" when referring to acquisition: this is not possible in US/Canadian English, where "have gotten" is the preferred form. <A> I have the answer and <S> I've got the answer <S> are both correct, yes. <S> The latter is more colloquial and informal; avoid it in formal writing. <S> Otherwise, use whatever sounds good to you at the time.
| When have is being used as a main verb, you can replace it with "have got", but only in the present tense .
|
Where to insert comma(s)? Compare these: She tried, and, as expected, failed. She tried, and as expected, failed. She tried and, as expected, failed. She tried and as expected, failed. She tried and (as expected) failed. The first seems most correct, while the last seems most elegant. Is it all a matter of taste/style? I'm also curious of these: 6. She tried, and failed. 7. She tried and failed. Is there ever a need for the first form? <Q> I usually follow Strunk & White and only deviate from their rules if strict adherence would result in something that breaks the flow of reading/thought. <S> Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas. <S> Place a comma before <S> and or but introducing an independent clause. <S> Do not join independent clauses by a comma. <S> This points to number 3 being the correct sentence. <S> As for the last two, I definitely prefer number 7 as well. <S> However: She tried, and she failed. <S> And finally She tried; she failed. <S> As commonplace as it may sound, I would add: never judge any sentence as it stands by itself. <A> I'm always struggling with over-comma-fication, meaning my own inclination to put in too many. <S> [en- <S> and em-dashes are one (lazy) way around this proclivity, as is paying close attention to how the expository pieces in The New Yorker are punctuated.] <S> I'd choose sentence #3 in your first sampling. <S> It segregates "as expected" (which is incidental to the main event) but otherwise keeps tried and and together, drawing the reader forward and so letting the sentence flow. <S> By the same token, I think sentence #7 in the second set is preferable. <S> It's a straight-forward exposition wherein the comma's extraneous. <S> If you really wanted to build up tension, use ellipses or an en-dash -before or after the "and"- to signal as much instead. <A> In regards to example 6, the comma would be more appropriate if the next word was "but": <S> She tried, but failed. <S> In your example "She tried and failed", if the sentence continues after the "and failed" you very often see parentheses around the "and failed" also: She tried (and failed) to... <A> It depends on the style, complexity, mood/insinuation/stress and standard of the whole thing. <S> My use (colloquially, semi-formal and formal) would be 2 or 5 or 2 without the second comma. <S> Same with the second choice, it depends if you are insinuating/stressing that she was expected to try, or expected to fail, or it is just noted.
| Depending on the mood and style you want to set, anything might be OK in the right context.
|
What is currently the most obscene word in British English? In a recent question , I realized that while I know what's currently considered the most obscene word in American English ("cunt"), I am told that word is much more unexceptional and workaday in British English, and I do not actually know what word does bear the distinction of most obscene in that vernacular. So, what is it? Looking for current rather than historical usage, obscenity rather than taboo for reasons other than obscenity (as with racial slurs in the United States), and obscene words rather than obscene concepts -- that is, the taboo attaches to the word itself . If it varies between major British English dialects, give me whatever flavors you know. For purposes of this question, "most obscene" means that somebody using the word in a context where obscenity is not normally expected will most commonly be thought to be performing the greatest violation of social convention for reason of the word's obscenity. <Q> According to research conducted by the British Broadcasting Standards Commission (PDF report at http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/~/media/Files/ASA/Reports/ASA_Delete_Expletives_Dec_2000.ashx ) and the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (PDF report at http://www.bsa.govt.nz/assets/Research/What-Not-to-Swear-Full-BSA2010.pdf ), the answer appears to most likely also be "cunt" in at least two major branches of British English. <S> Apparently I was laboring under a misapprehension about its perceived severity outside of the United States. <A> I think that in recent years racial epithets have come to be regarded as being at least as offensive as sexual words like 'cunt' and 'fuck'. <S> My definition of 'obscene' would therefore include words like 'nigger', 'Paki', 'kyke/kike', 'chink' and so on. <S> I despair of the human race. <A> And I think it's a perfectly valid question as well, by the way. <S> Have you seen the movie Atonement ? <S> It makes use of the word cunt and its standing. <S> Bit of a cuntish movie though, probably not worth watching. <A> I can't think of anything stronger than cunt, to be honest, and even that depends on context. <S> (As an aside, I think I'd have to side with @chaos on the debate about whether 'relative obscenity' is a meaningful expression. <S> Even though different people may have different levels of tolerance, I think that in a given society, most will agree on what is 'generally acceptable' or not, and will know how to adapt their vocabulary depending on the company present). <A> Is it coincidence? <S> Because here in Chinese, the most offensive word towards a person also stands for the outer female sex organ. <S> I Don't know if you guys from other countries have words with similar meanings that can be used this way.
| It's cunt in Britain too.
|
What does ‘Sport’ mean when you say ‘the new Apple iPad sports cameras for video conferencing’? I found a phrase, ‘the new tablet of iPad can sport at least one camera for video conferencing’ in today’s Washington Post article reporting iPad 2. I guess ‘Sport’ here implies ‘chase (move) after plural objects' or ‘Catch' them, because it says 'at least one camera.' But I’m not accustomed to the word, ‘sport’ used in a such way. COD at hand gives only two meanings of ‘Sport’ as a verb, - 1. to have or wear sth in a proud way so that everyone can see. 2. to play in a happy and lively way. In addition to the above definition, an English Japanese dictionary (Readers Plus Dictionary) provides ‘play with other sex’ and ‘give’ as slang usages, and I can’t find the definition anything near to the context used in the following sentence. What does ‘Sport’ here exactly mean? Is this common way of using ‘Sport’ as a verb? A report from the Wall Street Journal says that Apple has begun production of the next generation of the iPad. The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, claims that the new tablet will be thinner and lighter, will sport at least one camera for video conferencing and will have better graphics and a more memory. <Q> This is an established use of the word sport ; it is fairly informal, so I wouldn't write it in an academic paper, but it is not particularly unusual. <S> The relevant definition of the transitive verb, sport , from Merriam-Webster : to display or wear usually ostentatiously : boast. " <S> sporting expensive new shoes " <A> It's a verb that is used in the same sense as "features". <S> For example: The car sports a brand-new navigation UI <A> Oishi-san: <S> @Kosmonaut's, @SLaks', and @yorkensei's answers are all correct, but I think see where you are getting confused. <S> To "sport" <S> something is to have it visible, or "show it off". <S> Really, all it means in this context is that <S> the new iPad has a camera and wants you to be impressed with that. <S> If you were sporting a new wristwatch, you would be wearing it in a way that implies you are proud of it. <S> You would be hoping others would look and point and be impressed. <S> In Japanese you would hope people were saying: あれ見て！すごいだよ！ <A> It means to "wear or display" or simply "to have" in this case. <S> She was sporting a large diamond ring on her left hand. <S> So it can be used to mean "show off" also. <A> As others have said, in this context, sport means to have something, essentially, the new iPad has at least one camera. <S> I see from the comments you're also confused about the at least . <S> What that means is the reporters have confirmed from their sources that there definitely is one camera, and there is the possibility that there might be two (or more). <S> (As of right now, the current iPad model doesn't have any cameras, so this is a enhancement in technology for the iPad). <A> The use of the word sport here means "features", but it's used incorrectly. <S> This is a common mistake among technology writers.
| To sport means "to wear or be decorated with something", which does not apply to a camera on an iPad.
|
What does it mean to mind your P's and Q's? During office discussion two turns of phrase came up in close proximity: "peace and quiet" shortly followed by "mind your P's and Q's". What is the meaning of P's and Q's? I wondered if it might be related to peace and quiet. <Q> "Mind your Ps and Qs" means "be careful to behave well and avoid giving offense. <S> " <S> The NOAD reports that its origin is unknown; it would refer to the care a young student must take in differentiating the tailed letters p and q . <A> I've always heard that it was originally short for "Mind your Pints and Quarts!" <S> Something an innkeeper (or what-have-you) would shout to an unruly common room to settle them down. <S> According to AUE no one's particularly sure, but they list a few other theories, including what they consider to be the most likely: "Mind <S> your 'please's and 'thank you's". <S> Link: http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxmindyo.html <A> The date of the coinage of 'mind your Ps and Qs' is uncertain. <S> There is a citation from Thomas Dekker's play, The Untrussing of the Humorous Poet, 1602, which appears to be the earliest use of the expression: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/mind-your-ps-and-qs.html <A> I read somewhere that it came about, ages ago, to remind people in the printing business, to be careful when typesetting 'p' and 'q', because it was easy to confuse the two. <S> In general, this would mean to take extra care with what you were doing. <S> Now, it appears to have several meanings including: Mind what you say <S> Mind your manners, specifically <S> ' pleases ' and 'thank yous' Mind your own business <S> All of which are related. <S> I wonder if it would be acceptable to use 'mind your Ps and Qs' to mean <S> take extra care with what you are doing ? <S> I have never heard the phrase used in that context. <A> Anyone who has worked as a printer's devil knows the answer to the origin (and meaning) of the elderly term, "Mind your p's and q's. <S> " <S> I must preface my remarks on the origin of the term with brief background. <S> First. <S> The origin of the printing process using moveable type around mid 16th century was made possible by using individual molded glyphs that were the mirror-image of the desired printed image. <S> The nature of each individual glyph is that similarity exists among several different ones; notably, the p, q, d, and b. <S> The difference is the orientation of the glyph. <S> As it turns out, tiny letter decorations called serifs make telling one character from the other easier. <S> The sole exceptions are the p and q. <S> Their only different characteristic is that one is reversed—the mirror of the other. <S> Second. <S> Each different letter used is kept sorted in a multi-compartment drawer referred to as a type "case" organized by frequency-of-use. <S> Thus, "e" and "t" are near the centre of the case and less-frequently used letters such as "v" and "j" are near the sides. <S> This is done for speedy and correct page composition. <S> In use, the typesetter composes a document letter-by-letter, line-by-line to fill a page. <S> After the page is printed, the type block is cleaned, removed from the "chase," taken apart line-by-line, letter-by-letter and distributed back into the proper compartment in the type case for re-use. <S> Majuscules (capital letters) go in one case and minuscules (small letters) into another placed slightly below the other. <S> All this is done completely in reverse by a skilled apprentice referred to as "a printer's devil. <S> " <S> Most all this can be accomplished simply if not easily "by feel" until you run into the two most-easily confused glyphs where you must pay special attention to keep them correctly sorted by heeding the admonition to " Mind your p's and q's ." <A> There are many theories, (some of them given in answers here) but none of them has any supporting evidence whatever. <S> WorldWideWords has an article. <A> It's to do with the fact that children often confuse the small 'p' with the small 'q' when learning how to write and read (like they do with b's and d's.) <S> So if taken literally it is basically an appeal to 'be careful, be precise, listen to what you teacher has told you' - which comes pretty close to its use in language <S> (i.e. mothers with their children.) <A> Another theory I have heard - probably apocryphal - is that it has to do with the two branches of the Celtic family of languages: P-celtic (i.e. Brythonic - Welsh etc.) <S> and Q-celtic (i.e. Goideilic - Irish etc.). <S> It was said to date from when these were beginning to separate and you had to get the pronunciation right in each area to be understood. <S> To be honest this sounds rather unlikely as why would it be an idiom in English - a language from a completely different family. <A> I've always understood as a warning to be polite. <S> And I've always seen it this way: <S> Mind your P's and Q's as in your "Pleases" (P's) and "Thank-yous"(Q's), thus the origin of P's and Q's... <S> I don't know if anyone else has the same notion?
| It means Be on your best behaviour; be careful of your language.
|
Why "line of business" applications? In software, why do we talk about line-of-business applications (sometimes abbreviated to LOB)? Why not just business applications ? So it's useful to distinguish between general software (like email or word processing) and mission critical software specific to the business. But how did " line of ..." come to be used for the latter? <Q> A company's line of business is a more generic term for what would be known as a product line or product line-up in a manufacturing or retail business. <S> This itself comes from the days when a typical retailer had only a roadside still, with wares lined up in front of him. <S> This is also where we get the terms <S> sideline and top of the line from. <S> Line of Business Applications , like many IT buzzwords, has drifted a little from it's literal meaning. <S> It's most frequently use for those applications which are those most critical to the running of the main business of the company, but also for those which are unique, bespoke or specific to that business or industry too (as opposed to say email software or web servers). <A> <A> "Line-of-business" in a computing context has taken on a meaning synonymous with "mission-critical". <S> So not all business applications are line-of-business applications. <A> Business applications is a broader term. <S> Often used to refer to generic applications such as email, whereas Line of Business applications are more specific to business, or the type of business. <S> Some examples of types LOB applications Customized E-Commerce Systems Workflow Management Systems Support Tracking Systems Knowledge and Document Management Systems <A> If your company's line of business is selling insurance, apps related to selling insurance are LOB for you. <S> If you sell cars, the little app that calculates prices and commissions is LOB. <S> For both companies, email, word processing etc are not LOB, because they're not specific to those companies. <S> The same app can be LOB for one company and not for another - for example something to calculate your energy usage might be a diversion for you, but for a "green-consultant" it would be bread and butter. <S> "Line of business" is a really old phrase ( wiktionary says early 19th C and on) that might refer to "your product line" but might not. <S> Think of "line of sight" as an analogy, or the old game show "What's My Line?" <A> While I don't actually know, I did some digging and found one interesting theory over for it here at the Online Etymology Dictionary , specifically: <S> Meaning "one's occupation, branch of business" is from 1630s, probably from misunderstood KJV translation of 2 Cor. <S> x.16, " <S> And not to boast in another mans line of things made ready to our hand," where line translates Gk. <S> kanon, lit. " <S> measuring rod." <S> Just reading some alternative translations however, it looks like the general consensus for that line when they've tried to rephrase it <S> is "...not to boast about what another man has done..." <S> (have a dig through a couple of versions at the Bible Gateway if you're curious, for example, the Common English Bible version of that line) <S> Unpacking the process, it doesn't look particularly crazy, the KJV is quite an influential text for a start and the passage in question looks like it has been translated oddly if the modern translations are correct(er). <S> If that was the case back in the day, I'd not be surprised since the verbose explanation of the passage would pretty much be talking about the things someone is doing (or more pointedly - his work) and the existing meanings of 'line of' would need to be augmented for the sentence to make sense (hence, a new layer of meaning). <S> If the theory is correct (and it sorta makes sense to me, but again, grain of salt since I'm not doing particularly deep research here) <S> the usage you're talking about could've come from this as line-of-business refers to what you actually do, so your mission critical software almost by definition is what falls into that category whereas your ancillary software might not. <S> If I had a time machine to go back and tweak it to "...not to boast in another mans area of things..." we could see. <S> Lacking such a machine though I'd need to do some proper digging to move this theory past the 'crackpot, uneducated loon' stage. <S> I'm hoping someone else might have more insight or suggested sources - particularly if I could nail down an upswing of the phrase in this usage about the time of the publication of the KJV bible + a couple of decades, I'd feel a lot more confident. <A> Line of business is also used for organizational break-outs. <S> For example, when I was managing proposals for a corporation we would refer to Line of Business leaders--Head of Sales, VP of Product development, IT Director-it is a broader categorization than department which can be smaller and wouldn't by itself constitute a line of that business. <S> The group that does PR for example is a sub-division of the marketing department which falls into a broader LOB: sales.
| Line of business has a number of meanings, but in computing it refers to any of a set of critical applications for running an enterprise.
|
A word which comes with meaning like "something that works in parallel" I need to write about a technology which works with another in parallel. What is a single word which means something like "something which works in parallel" or "works in parallel"? <Q> synchronous simultaneously <S> Since you mentioned "writing about technology", I'd say that concurrent and synchronous would technically be the most correct in this situation. <S> wrt. <S> Tom's answer , I really wouldn't feel the need to explain the meaning of concurrent (unless it was an introductory manual), because most developers (sysadmins, etc.) <S> would already know what that meant. <A> Collateral derives from the Latin roots col- = <S> " <S> together with/in" later- = "side" <S> Therefore, it literally means "together at the side, or parallel" Web definitions: col·lat·er·al Adjective /kəˈlatərəl/ /kəˈlatrəl/ <S> Additional but subordinate; <S> secondaryE.g. <S> the collateral meanings of a word Situated side by side; <S> parallelE.g. <S> collateral veins <A> Jez: "synchronous" means together in time" (syn + chron + ous) <S> Potatoswatter: <S> "complementary" would vaguely suggest the connotation of "supporting" Tom & Aviral: "concurrent" could fit the bill, as it literally means "running together with" (con + curr + ent) <S> Alex: "simultaneous" doesn't quite convey the deliberation that "collateral" and "concurrent" do. <S> Such a deliberation is necessary when talking of something that "works together with something." <A> Maybe "simultaneously" fits perfectly? <A> I'd say that usually you'd need to specify "X works in parallel with Y". <S> Although you could say "X is a concurrent technology" if you qualified earlier what a concurrent technology was. <A> Complementary is the most likely choice, but we might need more context. <A> 'Something which is synchronous'?
| Being a developer, the first word I'd think of would be concurrent , however you can also use: parallel The most befitting word for your situation is "collateral", see below for derivation
|
What is the difference between these "clause separators"? Here is an example sentence: At the start of the day you may (if you like) make yourself a slice of toast. Are the brackets appropriate to separate the clause "if you like" from the main sentence? Is there a fundamental difference between the following alternatives? At the start of the day you may, if you like, make yourself a slice of toast. (commas) At the start of the day you may — if you like — make yourself a slice of toast. (em-dashes) Are there rules which state when each should be used? <Q> Commas are used to set off parenthetical elements if a slight pause is intended. <S> They help set off the parenthetical element without causing a break in narrative. <S> Em dashes or parentheses are used if a longer pause is intended. <S> Phrases or clauses in parentheses seem less closely related to the sentence than those set off by commas. <S> Em dashes usually set off amplifying statements or asides. <S> At the start of the day you may, if you like, make yourself a slice of toast. <S> At the start of the day you may make yourself a slice of toast (only if you haven't eaten anything the previous evening of course). <S> At the start of the day you may--now don't go spreading any butter on it--make yourself a slice of toast. <A> I think of there being a useful distinction to be made among three roles of parenthetical statements: amplification, clarification and interjection. <S> Although there are definitely no hard-and-fast rules on this, I tend to think they line up as follows: <S> amplification: commas or parentheses clarification: commas interjection: <S> em dashes <S> You don't have to have toast, you may have toast, but only if you want toast. <S> At the other extreme would be a true interjection, much less connected to the main thought: At the start of the day you may -- perhaps if you are in the mood to venerate the great radio comedians Bob and Ray and their "House of Toast" skit -- make yourself a slice of toast. <A> I think that visual effect comes into play, as well. <S> Dashes seem so jarring to me. <S> Of course, there's a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg aspect to that: perhaps the dashes seem jarring because they typically denote a more significant jump from the idea of the main sentence? <S> In any case, I notice that I tend to use only commas or dashes when writing marketing brochures. <S> Somehow parenthesis look less professional to me. <S> I certainly haven't helped as much as previous responders who provided cut-and-dry classifications, but I do think the visual element is a factor worth considering.
| I would argue that the commas work best in the original example, because the intent is to clarify the optional nature of the toast. The commas signal that this parenthetical thought is still closely related to the rest of the sentence.
|
Do Americans say 'cheers' to mean 'thanks'? I find myself these days saying 'cheers' all the time as a kind of mild form of 'thanks', and I heard it said a lot round here (Northamptonshire, England). It's not even a commoner thing, I'd say the middle class are likely to use it a lot. Is it used this way in the US, or would you always consider 'cheers' as something to say when toasting? <Q> No, Americans only use it as a toast, although we're aware that people from the UK and Australia use it as thanks or goodbye. <A> Sometimes it is used now to mean "thanks" or "you're welcome" in addition to the toasting context. <S> I live in America and <S> it is catching on, most likely because of the Internet and how interconnected the world has become these days with travel and mobile phones, etc. <S> For better or worse, sayings and distinctions that used to be regional or worldly locators for where a person was from or grew up is not necessarily the case anymore. <S> YouTube, TV shows, movies, friends, travel, and the Internet, etc., can teach anyone anything these days. <A> But they are mainly "Anglo" Americans, or at least Americans who have spent some time in England.
| Some Americans will use "cheerio" to mean thanks or goodbye.
|
Why is 'present perfect' present if it happened in the past? And why is it 'perfect'? Why is 'present perfect' present if it happened in the past? And why is it 'perfect'? <Q> Present Perfect is called like that because it combines the present grammatical tense <S> (you have ) and the perfect grammatical aspect ( done ). <S> Compare that to Past Perfect which uses the past tense (you had + done ), or the Future Perfect which uses the future <S> "tense" (you will have + done ). <S> As to why it's perfect , the term comes from Latin perfectus , "achieved, finished, completed". <S> Which is quite literally what you have done whenever you have done something. <A> She has read your letter. <S> She read your letter. <S> However, the present perfect is a compound tense that combines the present and the past, while the simple past is purely a past tense. <S> Here are some reasons its called the present perfect, and not just the past tense: Use of time adjuncts <S> The present perfect allows the use of time adjuncts referring to the present. <S> We have, by now , finished most of our work. <S> *We, by now , finished most of our work. <S> (incorrect) <S> Conversely, the present perfect does not allow the use of time adjuncts referring to the past. <S> * <S> We have finished our work last week . <S> (incorrect) <S> We finished our work last week . <S> Current relevance <S> With the present perfect, the situation in the past is seen to have some kind of current relevance. <S> Compare these two: <S> She has lived in this city for ten years. <S> She lived in this city for ten years. <S> Use of the present perfect in the first sentence indicates that she still lives in this city while use of the simple past in the second indicates that she lived in this city in the past, but no longer does. <S> I've quoted quite a bit from the very descriptive A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston and Pullum. <S> As noted in @RegDwight's answer, I understand that the perfect part comes from the Latin perfectus , meaning "completed". <A> Latin and other languages like Italian, French, German, English have a double tense system in active and passive. <S> We have simple tenses: present, past, future, conditional. <S> And parallel to these tenses we have a second set of tenses: <S> Present perfect, past perfect, future perfect, conditional perfect. <S> verbix.com has a conjugation table that shows the two sets of tenses very well. <S> http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/do.html <S> In the verbix table present perfect is simply called perfect, past perfect is called pluperfect, just another name for the same thing. <S> As to the name perfect, which means completed, it was the grammar term in Latin where it may have been justified. <S> But in modern languages the name is just a name and doesn't say anything essential. <S> I read Hamlet last year. <S> - I have read Hamlet. <S> Both events are completed in the past, so it makes not much sense to call one tense past, and the other perfect. <S> You could use other names for the tenses: <S> Present 1, past 1, future 1, conditional 1 andpresent 2, past 2, future 2, conditional 2. <S> This would be the same. <S> Just names, so we can talk about the tenses. <S> You could also call the first set "left", present left etc, and the second set "right", present right etc. <S> The use of these tenses is a thing that must be learnt from grammars. <S> And the use is not the same for all languages. <S> English uses perfect for things past with a bearing on the present time. <S> German uses perfect in the north as in English, in the south perfect is used as the English past tense. <S> Remark: <S> In English grammars conditional is seen as a mood and is lacking in almost all conjugation tables. <S> As "would" ist the past tense of "will", subjunctive and sometimes indicative, too it is possible to see conditional as a tense as well. <S> Verbix.com has solved the problem by adding conditional under the three traditional tenses.
| The present perfect, like the simple past, locates the situation, or part of it, in the past:
|
What does "roll your eyes" mean? I came across the following sentence in a technical documentation that explains about integration with HTTP protocol. What does "rolled your eyes" mean here? Excerpt: If you’re a developer you’re likely fairly familiar with this protocol — you may have even rolled your eyes at the sight of it — but it’s worth mentioning to emphasize our integration’s dependency on proper, well-formed HTTP requests. <Q> You (quite literally) roll your eyes when you don't believe something or don't care about it. <S> In this particular case, it is implied that you might be so familiar with the protocol that it's all old news to you. <S> It's all over the place, nothing special, so seeing it <S> yet again <S> makes you roll your eyes. <A> Sarah rolled her eyes. <A> I've never seen this phrase used in the context of technical documentation. <S> The phrase is often used specifically in the context of teenagers rolling their eyes at something their parents, or another authority figure, is saying. <S> Given this context I believe the sense of "rolling your eyes" includes a connotation of silent resistance, or only grudging acceptance, of that authority figure's pronouncement. <S> The resistance could be to excessive repetition, or it could be resistance more generally to the right of the speaker to make the statement or issue the instruction that is met with rolling eyes. <A> Yes, you do "roll your eyes" upward to express disbelief. <S> To the heavens, specifically, as in "Saints preserve us, is this guy for real?!"
| Roll eyes means turn (one's eyes) upward, typically to show surprise or disapproval .
|
What is the synonym of "spy"? I know the word "watch" is used as a synonym of spy. Are there other synonyms that are used by native speakers? <Q> Maybe the word " snoop " could be a good synonym. <S> I caught him snooping around in my office. <S> Reporters were snooping on the celebrities <A> You can also use "notice", "observe", "monitor", "track", "keep an eye on", "keep track of", "keep tabs on" -- all these have slightly different meanings, depending on what you mean to convey when you'd use spy . <S> Use notice if you mean to say that you suddenly noticed a detail of some sort. <S> Use <S> observe if you mean to say that you're dispassionately watching something unfold, or noticing a detail or series of details with emotional detachment. <S> Use monitor if you mean to say that you're continually watching something with some measurement in mind that would prompt you to step in or take action if the measurement goes outside a certain range. <S> All of the keep... <S> phrases are informal ways of saying that you're going to spend some casual effort going forward to (essentially) monitor something -- they're mostly casual ways of using the monitor sense of spy . <S> Notice <S> that, strictly speaking, spy can carry a connotation of secret, covert behaviour. <S> When you spy you have an agenda of some sort, or a secret purpose. <S> The most neutral version of spy is to suddenly notice something: the longer the activity spent observing, the more you convey a sense of secretness. <A> To spy , in the sense of watching someone or something, could also mean keeping that thing under surveillance. <S> In that sense, spy (the verb) has approximately the same meaning as surveil . <A> If you mean spy used as noun, then you can use secret agent , undercover agent , intelligence agent , double agent , mole , snoop . <S> Which word/phrase suits better depends on the context. <A> infiltrator, undercover agent <A> This depends on context and connotation. <S> There are spies-heroes and there are sneaks, sneakers, snitches, informers, finks, noses, squeakeres, denunciators, questmans, talebearers, whistlers, grass, nark, noser, stool pigeon, checker, squeal, zuch, rat, rounder, delator, etc. <S> Seems like negative characters are always have better and more specific characteristic terms than positive ones.
| If you mean to spy then you can use snoop (informal), keep under surveillance/observation , keep a watch on , keep an eye on , observe , spot .
|
What does "yadda yadda" mean? In a phrase like the usual yadda yadda , what does yadda yadda mean? What is its origin? Please read, this is not the usual yadda yadda! Three things: Because the dumps are quite a bit of work for us, we’re moving to a bi-monthly schedule instead of monthly. Meaning, you can expect dumps every two months instead of every month. If you have an urgent need for more timely data than this, contact us directly, or use the Stack Exchange Data Explorer, which will continue to be updated monthly. — Creative Commons Data Dump Jan ’11 . […] <Q> I was introduced to this phrase by Jerry Seinfeld (well, technically, Elaine Benes ), but Wikipedia actually says that it's older : <S> The ["Yada yada"] <S> episode is one of the most famous of the series, specifically for its focus on the phrase "yada yada". <S> " <S> Yadda yadda" was already a relatively common phrase before the episode aired, used notably by comedian Lenny Bruce , among others. <S> The phrase may have originated with the 1950s "yackety-yack", 1940s vaudeville, and earlier. <S> Wiktionary has this : American, origin unclear, perhaps onomatopoeic of blather; perhaps adaptation of dialectal speech, perhaps from yatata or yatter . <S> Various variant forms appear in the US 1940s–60s; for example, the 1947 American musical Allegro by Oscar Hammerstein II and Richard Rodgers contains a song called “Yatata, Yatata, Yatata,” about cocktail party chatter[...]. <S> Popularized in the United States in the late 1990s by TV show Seinfeld[...]. <S> Sometimes popularly attributed to Yiddish, but this is dismissed by etymologists[.] <S> As to the meaning, it's a (colloquial, informal) way of saying "and so on, etcetera". <S> In your particular case, what is being implied is that when the data dumps are released, there's usually some text in rather standard wording, and if you're a regular, you begin to ignore that text after a while. <S> But this time, the data dump is accompanied by some additional, unusual announcement (namely, "we’re moving to a bi-monthly schedule instead of monthly"), and the author warns you in advance <S> : watch out, this is not the usual blah-blah , or the usual wall of text , so don't ignore it. <A> According to Urban Dictionary <A> Although RegDwigнt answers the question of the definition of yadda yadda very well <S> I believe he is not correct in the use of it in answering the original question. <S> The letter says to read about the subject and stresses that its contents is not the usual yadda yadda, not what the contents describes. <S> I'm sure what the contents describes is not the usual yadda yadda either. <S> No doubt it is this layering of subject upon subject that requires the use of one yadda after another to get the idea across.
| it's a phrase that means " and so forth " or " on and on ;" it usually refers to something that is a minor detail or boring and repetitive.
|
Does "having" something imply the possession of it? I'm seriously pained when I hear the word "have" being used in the present continuous to imply possession. Take for example, the following quotation from Wordsmith.org . Read the Etymology of the word "fulsome", which has been described as "...-some ( having a particular quality). Grammar books have always suggested that this construction implies "eating, consuming, or experiencing"; never possession. So, if I said that I'm "having a friend", that would imply that I'm eating the friend, or having sex with her/him. What do you folks think? <Q> There's a difference between the present continuous ("to be" + present participle in "-ing"), and other uses of the present participle. <S> So, in your example: ...-some (having a particular quality) <S> there is no "to be", so this is a use of the participle as an adjective, not a present continuous. <S> It is equivalent to saying: ... <S> -some ( that have a particular quality) <S> You are correct that using the present continuous here <S> *that are having a particular quality would be inappropriate. <S> Similarly, in your "friend" example, you are right that saying <S> I'm having a friend that could have a number of meanings(!), but not that the person in question simply is your friend - but, on the other hand, saying People having friends in America knew more about the issues surrounding the president. <S> is fine, and equivalent to People that had friends in America knew more about the issues surrounding the president. <A> Well, you could certainly use "having" to mean possession. <S> Consider: <S> I got so used to having a car that I was unprepared for how arduous it was to walk to work every day. <S> or <S> Having 500 friends on FaceBook isn't as good as having two actual friends in real life. <S> or What does having high cholesterol suggest about a person's dietary habits? <A> In American English, I can say all of the following without being misunderstood by other native speakers: <S> "I have two cats." <S> (ownership) <S> "She has several friends." <S> (Not exactly ownership, but close) <S> "I have a cold." <S> (experience) <S> "We have pizza on Friday nights." <S> (consume) <S> "He has a beard." <S> (ownership) <S> Numbers 1 and 4 would never be mistaken by a native speaker to mean anything other than possession. <S> Context, however, does make a difference. <S> If I were to say, "I had several women last night" that would definitely imply sex. <A> For eg. <S> : <S> "Have" as a transitive verb to hold in the hand or in control; own; possess: to have wealth to possess or contain as a part, characteristic, attribute, etc.: <S> she has blue eyes; the week has seven days to be affected by or afflicted with: to have a cold to possess by way of experience; experience; undergo: <S> have a good time to possess an understanding of; know: to have only a little Spanish to hold or keep in the mind: to have an idea to declare or state: <S> so gossip has it to gain possession, control, or mastery of; I have been trained in Classical Music (a) to get, take, receive, or obtain: to have news of someone, have a look at it (b) to consume; eat or drink: have some tea to bear or beget (offspring) to perform; carry on; engage in: to have an argument to cause to: have them walk home to cause to be: have this done first to be in a certain relation to: to have brothers and sisters to feel and show: have pity on her to permit; tolerate: used in the negative: <S> I won't have this nonsense <S> "Have" used in an informal way to hold at a disadvantage or to overcome: <S> I had my opponent now to deceive; take in; cheat: they were had in that business deal to engage in sexual intercourse with <S> As a noun a person or nation with relatively much wealth or rich resources: the haves and have-nots.
| "Have" always doesn't mean "possession", but in many cases it does.
|
What do “The great whatever this is,” “It can’t double dip if it never comes back up.”mean? The surreal world in the New York Times article depicted by a seasoned editor at Harper’s Magazine who was laid off recently and experiencing bitter world, under the title, ‘A Beginner’s Guide to Unemployment’ was entertaining as well as relevant to me. However I can’t understand phrases, “The great whatever this is,” and “It can’t double dip if it never comes back up.” the writer quoted in the following sentence. Are they 'so called' buzz words? Why do you need to place ‘up’ after ‘never come back’? Can somebody teach me what do these two phrases mean? Lately it seems people have grown inordinately fond of using the word surreal to describe circumstances and events that are in fact only new and confusing. Take for example last week, when I had the misfortune to be laid off after six mostly satisfactory years from my job at Harper’s Magazine. My friends and relatives insisted almost in unison that I admit to the surrealism of falling victim to what another friend has taken to calling “The Great Whatever This Is,” and which I like to refer to as the “It Can’t Double Dip if It Never Comes Back Up.” <Q> Given that the article is about unemployment I think the Great X referred to here is "The Great Depression", and the recent coinage "The Great Recession"... <S> hence, "The Great... <S> whatever this is." <S> As for "double-dip", that refers to the economy going down sharply, then rising, then falling sharply again. <S> The shape of the curve is a double dip. <A> Both of those phrases refer to the current economic situation: "The Great Whatever <S> This Is" is a play on "The Great Depression" — popular sentiment seems to frown on calling the current downturn a depression , while recession doesn't seem strong enough — and "It Can't Double Dip <S> If It Never Comes Back Up" comes from the concept of a double-dip recession (which is itself a play on "double-dipping", i.e. dunking your partially-eaten chip back in the dip). <A> "The Great Whatever <S> This Is" is a reference to the Great Depression . <S> The economy isn't in a depression, but it is undergoing significant changes. <S> These changes are "great" in some sense, but the author doesn't know exactly what to call them. <S> " Double dip " is an ill-defined term referring to a double drop in the economy.
| These are economics / economic history terms. What the author is saying is that a double-dip (which everyone is afraid of) isn't possible unless there's a rise after the first decline.
|
Is the phrase "fire and brimstone" used by Americans or it is only in Bible? As far as I know "fire and brimstone" is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible. Is the phrase commonly used by Americans or it is only used in Bible? <Q> I've seen "fire and brimstone" used to describe a certain style of preaching popular in 19th century America. <S> Modernly, if the usage wasn't specifically historical, I would interpret it negatively – preaching (or more broadly, oration) <S> that is loud and high in predictions of doom and gloom, but low in actual content. <A> The Corpus of Contemporary American English returns 77 hits from the last 20 years, including uses by ABC's Nightline , CNN, USAToday, NPR, Forbes, and many others. <S> As Martha says, its original context is primarily religious, but it's often used for any sort of alarmist speechmongering. <A> Gen 19:24 <S> Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; <S> This is the passage I think the comment comes from. <S> God sent two angels to check out how wicked the cities where. <S> The citizens of the city tried to gang rape the angels, and it's implied that they attempted this with every traveler who passed through the city. <S> God found this so offensive the only option was to more or less nuke the entire city. <S> So the idea behind the phrase "fire and brimstone" is that something is so offensive that destroying it is the only alternative. <S> This phrase also is applied to certain preaching styles that attempt to use God's judgement to scare people into repentance. <S> For a perfect example for a "fire and brimstone" <S> sermon see <S> "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards (AD 1739). <S> It's probably one of the best known sermons of this type. <S> The style is also known in some parts (northern mid-west of the US is where I've heard it) as "Hell-fire and brimstone" <A> It is commonly used by Americans. <S> It generally refers to a style of Christianity, whether by general practice or specifically as a style of sermon. <S> It is generally used as a pejorative. <S> You might hear it like this: <S> Kim and I have been trying out a new church, but last week's worship was really full of fire and brimstone . <A> Here is an academic paper that looks at this question. <S> The term is from the Bible. <S> The fact is that Catholics prior to the Reformation did not "read" the Bible much. <S> However, it was the subject of formal debate among scholars: "The fire of hell belonged, in a distinction well understood by both Protestant and Catholic interpreters, to the torments of the senses, the poena sensus, rather than to the spiritual or psychological torment of being deprived of the sight of God, the poena damni. <S> But the precise nature of this fire had long been a source of puzzlement in Christian thought. <S> " <S> "That hell was a place of fire seemed on the surface easily the mostuncontentious of theological commonplaces. <S> The Bible abounded withreferences to ‘the fire that shall never be quenched’, and to tormenting ‘withfire and brimstone’ . <S> " <S> In the US, there was, and still is, a proliferation of Evangelicism and fundamentalism, "movements" within Christianity that tend to favor Bible reading and citation and be "into" literalism, of which, fire and brimstone is part. <S> There is also a particular style of preaching known as "fire and brimstone" preaching, where the believers are repeatedly pounded with the idea of hell if they do not do a series of things. <S> Most importantly, recognize Christ as their savior. <S> In fact, all Christian believers believe that but not all Christian sects demand people actually say it or demonstrate it. <S> That said, early newcomers to the New World would have been familiar with the term. <S> hell fire and brimstone and the Reformation
| I'd say that it is a fairly common expression. The term fire and brimstone is in no way exclusively heard in North American though it is probably heard more in the US due to the ever increasing (it would seem) numbers of fundamentalists one sees.
|
What's the meaning of "subject of speculation"? He survived 10 attempts on his life, and at 82 his health was a subject of speculation. What do the people speculate, health or subject ? <Q> They are speculating that his health might be in less than stellar shape. <S> What is the subject of speculation? " <S> His health". <S> This is either about Mubarak, or perhaps Steve Jobs. <A> It means the subject of their speculation was his health. <A> The health. <S> "This talk is on the subject of the local teenagers" It's a formal, but useless addition to many sentences. <S> You would say subjection to talk about what is being done to the teenagers. <S> With your quote it can be ambiguous, his health may have been notably unperfect before, as is the case with Mubarak. <A> "His health was a subject...." <S> But that sentence begs the question: a subject in what sense? <S> A subject of irony? <S> Of embitterment? <S> Of disgust? <S> Of discussion? <S> To be a "subject" just means, here, to be a topic of conversation. <S> So the sentence then adds: "His health was a subject of speculation", or in other words, a subject about which many people offered estimates or guesses. <S> Further, your question should read "About what do the people speculate?", or "What is it the people speculate about?" <S> One could answer it this way: "What are the people speculating upon?""A subject. <S> ""What subject???""His health."
| Speculation requires a subject, like a conversation, or a contemplation.
|
Non-sexual meaning of "to have a hard-on for someone" What does it mean to "have a hard-on for someone" in a non-sexual sense? I've heard it used in contexts that make it seem like the subject is acting aggressive or belligerent toward "someone". Is that right? <Q> It can go either way. <S> When the police "have a hard on" for someone, it means they're looking to put that person in jail. <S> But it can mean approval as well. <S> Consider this line from Stanley Kubrick's film Full Metal Jacket : <S> Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Today ... is Christmas! <S> There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty! <S> Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few Marines! <S> God has a hard-on for Marines because we kill everything we see! <S> He plays His games, we play ours! <S> To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! <S> God was here before the Marine Corps! <S> So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! <S> Do you ladies understand? <S> Clearly, Sgt. <S> Hartman means that God likes Marines when he uses this expression. <A> <A> I suggest that the shared concept is being aroused , sexually or some other way. <S> Sexual Arousal : The directly biological sexual form. <S> (Discretion suggests I not provide an example.) <S> Aggressive Arousal <S> : A person can have a hard on in an aggressive, competitive manner, as the accepted answer suggests. <S> Testosterone can fuel both sexual and aggressive arousal, so there's a biological link. <S> "Bob had a real hard on for Dave's job." <S> Broadly <S> Desirous Arousal <S> : A person can also have a hard on for anything desirable: a new videogame, a new model of car, even eating at a particular restaurant. <S> "Bob had a serious hard on for the Tesla Roadster." <S> (None of the existing answers included the general concept of arousal <S> so I figured I'd add one.) <A> Well, it's a clearly sexual term, but I've never heard it used in an aggressive sense. <S> When used non-sexually, it generally would indicate that someone really likes something (or someone) and is inclined to talk it up at any opportunity. <S> There's also a connotation that they're rather obnoxiously persistent about doing so. <A> I've heard the phrase used in a corporate setting to describe someone who is aggressively focused on surpassing or doing down a particular rival, or on defeating a project or proposal. <S> In this usage, I believe that deploying a phrase with sexual significance is a kind of intensifier, because the speaker is juxtaposing that significance on such a non-sexual context. <A> I believe that there are two somewhat similar expressions to using the term "hard on. <S> " Only one of them has a sexual connotation. <S> To BE "hard on" somebody is to be tough or difficult with them. <S> This can come from either a man or a woman. <S> It often refers to "aggression" but has no sexual connotation. <S> To HAVE a "hard on" is for a man's particular body part to have a certain "hardness" (when it is more often "soft" or "limp".) <S> And that takes place in a sexual context.
| It can mean that they have a grudge and are actively trying to settle it, which would often include aggressive or belligerent behavior. I think the meaning comes from a general sense of being focused on someone to a degree reminiscent of sexual fascination.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.