source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Is ‘No detail is too small’ a frequently used phrase, or just a cliche? I came across a headline of the article of today’s New York Times (Feb.22) giving tips for selling a second-hand apartment, that says To sell an apartment, no detail is too small I think ‘‘No detail is too small’ means ‘you cannot be more attentive to the details of things to do it better.’ The phrase reminds me of the old cliché, ‘The God resides in details’ used in secular sense. But ‘No detail is too small’ sounds novel to me. Is ‘No detail is too small’ a common English phrase? The headline is followed by the following sentence: Jamella Swift, a Citi Habitats broker, was trying to anticipate every detail that would prevent a potential buyer from purchasing the two-bedroom condo she was selling in Brooklyn. She put a full-size bed in the bedroom so buyers wouldn’t think the room was too small. She dragged in a Lucite coffee table to create the illusion of a larger living space and set up three floor lamps to supplement the recessed lighting. Ms. Swift hoped that the $5,000 she had spent would help her land $395,000 to $425,000 for the apartment. <Q> It's definitely been used before, but I wouldn't exactly call it a cliché. <S> Here's a reference to it from Language Log: <S> John V. Burke wrote to draw my attention to a phrase in Walter Kaiser's "Saving the Magic City", NYRB, 12/3/2009 <S> (emphasis added): <S> Roeck's book, for which he has done an impressive amount of research, tries to be a number of things at once: it is an account of the social and intellectual world of the expatriate community in fin-de-siècle Florence; it continues the biography of Aby Warburg he began with his earlier book; it is a history of late-nineteenth-century Florentine urban development; it is a cultural history; it addresses a wide variety of ancillary topics such as anti-Semitism, anarchism, labor conditions, and economic trends; and it discusses the various aesthetic theories being formulated at the turn of the century. <S> No detail is too small to escape Roeck's net , not even the plans formed in 1898 to produce artificial ice commercially in Florence. <S> This echoes the classic example <S> "No head injury is too trivial to ignore", discussed by Peter Wason and Shuli Reich, "A Verbal Illusion", The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 31(4):591-97, 1979. <S> By the way, Oishi-san, I usually hear the other phrase you mentioned rendered as "The Devil is in the details" — a diametrically opposite perspective, but the same basic meaning. :) <A> Here is a Google Ngram graph comparing incidences of the phrases “no detail too small”, “no detail is too small”, <S> “no job too small”, “no job is too small” since 1840. <S> It appears that the original phrase is in fact “no detail too small”, with incidences appearing as early as 1841 . <S> As you can see from the graph, the phrase had a peak usage in the early part of the 20th century, depending on the exact formulation, but dropped in favor dramatically until about 1980, since when it has steadily been increasing in usage. <A> It's a fairly common phrase, and it just means that you have to pay attention to every detail, no matter how insignificant it may seem. <A> The original expression was "No job too large, no job too small" (for companies like printers and moving companies that can handle assignment of different sizes). <S> It snowcloned from there.
| It is familiar enough to be well understood, but hardly rises to the level of overuse one expects from a cliché.
|
Better synonym for "actionable"? In managementese, "actionable" means "able to be acted upon". Unfortunately, its primary meaning is "giving sufficient reason to take legal action" in legalese. I'm looking for a better alternative to the managementese meaning that doesn't have the unfortunate associations, but still has good Sexy Buzzword Value; help? Example sentence per request: "This has now become one of our actionable items." Another, related meaning that's within the range of what I'm looking for is able to be actively used . To illustrate, the best alternative to "actionable" that we've come up with in the original context is deployable . <Q> An improvable item Augmentable Progressable <A> I currently say an item is "blocked" or "unblocked". <S> How can we unblock X? <S> What is blocking Y? <S> We have too many blocking / blocked tasks. <S> This may work especially well in my field because the term "blocking" means in software development almost what "un-actionable" means in managementese. <S> Off-topic anecdote <S> : I wondered the same as you, but my motivations were different than yours. <S> I hate management speak for the reason @ghoppe stated <S> - they are often an artificial cluster of meaningless words to pretentiously avoid simplicity (ok I said it much stronger). <S> I will never forget when my non-native English speaking friend laughed when she heard, "So now what you are going to want to do here is X" instead of simply "X". <S> Not management speak, but illustrates what lengths we're willing to take just to use more syllables. <S> [Update] <S> I just realized a very common phrase in the corporate world that could easily be used for what you need: " <S> In X's court"? <S> Is that task in our court? <S> Means, "is progress of the task currently our responsibility?". <S> If you answer "no", you don't necessarily imply that it's anyone else's responsibility either. <S> So, it doesn't imply whether it's actionable in general or not, but I think in usage this is a very close fit. <A> I think, like many "managementese" buzzwords, "actionable item" is pretty much devoid of informational content. <S> I would find a more descriptive word milestone , objective , task , or perhaps target and specifically describe the nature of the "item" and why it is "actionable". <S> This has now become one of our primary objectives. <S> or This has now become a task that needs to be completed first. <A> I don't think there IS a better word. <S> I don't agree that the co-existence of the managerial meaning and the legal meaning is a problem. <S> The two meanings are in different domains, after all. <S> Remember, if we can cope with words that are their own opposites (such as "sanction" - there's a whole thread on this as you all know), we can certaily handle the multiple disparate meanings of "actionable". <S> However, if you INSIST on having a different word, I would go along with "progressable" as given in the answer by mplungjan above. <S> As noted by FumbleFingers, "- a bit "jargonny", but in OP's context it's fine." <A> Just throwing some ideas out, trying to maintain that management buzzword feel at the cost of grammatical accuracy (agreeing with ghoppe that once a term falls under the purview of management parlance, it starts to bleed meaning until it is an empty husk - c.f. "leverage"). <S> "...has become one of our critical tasks." <S> "...is now on the critical path." <S> "...is an agenceable item." <S> "...is a scheduleable task." <S> "...is now prioritary." <A> I suggest taskable . <S> Although it is commonly used to mean "can have tasks assigned to", the meaning of "can be assigned as a task" is not too much of a stretch. <S> Other possibilities (of varying quality, and not mentioned in answers so far) include targetable, realizable, resolvable, shovel ready, work ready, assignable, energizable. <A> Implementable . <S> How about Effectuate ? <S> How about encommission ? <S> Implementable is a probable choice. <S> To implement means to put into action. <S> Effectuate has the same meaning as "bring about", or "bring into effect". <S> Although encommision is not a legitimate word, it has the ring of a buzzword and after all, buzzwords have to be coined by someone some time. <S> The reason I used commission as the base word is because when used as a verb it denotes bringing into use. <A> We can have some synonyms of Actionable like - Prosecutable Triable <S> Unjust <S> Some Research : <S> Actionable Part of Speech: adjective Definition: litigable <S> Outlawed is also similar to actionable. <A> Adding, as noted in the question, the best alternative we've come up with in the original context, deployable . <A> How about just calling it an "action item?" <S> It's just as jargon-y, and anybody who would understand "actionable item" will grasp "action item. <S> " <S> I figure this is an extension of my rule not use a long word when a shorter one will do ("use" instead of "utilize"). <A> First idea: <S> This has now become one of our predicates . <S> another: <S> This has now become one of our engagements . <A> Agreed, this is a difficult term to identify due to the overlap between business and legal meanings. <S> Here's a few tries: ' <S> Follow up'-able / proceed-able — Things in a state that allows action. <S> Do-able / workable — <S> Things capable of being done. <A> Since no one else has mentioned it, I will add implementable . <S> It doesn't apply in all contexts that actionable does, but where it does apply I think its meaning is very close.
| Given your sample sentence, I'd probably go with "workable".
|
Capitalizing a lower case screen name at the beginning of a sentence When starting a sentence with a lower case pseudonym, such as a screen name of a user account on a website, should it be capitalized? Or are there different cases where it would and would not be appropriate to do so? My curiosity was sparked by this meta EL&U page where a user comments that he does not mind if his name is lower-cased or not. Are there any established standards on this practice? <Q> In such cases, the word is usually typeset differently. <S> However, when writing in an informal context, you might want to take into consideration the preference of the user. <S> For example, Randall Munroe prefers his username xkcd to remain lowercase ; however, as you've linked, some users like nohat do not mind it being capitalized. <S> If you are unsure, I would suggest capitalizing it and adhering to professional writing style. <A> I would avoid this issue by starting the sentence differently: <S> The user elufan123 is running for moderator ... <A> Where possible, I would suggest avoiding putting a username at the start of a sentence, otherwise to pick a style and follow it. <S> Above all, write clearly and unambiguously. <S> Are there any established standards on this practice? <S> I asked the editors of the Guardian newspaper's style guide about this: Q. <S> What's your style on capitalising (sometimes case-sensitive) usernames? <S> And how about at the start of a sentence? <S> Or just avoid it? <S> A. <S> We spell it however the user does, including at the start of a sentence. <A> Well, it is a problem. <S> H/horatio is right about the common practice: <S> I guess it gets down to the standard answer to orthography questions: choose some way to cope with it. <S> If you're important enough, it may stick (think iMac etc.)
| When writing professionally, the first letter in the sentence is capitalized, sole exceptions being when the capitalization could result in a misunderstanding. Though both answers below merely suggest avoidance, I would say that the standard practice is to avoid doing it.
|
Do native speakers leave out articles in slides for space? Sometimes a and the take too much space in a slide, and I delete all of them to save me extra lines. Is it a good practice? <Q> You must be careful about your choice of words, however, to avoid negatively affecting the clarity of your writing. <S> It's probably not a problem as long as the text is relatively short, and presentation slides shouldn't have a lot of text, anyway. <S> Also, if you're going to remove any of the articles, you should probably remove all of them, otherwise it looks awkward, and might be interpreted as an error. <A> Yes, this is perfectly acceptable. <S> You can turn Step 2: The user chooses a password into Step 2: User chooses password without any loss of meaning. <A> Yes, they may leave out articles for space. <S> Note that in addition, even besides the sapce issue, it is sometimes more natural in English to leave out articles in titles (and slides often consist of what are effectively lists of titles).
| There's nothing wrong with this: it's common practice in news headlines, and native speakers will find a well-worded sentence perfectly intelligible if the articles are removed.
|
What is the history of adding the a- prefix to form words? I have always found the a- prefix to words (as in anew , ajar , aside , awake , afoot , a-hunting , etc.) fascinating. The NOAD says on this topic: a- 2. prefix •to; toward : aside | ashore . • in a specified state or manner : asleep | aloud . • in the process of (an activity) : a-hunting . • on : afoot . • in : nowadays . ORIGIN Old English , unstressed form of on. a- 4. prefix 1 of: anew . [ORIGIN: unstressed form of of ] 2 utterly: abash . [ORIGIN: from Anglo-Norman French (corresponding to Old French e-, es-), from Latin ex.] While this gives quite a few examples, it leaves some areas of doubt to me: At what time did this phenomenon happen? It seem quite restricted to words of Saxon origin, as I don't see it used with words of Romance languages. Is that a consequence of point 1, or is it because usage wouldn't aggregate an Old English prefix with, e.g., a word of French origin? Were there others words formed which haven't endured? Arguably subjective: I wonder how it came to pass that the same prefix is used with so many different meanings. <Q> I don't think that it's the same prefix as much as it is the remnant of a number of different grammaticalised pre-fixings. <S> Most of them seem to have happened during the period when then curious admixture of French, Viking Danish, Anglo-Saxon and a sprinkling of Gaelic were distilling themselves down into the various dialects of Middle English. <S> The spelling's kind of arbitrary, but a is the letter we tend to use when a word starts with a schwa that's flatter than we'd represent with a short e . <S> English was essentially an unwritten language during that period (and the population essentially illiterate), so it could be a time of great flux. <S> A lot of words were repartitioned. <S> All one became alone , the n sound migrated from the ends of words like mine and thine to become the initial (and previously non-existent) consonant of words (especially eke names -- thine eke name also became thy nickname ) and so on. <S> As with a lot of what happened during this period, what we have now in the language is mostly what was present in and around London when the orthography was fixed by printing. <S> Many of the a- <S> words that one recognises as quaint regionalisms today (like a-hunting ) were standard in dialects that did not, themselves, have the good fortune to become the standard themselves. <S> As for new words, well, printing (and general literacy) sort of put a stop to arbitrary movement of word boundaries. <S> A question was posted here earlier asking about the meaning of "grab a hold", and it didn't take long for somebody to reply that the phrase was actually "grab ahold" (something my spell checker has decided is a problem). <S> I would bet that "grab a hold" or "take a hold" <S> ( hold being synonymous with handle , as preserved in hand-hold ) was the original phrase. <S> They sound the same, and if you hear a hold often enough without seeing it written down, there's no real reason why you might not think of them as a single word. <A> The prefix <S> a- <S> is present in native (derived from Old English) words where it commonly represent the Old English <S> an <S> (which means on ): alive , asleep , abroad , ashore .It <S> can also be the Middle English of : anew , abreast <S> (1590s).It is a reduced form of the Old English past participle prefix ge- <S> in words like aware , or the Old English intensifier, as in arise , awake , ashame <S> .In <S> words from Romanic languages it usually represent the Latin ad ( to , at ). <S> [Source: Etymonline.] <A> The "a-" prefix is a vestigial English grammatical form found in Anglo-Saxon, old English and even middle English (as well as old Jutish, old Saxon and old German). <S> It is exclusively a Germanic thing. <S> The original form of this prefix was "Ʒe" (pronounced like "yuh"), so 'Ʒelic' became 'alike', for instance. <S> It is often written as "ge-". <S> Here is the House on the Rock parable in Anglo-Saxon: <S> Ælc þara þe þas min word gehierþ, and þa wyrcþ, biþ gelic þæm wisan were, <S> se his hus ofer stan getimbrode. <S> Þa com þær regen and micel flod, and þær bleowan windas, and ahruron on þæt hus, and hit na ne feoll: <S> soþlice hit wæs ofer stan getimbrod. <S> In just this example, you have the following words that use this prefix: gehierþ (tr. <S> a-heard)gelic (tr. <S> alike)getimbrode (tr. <S> a-built)ahruron (gehruron) <S> (tr. <S> a-fell)getimbrod <S> The prefix performs this function: "The syllable ge- is used when some action or situation the word (verb) expresses has passed, is done, completed, being reported, being applied etc." <A> To go on board or on shore, to be in bed or on a slant, is to be aboard , ashore , abed , aslant , not to mention astern , abreast , ahead (originally nautical as well), afoot , aloof (on the luff side, to windward, steering clear), far afield , run aground . <S> We don’t think of them as contractions of preposition + noun anymore, but many of our location and direction words have this form: afar , amid , atop , <S> athwart , askew , awry , gone astray , and less obviously across , away , apart , around , aside , taken aback . <S> The same thing happened to time phrases. <S> There’s <S> a-nights and a-days , surviving in nowadays ; in five dollars a day or twice a week, it looks like the “in” has been dropped from twice in a week , but <S> actually it’s the article that disappeared. <S> And sometimes these forms preserve old etymologies: aloft (“in the air”—German Luft), among (“in the crowd”—German Menge). <S> Bonus points if you can spot the prepositional phrases in akin , anew , amiss , anon , aghast , agog . <S> Excerpt taken from: Fast Asleep and Wide Awake January 27, 2015 | by Damion Searls
| This prefix was used quite liberally in old Germanic languages, and is still in use in modern German and modern dutch, despite its relative absence in all other modern Germanic languages - English included. The “a-” is a weakened form of the preposition on or in , by the same verbal laziness that turned one into the article an , and then before consonants into a , pronounced “uh.”
|
"Apply a patch" vs. "Install a patch" One of my peers insist that one should say "install a patch". I believe on the contrary that "apply a patch" is more natural and one can only "install a program" when it comes to piece of software. A quick search in google tells me that the words apply and patch are more often associated as the words install and patch . There is nonetheless a lot of result for it, and searching for "install a patch" is more succesful as searching for "apply a patch". Knowing that a google search is not ideal to find an answer in this domain, I would like to know when using apply is favored, and when it is better to use install with the word patch . <Q> Apply a patch <S> seems more natural, to me, as it reminds me of apply a patch referred to a piece of cloth applied to a weak point. <S> I also normally use the word patch when referring to an operation made to source code. <S> Install a patch would mean to run an installation program that patches an application, or a file present on a computer. <S> Instead of using apply a patch , or install a patch , I would use patch as a verb. <S> As reported by the NOAD, to patch means, when used in computing contexts, "correct, enhance, or modify (a routine or program) by inserting a patch". <A> I think “apply a patch” is much more in line with the pre-computer era usage of the word “patch”, and so might fit better with the image conveyed by the word (the analogy between a cloth patch and the software patch). <S> Both options are perfectly understandble, however, which is the most important issue! <A> Install implies that something is individual or separate (a component or an entire program) ; apply refers to something that is added to enhance an existing component. <A> This usage goes back to at least the mid-1960s on mainframe computers. <S> I speak from personal experience!
| "Apply a patch" is correct, in my view.
|
Is "Saffer" an offensive term for a South African? I've always believed that "Saffer" is a derogatory term for a South African. But a few minutes earlier, I saw this tweet by ESPN: So, isn't "Saffer" a derogatory term? <Q> You might want to be careful using it with black South Africans, especially those who are culturally or traditionally inclined. <S> "Old-school" black South Africans do not like to be called names they don't understand. <S> In African culture every word has a meaning; colloquial language is considered to be rude especially when being used with elders. <S> Do not say "Saffer" to any South African over the age of 35; that's where the modern boundary is drawn. <S> However, you can ask; you might be surprised. <S> I am a young modern South African black female. <A> No, not derogatory (at least in the above context). <S> When three-letter abbreviations are used for countries, "South Africa" often gets the abbreviation "SAF" (standard in cricket), thus a "saffer" is someone from SAF. <S> It's just a regional nickname like "Aussie" or "Ozzie" for someone from Australia or "Kiwi" for someone from New Zealand: <S> in this context it's playful/colloquial, not offensive/derogatory. <S> It's self-applied often enough <S> : see the Google results for <S> "I'm a saffer" , "am a saffer" , "as a saffer" , "us saffers" , "we saffers" . <A> I would think derogatory since it rhymes with kaffer. <S> But according to SA Friends it is not: ... <S> simply short for 'saff efrican' as <S> we would say it. <S> So there you have it from the Saffer's mouth ;) <A> Chiming in with another South African's view. <S> It wasn't something I'd used or heard much in South Africa, or when I lived in New Zealand. <S> But once I'd moved to London, UK I heard it a lot - especially among the three expat groups commonly found together - Aussies, Kiwis, and "Saffas"/"Saffers". <S> We all called South Africans that - whether it was "us saffas" or "it's saffa day" or today the "Aussies lost to the Saffas in the cricket". <S> However, I did have a couple of cautious friends ask me as well whether it's potentially offensive, so you're not alone in that thinking. <S> However, aside from it possibly being misheard for a different historically racist word, you're pretty safe using it, especially among the young. <A> I'm South African and no, <S> it's not derogatory or offensive. <A> This term Saffer is even used amongst the tiny South African community that lives here in Tokyo, Japan. <S> Since these South African folk are using the term to describe themselves, it would hardly be offensive! <S> Still for me it is quite a new term - Still getting used to it! <A> In my experience, after working with a lot of people from the republic, Saffer isn't derogatory at all - its just like Aussie or Kiwi. <S> They do get upset when you call them Yarpies though. <S> That is considered a bit insulting.
| It was certainly never considered derogatory, almost friendly if anything.
|
"Have not" versus "do not have" As a non-native English speaker, I have a little doubt about using, or not, the auxiliary verb "to do" with the verb "to have". Are there differences in meaning between "I have not" and "I do not have"? Is a British vs. American thing? <Q> The confusion arises from the way have commonly occurs both as an auxiliary verb and as a main verb in its own right. <S> As an auxiliary it handles negation and question formation without needing a do : <S> "I have got a book." <S> Negation: " <S> I haven't got a book." <S> Question: " <S> Have you got a book?" <S> When have is used as a main verb, the "do support" that @Stan mentioned generally cuts in: <S> "I have a book" Negation: "I don't have a book." <S> Question: " <S> Do you have a book?" <S> "Have you a book?" <S> and "I haven't a book" are understandable but awfully odd in most contexts. <S> They can happen in British English, most famously in the title of the radio panel game <S> I'm Sorry <S> I Haven't A Clue, but <S> most English speakers would insert "got". <A> English is almost unique in the phenomenon of do-support . <S> Only a few of the Celtic languages and two very small Italian dialects use do in the way English does (and another that uses have in a similar way). <S> It is not unusual, then, that people coming to English from any other language will have a bit of trouble with our use of the word do . <S> In general, the verb to do is a required part of negating a statement or making a question out of it. <S> Tense is applied to the verb to do rather than to the main verb. <S> ( I worked <S> becomes <S> I didn't work or <S> Did you work? <S> in English. <S> In almost every other language even remotely related to English, the negation would be <S> I worked not and the question would be worked you? ) <S> Have not or haven't will generally occur only when the verb to have is being used as an auxiliary. <S> I haven't any ... <S> is also heard occasionally, but it's rare in modern English, especially outside of Britain, and never appears as <S> I have not any ... <S> (except as something that will be marked as incorrect on a student's composition assignment). <S> I haven't got is more common, but in that case have <S> is being used as an auxiliary to the verb to get . <A> "I have not" is not used to mean "I don't have." <S> not after the modal verb to form the negative. <S> "I have not" could be understood as short for "I have not [past participle]", which is the negative form of the present perfect. <A> "I have not X" is normally used in a different way to "I do not have X". <S> It has been replaced with "I do not have X". <S> For example ? <S> I have not an apple. <S> vs <S> I do not have an apple. <S> Where X is a verb phrase, such as "run all the way to Manchester from London", then "I have not" is used: I have not run all the way to Manchester from London. <S> vs <S> *I do not have run all the way to Manchester from London. <S> As user1579 points out, this distinction comes about because have is being used as a main verb where X is a noun, but an auxiliary verb where X is a verb phrase. <A> At least in American usage: I don't have <S> is <S> the most natural Say <S> I do not have for more emphasis <S> I haven't <S> / I have not (got) sounds British, and a bit stuffy to American ears
| The negative of the present tense is formed by adding do not / does not (or the abbreviated form) between the subject and the verb; only with modal verbs you place "I have not X", where X is a noun, is archaic and so rarely used in modern speech or writing.
|
Are there English sayings that correspond to the old Japanese saying, ‘There is no wild pig larger than the mountain from where he emerges’? In connection with my question about the usage of ‘No detail is too small’ I posted today, I’m curious to know whether you have axioms to correspond to my favorite Japanese old saying, ‘There is no wild pig larger than the mountain (from where he emerges).’ Wild pigs are perceived as violent, reckless and dangerous animal that attack people in the mountain in Japan. The meaning of this proverb is the God is merciful. He does not impose you heavier hardship and acuter agony than you can bear, thus things always go better than you worry about, don’t panic. I used to tell this proverb to myself like a mantra to keep myself every time I have encountered hardship in my life. I bet it actually works. I’m curious to know whether there is a proverb similar to ‘There is no wild pig larger than the mountain,' which I would like to try to utter in case of emergency. <Q> We're a much more prosaic people, I guess. <S> The phrase God will not give you more than you can handle <S> is a relatively common one in English. <S> It's a popularised version of the phrase <S> He [God] will not test you beyond your strength (1 Corinthians 10:13). <S> We have a lot of colouful old phrases in English, but English is also a language where a surprisingly large number of idioms are drawn from only three sources: The King James (or the Authorised) version of the Christian Bible, The Book of Common Prayer , and the works of William Shakespeare. <A> How about "The devil is not so black as he is painted"? <S> Edit: <S> oh, and then there's always the plain and simple <S> "Things are never as bad as they seem". <S> I've seen it attributed to Harper Lee ; not sure if that's actually true, but in any case it's a rather common phrase. <A> Probably the best fit to your ascription of meaning is "every cloud has a silver lining" Where the cloud in question is understood to be a dark storm cloud. <S> (see: <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_lining_%28idiom%29 ) <S> Note, it is also common to say "not every cloud has a silver lining" as well. <A> The meaning of this proverb is the God is merciful. <S> He does not impose you heavier hardship and acuter agony than you can bear, thus things always go better than you worry about, don’t panic. <A> People say, "What God closes a door, He opens a window."
| I think the common english expression "every cloud has a silver lining" is related to this sentiment.
|
Origins of the word "mother" Apologies in advance for this question being only indirectly related to the English language, but I find it fascinating. I note with interest that the English words "mother" and "mama" have similar sounding equivalents in almost all languages, even those that appear to have no historical recent relationship. http://www.mothersdaycelebration.com/mother-in-different-languages.html Not even mentioned in that link is the Mandarin word "māmā", a language I always assumed had no relationship with English whatsoever. This suggests to me that "mother" / "mama" could be one of the oldest surviving words, belonging to some lost parent language from which most modern languages derive. My questions are: Is this theory remotely plausible, or just fanciful thinking on my part? Are there any other "universal" words like this? (Could "OK" be considered such?) <Q> As others have said, "mother" is a word that we can trace back to Proto Indo-European. <S> However, the occurrence of similar words all over the world is not reliable evidence of genetic connection between languages, since there is such a strong alternative hypothesis (a baby's first sounds, and sucking sounds). <S> I'm not saying all languages are not related, just that this is not evidence for it. <S> There is a body of opinion that the ultimate relationship of all languages has been demonstrated, but it's a pretty marginal view in the linguistics community (see Proto-World ). <S> My own belief, which I think is quite widely held, is that we are unlikely ever to obtain enough evidence either to establish or to refute the hypothesis. <S> Incidentally, Georgian has "მამა" ("mama") for "father" and "დედა" ("deda") for "mother". <A> According to wiktionary : From Middle English moder, from Old English mōdor, from Proto-Germanic *mōdēr (cf. <S> East Frisian muur, Dutch moeder, German Mutter), from Proto- <S> Indo-European <S> *méh₂tēr <S> (cf. <S> Irish máthair, Tocharian A mācar, B mācer, Lithuanian mótė). <S> That's abosultely right. <S> Proto-Indo-European is the hypothetical ancestor language or protolanguage of most European and Indian languages. <S> That's why in many languages of the same origin the word "Mother" is used with trivial variations. <S> I'm don't have a listing of the words you're looking for. <S> Note that some words might have been used in other languages because of reasons other than language origins. <S> For example many Arabic words are used by Muslims in middle east in countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, etc. <S> Or some other words like okay are gaining popularity in different languages and get used by many people. <S> But as RegDwight mentions for the word okay this is a case of borrowing a word. <S> The word Mama or Papa are one of the easiest words that can be produced or repeated or by babies. <S> Maybe that's one of other reasons which has made the words being used in most of the languages around the world. <S> To get more information about Proto-Indo-European language visit here . <S> To get more information about the list of Proto-Indo-European languages visit here . <A> Mama and its cognates are among the easiest (and most likely) <S> sounds for a baby to form deliberately; it has been theorised (quite reasonably) that the word arose as the result of associating meaning with a spontaneous utterance. <S> After all, an infant is most likely going to want something from Mama when making a fuss, so why not make it mean exactly that <S> ? <S> It wouldn't exactly take eons for something like that to spread, would it? <S> Mother (or mater , matar , mère and other variants) smacks of a little more deliberation, a little more adult involvement, don't you think? <S> It's old, no doubt about it, but it has a more precise meaning than <S> she who feeds me , and can be used by a third party to describe a relationship.
| The word mother can be traced back cleanly to Proto-Indo-European, as can father , brother and sister -- it appears in cognate form in languages like Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and so forth, and it may go back further.
|
Is there a term similar to "hypochondriac" except more externally based? By "external" I mean a person who has a fear or worry of things that could cause serious illness, rather than the fear of already having a serious illness itself. For example, say you worry about things like contaminants in your drinking water, or lead in the products you own or buy that were made in China, and so on. Is there a term for such hypochondriac-ish people like that? <Q> A mysophobe (or germaphobe ) is someone who has a a pathological fear of contamination and germs. <A> That would be covered by germaphobe in the case of being afraid of germs everywhere and toxicophobe in the case of chemical contaminants. <A> Panthophobia is a fear of disease; nosophobia is closer, being a fear of becoming ill: but considering the number of things that can hurt or damage a person, pantophobia or panphobia (fear of everything) seems more appropriate. <S> More seriously, you may be looking for a word meaning 'fear of harm'. <S> There simply isn't one, at least in normal usage. <S> "Fear of harm" itself has some currency in medical journals, but I suspect a phobia is irrational and fear of harm is rational (at least to a doctor). <A> (Root "path" as in "pathogen", "pathological"). <S> This would include any cause of disease whether biological, chemical, psychological etc.
| Pathophobia - fear of disease.
|
"As part of" versus "as a part of" When should I use "as part of", and when "as a part of"? <Q> The difference between "as part of" and "as a part of" is essentially the difference between part and a part . <S> As part of this community, I feel the need to express my opinion. <S> Your comment is useless, as a part of my recent comments is. <S> In the first case, part is used with the meaning an element or constituent that belongs to something and is essential to its nature .In <S> the second case, part is used to mean <S> a piece or segment of something such as an object, activity, or period of time, which combined with other pieces makes up the whole . <S> Other phrases uses part , and would have a different meaning (or no meaning) if they would use a part . <S> We have come here to take part in a major game. <S> ( Take part <S> means join in .) <A> It depends on the speaker/writer. <A> Actually, the person who mentioned countability was close to the mark. <S> It is a question of whether we can predict the size or number of parts. <S> If we can predict it, then we use a qualifier; otherwise, no quantifier. <S> Note that articles (a, an, the) are quantifiers; also words such as "some", "any", "no", etc. <S> There's probably a better term than "predictable", but I think you get the drift. <S> unpredictable: Can I have part of that pizza? <S> I hope to receive part of the profits. <S> predictable: <S> Did you have any part in what happened? <S> I took no part in it. <S> We all have a part to play in fighting the battle against crime. <S> We all have some part to play in fighting the battle against crime. <S> I liked the part where he suddenly …
| If the part can be separated from the whole, use "a part."
|
What is the meaning of the phrase “The morning constitutional”? What exactly is the meaning of the phrase “The morning constitutional”? Is it an early morning walk or the first visit to the bathroom during the day? What is the origin of this phrase? What is the word “constitutional” doing here? <Q> It literally means "something that is good for your constitution", usually a walk, but <S> it's also a common euphemism for the first visit to the washroom, particularly in areas where heading out to use the facilities <S> is not a very distant memory. <S> It was much more common in my youth (and it's been a while since I was a youth) among older people, and it seemed to carry a bit of feigned poshness among the working class (who didn't need to go for a purposeless walk to get their exercise). <A> The New Oxford American Dictionary has for constitutional : <S> noun (dated): a walk, typically one taken regularly to maintain or restore good health. <S> Regarding etymology, constitution means “a person's physical state with regard to vitality, health, and strength”, so the constitutional comes from its supposed benefits to the health. <S> (Think of it as a “walk to improve one's constitution”, if you will.) <A> It also frequently refers to a morning bowel movement. <S> (From a time when using the bathroom meant going for a walk to the outhouse--the original meaning was still "going for a walk", but this idea was used in the euphemism for going to the bathroom.) <A> Maybe this is an American English versus British English or regional thing. <S> I've never heard the phrase used to mean a walk. <S> I've only heard it used as a euphemism for a visit to the bathroom. <A> It simply means "morning walk". <S> I remember to have come across it once in a story by Somerset Maugham. <A> I've only ever heard of it as a morning walk. <S> I'm a little disillusioned! <S> I'm 55 — is that old? <S> Got a good vocabulary from reading, maybe a bit sheltered as far as "the vernacular of the peasantry" (a line of the Wizard of Oz' <S> no-doubt self-professed Professor Marvel, aka the wizard).
| Oxford Learners Dictionary defines it in this manner: (old-fashioned or humorous) a short walk that people take because it is good for their health Its a euphemism for a bowel movement.
|
Present, present, and present? Please present your next idea. Did you buy her a present ? No vacancies at present . Do all the bold words have the same spelling, yet all of them have different meanings based on the context? <Q> Yes. <S> Note that the word has a different pronunciation in the first sentence [prəˈzɛnt] compared to the other two [ˈprɛ zənt]. <A> Your first two examples <S> Please present your next idea. <S> Did you buy her a present . <S> are closely related. <S> The present that you give is something you present to someone else. <S> The noun is derived from the verb, and probably would have been presentation if there were any grammar police around at the time to control things. <S> The third is related to time, and unrelated to the others except by spelling and pronunciation. <S> That word is a troublesome one, since it means "the current moment" in its noun form and "the immediate future" in its adverb form, presently . <S> It is often misused in that form in the place of currently , so much so that it is more prevalent these days. <S> That's not such a problem in the current corpus of literature, but it does make reading older texts (where "I will do that presently " means " <S> it's on my to-do list") more difficult. <A> Yes, they all have the same spelling, but not the same pronunciation. <S> You could also include other examples such as: <S> I wasn't present when the vote took place. <S> We are trying to build not only for the present , but for the future. <S> The present manuscript is not good enough. <S> Before popping the question, I presented her with flowers. <S> The policeman asked me to present a proof of my identity. <S> I convinced him easily, he presented little resistance. <S> The opportunity presented itself , and I jumped on it. <S> He presented with fever and was quickly treated by his doctor. <A> Also, in using the word to present someone with something (for instance), the difference in pronunciation makes it simply a homograph along side the other uses, while the the others are homophones as they are both spelled and pronounced alike.
| They are homographs -- different words that share the same spelling.
|
More eloquent word or phrase Possible Duplicate: What is a less offensive synonym for “retarded”? Can anyone please furnish me with a word, or short phrase, that would eloquently describe a person who has never had to countenance failure, one who is so self satisfied and self assured with himself that he has no humility?I am afraid that any words like "super smug prig" (my own personal favorite) would be invalid in the context of an academic essay. <Q> Not an exact match, but vainglorious comes to mind: <S> vainglory: excessive or ostentatious pride especially in one's achievements ( http://merriam-websterscollegiate.com/dictionary/vainglory ) <S> And by following a few links on that page: overweening ( http://merriam-websterscollegiate.com/dictionary/overweening ) <S> . <S> I've not actually seen this one used personally, but I do like the fact that it sounds like "wieny/weeny" ( <S> => wiener = <S> > sausage = <S> > <S> slang for penis ) <A> One adjective for this is "cocksure." <S> Another is "hubristic." <A>
| I don't know if this covers the entire spectrum of what you're looking for, but perhaps "golden boy" or "golden child" or "fortunate son" could be used to cover the "always successful, never failed" part, at least.
|
Why is the word "whatnot" a construction of "what" and "not"? I've done some online etymological research on the word "whatnot", but I've been unable to figure out why it is a construction of "what" and "not". How does the combination of the words "what" and "not" relate to the meaning of "whatnot" (simply, anything )? <Q> I don't know whether that's etymologically correct, though. <A> Whatnot was originally a placeholder name like whatsit or thingamebob for miscellaneous trifling items. <S> It is just something that did not have an obvious name. <S> It later became a word describing furniture for holding such things, typically a small stack of corner shelves. <S> Etymonline gives 1530s for the first use and 1808 for the second. <A> I had always assumed that whatnot is an abbreviation of sorts for a exclamation like " <S> My, what isn't on that list!" <A> Whatnot strikes me a a respelling of the King James Biblical expression "wot not," meaning "don't know" as in "we wot not what is become of him" --Acts 7:40. <S> Of course, that was a verb form, transitioned to noun. <S> So a whatnot is like "whatchamajigger" - a fun alternative to "thing. <S> " I know this is a response to an old post, but inquiring minds still want to know.
| I think of it as a contraction of "what[ever was] not [mentioned]" - i.e., everything else.
|
Are there examples of terms named after a person that are no longer capitalized? Are there any grammatically correct examples of terms named after someone that are no longer capitalized? I know certain brand names have become so ingrained in the lexicon that they are no longer capitalized - xerox, coke, hoover, etc. - but are there examples where the now-lower cased item is named after a person? <Q> All units of measurement named after scientists are, when used in English, in lowercase. <S> So, you can add to your list: kelvin, joule, ampere, henry, newton, hertz, pascal, watt, coulomb, volt, farad, ohm, siemens, weber, tesla, becquerel, gray, sievert, and others. <A> A quick Wikipedia search gave me these words: quixotic <S> (I'm not sure this counts), draconian , and cesarean . <A> Also boycott and euclidean (as in geometry), although that latter one usually is still capitalized. <A> Yes, just because the origin of a word is originally a person's name doesn't automatically mean it is always capitalised. <S> For example, a "spoonerism" is a type of speech error that allegedly somebody called Spooner tended to make. <S> A "nosy parker" is somebody exhibiting a behaviour that allegedly somebody called "Parker" had. <S> Notice how in these examples, and unlike cases such as "Chomskyan", "Thatcherite", we're not naming something after that person's deliberate doctrine/invention. <S> There may also be a factor involved of time <S> and/or how much the person in question is still known to contemporary speakers (which may be why we'd tend to write "sadistic" rather than "Sadistic", for example). <A> The diesel. <S> A guillotine. <S> I guess you're looking for nouns without suffixes only? <S> To lynch (John was quicker). <S> cesarean. <S> Wow, never heard about that: <S> goethite |ˌgoʊθaɪt| <S> noun a dark reddish-brown or yellowish-brown mineral consisting of oxyhydroxide iron, occurring typically as masses of fibrous crystals. <S> ORIGIN early 19th cent. <S> : from the name of J.W. von Goethe + -ite tsar/czar – ORIGIN from Russian tsar’, representing Latin Caesar. <S> Found a series: einsteinium, nobelium, etc. <S> That's fun. <A> The one I can think of off the top of my head are "cartesian," as in cartesian plane, named after Rene Descartes. <S> My second though was "hermaphrodite," but that's not exactly named after a person... <S> I also found a really big list of these "eponyms. <S> " Many of them are not capitalised. <S> http://foxdreamer.tripod.com/page2.html Have fun! :) <A> I found out two last night, watching Melvyn Bragg's excellent series about the English language. <S> "orrery" was named for the Earl of Orrery, who funded the making of the first modern one. <S> "johnson" for the male organ, reportedly named for Samuel Johnson during Jane Austen's time because 'he would stand up to anybody'. <A> A herculean task (only capitalized if it refers to one of the actual tasks of Hercules) <A> The common word "guy", which comes from Guy Fawkes (or, more specifically, burned effigies of him) Named from Guy Fawkes (1570-1606), an English Catholic hanged for his role in the Gunpowder Plot. <S> (colloquial) <S> A male A new guy started at the office today. <S> (Wiktionary) <A> narcissus. <S> Try some personal names: <S> (Oh, peter, too) <S> louis |ˈluwəs| |ˈluwi| (also louis d'or ) noun (pl. same) a gold coin issued in France between 1640 and 1793. <S> • another term for napoleon (sense 2). <S> ORIGIN from Louis, the name of many kings of France. <S> joe <S> |ʤoʊ| <S> noun informal 1 coffee. <S> [ORIGIN: 1940s: of unknown origin.] <S> 2 <S> an ordinary man: the average joe. <S> [ORIGIN: mid 19th cent. <S> : nickname for the given name Joseph; compare with Joe Blow.] <S> john |dʒɑn| <S> noun informal <S> 1 a toilet. <S> 2 a prostitute's client. <S> ORIGIN early 20th century (sense 2): from the given name John, used from late Middle English as a form of address to a man, or to denote various occupations, including that of priest (late Middle English) and policeman (mid 17th century). <S> Other physical units, e.g. henry |ˈhɛnri| (abbreviation: H) <S> noun (plural henries |ˈhɛnriz| or henrys |ˈhɛnriz| <S> ) Physics the SI unit of inductance, equal to an electromotive force of one volt in a closed circuit with a uniform rate of change of current of one ampere per second. <S> ORIGIN late 19th cent. <S> : named after Joseph Henry (1797–1878), the American physicist who discovered the phenomenon. <A>
| I was told the only legitimate and recognizable math term named after a person that is definitively no longer (or maybe never was) capitalized is the word "abelian", named after Norwegian mathematician Niels Abel, meaning commutative essentially.
|
Is "upcoming" too informal? I'm writing a PhD thesis. Should I use "upcoming" in the following sentence, or is it too informal? . . . the modifications will be included in the upcoming fourth version of the manual . . . By upcoming I mean "to be released". <Q> The dictionary I have does not report upcoming as informal word, nor do I give to the word an informal meaning. <S> I normally see the word associated to events that are about to happen (e.g., election), but I have also seen the word used in upcoming newsletter . <A> You could omit it altogether. <S> The salient point is that the modifications will be in the fourth version of the manual. <S> If it is useful to note that the fourth version has not been released at the time of the publishing of your PhD, a footnote along the lines of "Expected release date: blah blah 2011" might be appropriate. <A> Upcoming is redundant as you've already said "will be included" and as someone else pointed out, it will make your text out of date once the fourth version is published. <S> Apart from that, forthcoming does somehow sound less hip - and therefore more suitable - than upcoming.
| Instead of upcoming , you could use forthcoming , future , imminent , coming , or impending . Since your PhD will be published and readable at any date that follows it, including the word 'upcoming' will result in your text becoming out of date.
|
Is it "just as soon" or "just assume"? If someone says a phrase that sounds like: I'd just as soon you don't get in an accident, so I'll call you later. Are they actually saying "just as soon" or "just assume" or something else? <Q> It's " <S> I'd just as soon" <S> and it means, in expanded form, "I would just as soon have it that [something be true] as that [something else be true]. <S> It is making a comparison between the benefits of something happening one way versus another, and stating a preference regarding the outcome. <S> Examples: <S> I'd just as soon eat live cockroaches as go see another movie about vampires. <S> Here the person is stating a distaste for vampire movies. <S> He would as soon, or as eagerly, eat live cockroaches than watch one. <S> I'd just as soon you spoke to Bill before telling Marie about this. <S> Here the person believes Bill needs to know something before Marie finds out about it. <S> There is only an implied comparison here, between telling Bill first and not. <A> I think Americans screw this up all the time. <S> The examples here make very good sense. <S> "I'd just as soon do X as Y". <S> Perfect. <S> I hear it all the time in a non comparative sense. <S> Drives me bananas. <S> If English weren't my first language it would drive me to distraction. <S> Ok. <S> Now let's fight about when to use "further" vs "farther" :) <A> "Just as soon", meaning something very like <S> "I would sooner you don't...", but with the preference left up to the listener. <S> It's a kind of "I can take it or leave it, but, well, leaving it would be easier for me -- still, it's your decision" idea; the speaker's desire is obvious, but not being pressed. <A> "I would sooner [do something] than [do something else]", on the other hand, indicates a preference. <S> The expression "I would just assume you do/ <S> don't do something" makes no sense, nor would the expression " <S> I would just as soon you do/don't do something". <A> I'll ignore the 'actually saying' deliberately. <S> They say what they say, after all. <S> Rather I speak about what they may mean. <S> Never heard or seen it. <S> But it reminds me of ”I'd rather you go away“, which perplexes me as a non-native speaker time and again. <S> So, my vote is 'I prefer you don't get in an accident'. <S> The phrase may be a blending of ” <S> I'd rather“ and ”I assume“. <S> My 2 Euro cents.
| Simply put, "I would just as soon [do one thing] as [do something else]" indicates that there is no preference one way or the other.
|
"Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't" Okay, so recently I ended up saying this: Well, that is unfortunate... sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Okay. You know, just saying "Sometimes it happens" already tells you that something happens sometimes and other times it doesn't. But, sometimes, I need to make very clear that this "something" doesn't happen always. That's why I say sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't But is there a way to shorten this phrase? To make it simpler, but still making very clear the fact that this "something" may not happen? Repeating "sometimes" is not very much of my liking... <Q> This is an example of a rhetorical device called anaphora . <S> It's the very repetition of the word 'sometimes' that is emphasizing your point. <S> Unfortunately, rhetoric can sometimes be the enemy of conciseness; what you lose in conciseness, you gain (one hopes) in effectiveness. <A> To make it absolutely clear, you can use <S> It happens sometimes but not always. <A> You could reduce it by negating "always": <S> This implies that it happens sometimes, but it emphasises that there are times when it does not happen. <S> The sentence accent will fall on always . <S> Or you could use "only": <S> This only happens sometimes. <S> This emphasises that the number of times it happens is limited. <S> The primary sentence accent falls on some- , the secondary accent on only .
| It doesn't always happen.
|
How do you spell Muammar Qaddafi? This name, which is spelled القذافي in Arabic, is spelled in so many different ways in the Latin alphabet: Gadafi, Gadaffi, Gaddafi, Gaddaffi, Gadhafi, Gadhaffi, Ghadafi, Ghadaffi, Ghaddafi, Ghaddaffi, Ghadhafi, Ghadhaffi, Kadafi, Kadaffi, Kaddafi, Kadhafi, Khadafi, Khaddafi, Khaddaffi, Khadhafi, Khadhaffi, Qadafi, Qadaffi, Qaddafi, Qaddaffi, Qadhafi, Qadhaffi, Qadhdhafi, Qathafi Why are there so many ways of spelling it? Which one should be used in general usage? <Q> Well, good question. <S> I hate to dump a Wikipedia answer on you, but the site does point us in an interesting direction : <S> In 1986, Gaddafi reportedly responded to a Minnesota school's letter in English using the spelling " <S> Moammar El-Gadhafi".[106] <S> The title of the homepage of algathafi.org reads "Welcome to the official site of Muammar Al Gathafi".[107] <S> The article also references The Straight Dope , a mainstay fact-finding and generally informative and entertaining column written by "Cecil Adams" for The Reader , my hometown's free weekly, which elaborates on the issue. <S> In it we find this bit of corroborative information: <S> How Should We Spell Gadhafi? <S> Well, there's no real right answer. <S> However, the Straight Dope provides some sound advice. <S> It notes that it is a general rule of thumb that if there is doubt over how to spell a person's name, you simply use the version that the person in question uses . <S> In this case, it's a bit tricky since Khadafi spells his name in Arabic. <S> However, the Straight Dope points out a strange incident that sheds some light on this issue. <S> Back in May, 1986, Kadafi wrote a letter to a class of second-graders in St. Paul, Minnesota. <S> Underneath his Arabic signature was typed "Moammar El-Gadhafi." <S> [Emphasis my own] <S> The Wikipedia article also notes the difficulty in standardizing Arabic names: <S> Because of the lack of standardization of transliterating written- and regionally-pronounced Arabic, Gaddafi's name has been transliterated in many different ways into English and other Latin alphabet languages. <S> In literary Arabic the name معمر القذافي can be pronounced /muˈʕamːaru lqaðˈðaːfiː/. [ʕ] represents a voiced pharyngeal fricative (ع). <S> Geminated consonants can be simplified. <S> In Libyan Arabic, /q/ (ق) may be replaced with [ɡ] or [k] (or even [χ]; and /ð/ <S> (ذ) (as "th" in "this") may be replaced with [d] or [t]. <S> Vowel [u] often alternates with [o] in pronunciation. <S> Thus, /muˈʕamːar alqaðˈðaːfiː/ is normally pronounced in Libyan Arabic [muˈʕæmːɑrˤ əlɡædˈdæːfi]. <S> The definite article al- <S> (ال) is often omitted. <A> It should be started with Q like Qatar : <S> Q قـ <S> Qazafi قذافی <S> Qatar <S> قطر <S> I'm not sure about <S> z/dh/ <S> th <S> but doubt that it could be dd . <S> Also: <S> Iraq عراق Quran قرآن <S> Qods(Jerusalem) <S> قدس <S> Qiblah قبله <A> I've seen this question in other venues too. <S> The proper answer seems to be that the only "correct" way to spell it is to do it in Arabic. <S> There isn't a one-to-one mapping between Arabic glyphs and English ones. <S> In fact, they don't even overlap very well at all. <S> To make matters worse, English does not have a one-to-one mapping between its phonemes and its spelling. <S> So anybody translating a name between the two has little choice but to try to match phonemes between the two languages as best as possible (sometimes not at all). <S> Then the poor slob has to arbitraily pick an English spelling for their phonemes. <S> The only way anybody doing all this could possibly say their result is the one and only correct one, would be if they are the holder of the name in question, and that's what they want others using. <S> Note that this same issue goes for any name from a language that doesn't use a Latin alphabet. <S> Most Chineese folks I know just give up and use some short English nickname. <A> In his Preface to ‘Seven Pillars of Wisdom’, T E Lawrence robustly defends his inconsistencies in transliteration: <S> Arabic names won’t go into English, exactly, for their consonants are not the same as ours, and their vowels, like ours, vary from district to district. <S> There are some ‘scientific systems’ of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a washout for the world. <S> I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are.
| Even though the Arabic spelling of a word does not change, the pronunciation may vary in different varieties of Arabic, which may cause a different romanization.
|
What do you call it when a group of neglected people spontaneously forms a cruel society? I'm trying to come up with a word to describe what happens in cartoons (and probably real life) when a traumatic event leads to a group of ordinary people (usually children) to fend for themselves. They then form a new society resembling a dictatorship ruled by bullies. <Q> If you exclude the "traumatic event" part, then "anarchy" works. <S> from dictionary.com, 4 : confusion; <S> chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. <A> I'd call it a " Lord of the Flies situation". <S> I think nearly all somewhat-educated adult English speakers would understand exactly what you're talking about; we all had to read it in high school. <A> I would call this social atavism in general. <S> The term for the form of government involved (rule by those best at causing fear, pain, injury and death) is despotism .
| Lord of the Flies is a novel about some school kids on a field trip that are shipwrecked and wash up on an island with no adults, and form just what you described: a spontaneous, cruel society of neglected people.
|
What do you call words that are separated by a hyphen? What do you call words like one-note that are separated by a hyphen? <Q> I would call them hyphenated compounds , as opposed to solid compounds and open compounds . <S> Note how they are not dashed . <S> That's because a hyphen (-) is not the same as a dash (–, —, ⁓, ‒). <S> Short compounds may be written in three different ways, which do not correspond to different pronunciations, however: The "solid" or "closed" forms in which two usually moderately short words appear together as one. <S> Solid compounds most likely consist of short (monosyllabic) units that often have been established in the language for a long time. <S> Examples are housewife , lawsuit , wallpaper , etc. <S> The hyphenated form in which two or more words are connected by a hyphen. <S> Compounds that contain affixes, such as house-build(er) and single-mind(ed)(ness) , as well as adjective-adjective compounds and verb-verb compounds, such as blue-green and freeze-dried , are often hyphenated. <S> Compounds that contain articles, prepositions or conjunctions, such as rent-a-cop , mother-of-pearl and salt-and-pepper , are also often hyphenated. <S> The open or spaced form consisting of newer combinations of usually longer words, such as distance learning , player piano , lawn tennis , etc. <A> The “-” sign is not a dash, but a hyphen . <S> Dashes of various length are used in English writing: “–” is an en dash , and “—” is an em dash. <S> Their names ( en and em ) are those of typographic units of measurements. <S> The former is used in particular to separate dates in ranges (“Lee, Bruce (1941–73)”), and the latter is used to indicate a break of thought or an unfinished sentence. <A> I believe the term you are looking for is hyphenated words. <S> Note that the hyphen and the dash (or, rather, dashes -- there are several of them) <S> are different characters.
| Words that contain one or more hyphens are said to be hyphenated .
|
Can a book be divided in categories? A book divided in several chapters/topics, can also be considered to be divided in categories (or have categories)? Not sure if category can be used in this case, or if it should only be used in the context of category theory. <Q> For example, a book about Philippine cuisine written by Dostoyevski could be sorted into the categories "Cooking", "Russian author", "Philippines". <S> But it would be sorted into each of these categories as a whole . <S> You can't divide the book into categories. <S> A category is a superordinate concept, while chapters is a subordinate one. <A> A catalog is a type of book that can have categories. <S> The categories may be related to the book as a whole and have no relation to each other, or they may be related to each other using categories to delineate between subtleties. <S> Reference books, in general, and especially repair manuals, have categories. <S> I can imagine a book entitled "The Usage of English Around the World" having categories based on geography or history or any other method one may choose for categorizing how English is used throughout the world. <S> I can also imagine someone writing an autobiographical book having a category consisting of poetry they've written, another category for personal correspondence, another for diary entries, and another with newspaper clippings about them. <S> Taken separately <S> they do not provide a complete picture of the author's life, but taken together you could get a better understanding than with narrative alone. <A> Perhaps sections is what you're looking for. <S> The book is divided into sections, and each is comprised of ten chapters.
| Books can be sorted or put in categories.
|
Meaning of "The Lord is on our side" Written in 1836 in Texas P.S. The Lord is on our side—When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn—We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels & got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves. (for further context, see the Wikipedia entry for this letter ) The bit I found interesting was the last line about the Lord being on their side. Was this used as an expression to encourage people to join them, or was it used as a literal statement, as in, the Lord literally put bushels of corn in the house for them? <Q> It's a bit of both, I think. <S> The writer is probably taking their "luck" in finding grain and obtaining cattle as a sign of divine favor (in the sort of hedged half-believing way that seems particularly American to me, but doubtless people of other nationalities are perfectly familiar with), and in any event describing it that way sounds better and more devout than saying "oh, hey, we got lucky with food, good thing since we had all the military preparedness in that area of a kid's tea party". <S> It serves the purpose of both helping give the letter a tone of cheerful bravado and, probably, easing people's fears that if they answer the call to arms they'll wind up starving. <A> In context, that has two possible meanings to me. <S> The Lord is on our side could be equivalent to "Thank God...". <S> Expressing relief at good fortune in the most typical manner. <S> Not necessarily prescribing it to God. <S> "We are on the side of the Right <S> /Good/Just". <S> The Lord only ever siding with those who are good, and just, by saying this he is implying that they are in the right. <S> Then using their good fortune to prove it. <S> It would depend on the writer for which meaning is to be taken. <S> In that time period, it is more likely definition 2 is intended. <S> Today, it would be either definition 1, or a mixture of both, expressing God is on our side and as a thanks for what we found (without prescribing it to God). <A> It seems very likely to me that the writer knew this to be the case when he wrote it. <S> A particularly superstitious believer might think that God himself magicked up the corn in a puff of smoke, in a piece of direct intervention to help the Texans. <S> A more pragmatic, yet still ardent, believer might believe that God had subtly influenced the course of the last few months, engineering things so that when the time came, there would be food for the Texan forces. <S> A secular person could read it in a non-religious manner: "Hey guys, we had some good luck". <S> The skill of a great rabble rouser, is to make lots of people believe they agree with you, by making your words fit many interpretations. <A> RE Slim's comment, I doubt he (Col Travis that is, not Slim) supposed that God had created the food supplies miraculously out of thin air, but rather that God had worked more subtly to cause them to be present when the time came. <S> The letter does not explicitly say, "God is on our side, therefore you should be on our side, too. <S> " The writer might have had such a thought in mind. <S> The general thrust of the letter is that they are holding out despite seemingly overwhelming odds. <S> Whether the intent is to say, "We are holding out, but we can't hold out forever, please send help soon" or "We are holding out, which demonstrates our courage and skill and divine favor, and so this is the winning side <S> and you want to be on it" ... <S> it seems to me that either reading is possible. <S> Or maybe Col Travis is simply trying to state the facts of the situation and let the reader make what he will of it.
| It seems to me that the words are meant literally: the writer believed that God favored his side in the conflict and provided for them. The words would be interpreted differently by every reader, depending on the particulars of their faith.
|
Is the term "blind spot" something that only native English speakers would understand? Is the term "blind spot" peculiar to the English language, or is it likely to be well understood worldwide, even by people who don't have English as their first language? Some background I'm currently searching for a term I can use in some software I'm developing. The feature in question allows the user to draw rectangles over an image to denote areas they'd like to ignore in a later analysis of the image. I need the user to be able to create and delete as many of these areas as they like. Currently, the areas are called "exclusion areas", but that causes problems when you've got a button labelled "Remove exclusion area". We've seen people being tripped up by the double negative. One thought was to rename the "exclusion areas" to "blind spots". However, do you think this will cause more problems for non-native English speakers? <Q> I like @horatio's answer, the common term for what you're doing is masking unwanted parts of the image, so it could be called a mask rectangle. <S> I tried to come up with a better word, but I think there's a deeper problem: <S> what the word removed means. <S> What does a button labelled "Remove Exclusion Area", "Remove Blind Spot" or even "Remove Ignored Area" do? <S> To me it sounds like it will actually remove the area <S> the rectangle covers from the image. <S> It sounds like, no, what it does is remove the rectangle denoting what parts of the image are to be ignored. <S> That's why I would go with mask . <S> It's specific enough to refer to what's doing the covering, not's what's underneath. " <S> Remove Mask" should be understood in English, although I'm not sure how it translates. <A> Knowing if non-English speakers know the term "blind spot" is nearly impossible for a native English speaker, for obvious reasons. <S> A more technical alternative for you might be image mask and the button might read "remove selected mask" <A> I don't think so. <S> It is well-documented in dictionaries, and neither slang nor informal. <S> I would not expect to cause any particular difficulty to a non-native speaker. <S> FYI: I'm not a native speaker. <A> My first and second languages are Galician and Spanish (not sure what order), and literal translations of "blind spot" make total sense in both, and are often used in the context that you describe. <S> I don't see any problem with the phrase, other than perhaps sounding a bit too techie. <A> point aveugle in French, <S> Blinder Fleck in German, অন্ধবিন্দু in Bengali, <S> bintik buta in Malay, 盲点 in Japanese, and many more. <S> So I suspect a mild and fairly obvious metaphorical use in English should not be too much of a problem. <S> Some people may expect it to be a small area.
| Blind spot , at least when it means the part of the eye without photo-receptors, seems to have exactly the same name (or with the words reversed) calqued in a large number of different languages: It is certainly idiomatic, but it is rather frequently encountered in writing (newspaper articles, in particular).
|
Does "either A or B " preclude "both A and B"? In mathematics, "A or B" includes "A and B". Does "either" mean "A or B but not (A and B)" or does it include the possibility of "A and B"? The context might be mathematics, formal logic or ordinary language. <Q> So yes, it means "A or B but not both". <S> It isn't always actually used with full precision, though, so, as usual, context has to be taken into account. <S> If somebody says, "select either A or B", for example, they definitely mean that you should not select both. <S> If they say "if either A or B is true", though, they probably mean a non -exclusive OR , and the condition is still true if both A and B are true. <S> Unfortunately, if there's a generally reliable rule for telling which is meant, I'm failing to think of what it would be. <S> Without the "either", the presumption would be more toward " <S> A OR B", where OR allows the case where both are true. <S> Which is why computer geeks and propositional calculus nerds will, when asked "do you want to go to lunch now or later? <S> ", answer "yes". <S> (Illustrating that the "either" part is implied by context as often as it's cancelled by context.) <A> Either A or B means the same as A or B . <S> Each can mean or used in the inclusive or exclusive sense. <S> Usually, the inclusive sense is used in mathematics and the exclusive sense in everyday life. <S> In any case, further specification or context will remove any doubt. <A> In mathematics or computing you do not need context to remove the uncertainty. <S> You simply look for the presence or absence of an X before OR.In <S> literacy, reading, writing, speaking and listening contextual interpretation is necessary. <S> Numeracy is more precise in syntax that literacy. <A> From wikipedia: <S> Either/or means "one or the other. <S> " <S> Its usage, versus the simple or structure, is often for emphatic purposes, sometimes intending to emphasize that only one option is possible, or to emphasize that there are only two options. <S> Its use in a sentence lets the reader/listener know in advance that a list of two or more possibilities will be given. <S> As you correctly recognize "or" used alone can also include the possibility of both A and B (especially important in mathematics). <A> How to Prove It by Vellerman, a textbook on formal logics, says <S> and the book later uses "either ... or ... <S> " to mean ∨. What English sentences are represented by the following expressions? ... <S> ¬S ∧ (L ∨ S) ... <S> Solutions ... <S> John isn't stupid, and either he's lazy or he's stupid. ... <S> ... <S> I don't know the origin of this phrasing, but looking at "neither ... nor ..." may help clarify. <S> "Neither A nor B" in logic unambiguously translates to ((not A) and (not B)). <S> By De Morgan's law , that expression is equivalent to (not (A or B)) so perhaps whoever established that convention thought that establishing "neither A nor B" as the logical inverse of "either A or B" would lead to the least surprise . <S> This differs from what I recall of my textbooks on logical circuit design. <S> Electrical engineers seem to use different notations for logic from formal systems people (+ and ⊕ instead of ∨ and + respectively), so <S> the difference in interpreting "either ... or ..." may be a dialectal difference. <A> Sometimes even 'and' is used in natural language as logical OR: "You can have coffee and cake" may not mean that you can only have both and not one of them. <S> Or "you can have chocolate spread and Gouda cheese on your sandwich". <S> Often, in natural language writing (especially in a formal setting, such as technical or business documentation) "and/or" is used to denote the logical OR and to prevent the confusion about the meaning of 'or'. <S> We use 'and/or' because 'or' tends to suggest logical XOR more than logical OR. <S> "Either A or B" does not absolutely preclude "A and B", but the general usage and meaning tends to prefer the XOR ("not (A and B)"). <A> It means that it can't be both. <S> I believe one would call it an "exclusive or" or XOR. <A> According to Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (CALD), it states that "either-or describes a situation in which there is a choice between two different plans of action, but both together are not possible.
| "Either A or B" most precisely means, in symbolic logic terms, "A XOR B", where XOR is the "exclusive or" . In mathematics, or always means inclusive or, unless otherwise specified, ...
|
Is "connexion" synonymous with "connection"? Is "connexion" synonymous with "connection"? For example, "an ethernet connexion". Can I use it like that? <Q> No, at least not in American English. <S> From Wikipedia: Connexion is the original and variant spelling of "connection", common until at least the 19th century, and still occasionally used in British English (it was the house style of The Times of London as recently as the 1980s). <S> It is derived from the Latin connexio, hence the spelling, unlike most words ending in "-ction" which are derived from Latin words ending in "-ctio" (e.g. "protection" from protectio). <A> In British English, connexion is an alternative spelling of connection ; American English only uses connection . <S> The origin of the word connection explains the reason of this. <S> Connection has origin from the Latin connexio(n-) ; only in the 18th century the spelling -ct- started to be used, on the pattern of words like collect , and collection . <A> It is definitely used in British English. <S> I came across this variant of spelling in Lord of the Rings: <S> The Fellowship of the Ring. <S> If we look closely at the author of the book, J.R.R Tolkien, he is a Briton and wrote this book in 1954. <S> The usage of this spelling is dated and is closer related to 19th century/ early 20th century. <S> In Canada, we spell it just like in the US: connection. <A> It mainly appears in (some) British texts and/or archaic texts. <S> The term "connexion" is depreciated in modern American English. <S> It is still (sometimes) used in British English. <S> An Example of Encountering the Term Connexion In a Modern Context <S> I found the use of the term "connexion" in some translations of Kant's Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics . <S> Kant is still being read in philosophy today, so that is one use of the term "connexion" in a modern context. <S> This was the book:-- <S> ( https://www.amazon.de/Kants-Prolegomena-Future-Metaphysics-English-ebook/dp/B01LZ8UD4C ) <S> You can find the Kant quote below. <S> Research :-- Sources and References :-- <S> ( http://www.dictionary.com/browse/connexion ) <S> ( http://grammarist.com/spelling/connexion/ ) <S> Other References and Further Reading :-- ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/connexion ) <S> MLA Citation :-- <S> "I therefore first tried whether Hume's objection could not be put into a general form, and soon found that the concept of the connexion of cause and effect was by no means the only idea by which the understanding thinks the connexion of things a priori, but rather that metaphysics consists altogether of such connexions ." <S> Emphasis via italics is by me and is not from the original text. <S> -- <S> Kant, Immanuel. <S> “Kant's Prolegomena: <S> To Any Future Metaphysics (English Edition) <S> Kindle Edition.” <S> Kant's Prolegomena: <S> To Any Future Metaphysics (English Edition) <S> EBook: <S> Immanuel Kant: Amazon.de: <S> Kindle-Shop, https://www.amazon.com/Kants-Prolegomena-Future-Metaphysics-English-ebook/dp/B01LZ8UD4C .
| In use of typical American English, the word "connexion" would simply be replaced with the standard term, connection. I've never seen that spelling in use in the US.
|
What's the recommended way to refer to the September 11 attacks in formal writing? September 11 attacks , September eleven attacks , September eleventh , Nine-eleven ? None of the above? What's recommended for formal writing? <Q> I think your question uses the most readily understood and formal way of referring to the events of that day: September 11 Attacks . <S> Indeed, that's the name of the Wikipedia page . <S> 9/11 (nine-eleven) is the informal "shorthand" that usually comes from people wanting to either exploit the event to push an agenda or bring out a more emotional response. <S> Personally, I'd avoid using it in formal writing. <A> If you are writing for posterity (as opposed to writing for a periodical or something of similar, limited currency) <S> We are nearly a decade out now, and people have a horrible habit of memorializing one such event with another, similar one. <S> That leaves aside consideration of mere coincidence -- Ireland now has two Bloody Sundays, so when discussing the particulars of one or the other, you need to distinguish which one you are talking about. <S> (Both carry the same emotional resonance if they're just mentioned in passing.) <A> Also please take in account that "9/11" can be misleading to most of the world. <S> There are already a lot of people, who think that the attacks have occurred on 9th of November. <S> The issue is, that USA is almost the only country in the world, which uses MM/DD/YYYY date format. <S> See: <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country
| I would introduce the event as "the attacks of September 11, 2001".
|
What's the difference between "censor", "moderate" and "review"? What's the difference between censor , moderate and review ? Real-world examples would be much appreciated. Edit: thanks for the answers guys, from my understanding, censorship means the action to prevent readers from knowing stuff, moderating means making readers get an altered version of stuff, and review means feedback for editing. Is my understanding OK? <Q> For example, Pink Floyd's song Money had a censored version for radio play throughout most of the 80s and 90s where the line "Don't give me that do-goody-good bullshit" had the word "shit" replaced with silence. <S> Moderating in internet usage is often a combination of editing and censoring; you look over existing posts for offensive or off-topic material and either re-word the offensive parts or remove the posts. <S> Preferably there is an element of feedback in this process to provide the offending poster with a chance to improve their habits. <S> The other type of moderating generally is as the person who facilitates a debate between two or more people, making sure that all debaters get asked the same questions, get the same chance to answer them, and do not monopolize the microphone. <S> Reviewing is providing feedback regarding a work (sometimes directly to the author, sometimes to the potential audience of the work), where you explain what you liked and didn't like about it, and in the case of direct feedback given prior to the work's final production, make suggestions on how to change the work to improve it. <S> For example, Many authors provide pre-release copies of their latest book in a series to a small core of dedicated fans, who point out problems with continuity, plot holes, and the like so that the author can fix things up before the book is published. <A> Censoring has to do with removing parts of a text. <S> Reviewing has to do with examining a text for appropriateness, but the reviewer may not necessarily have the power to take action. <S> For example, if I write an article critical of a country, the country might censor me by removing that article. <S> If I were to curse, a moderator might edit my post to remove that word and send me a warning. <S> Reviewing generally has less to do with this type of situation. <A> Agreeing with waiwai933, but I would add: When you censor , you edit out what you don't like, or suppress the work entirely. <S> When you moderate , you re-write <S> what you don't like (although "moderating" a written work is a rare usage). <S> When you review , you produce a separate document summarizing your opinion. <A> censor: examine a book, a movie, etc. <S> officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it moderate: make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent; (in academic and ecclesiastical contexts) preside over a deliberative body or at a debate <S> review: <S> examine or assess something formally with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary; write a critical appraisal of a book, play, movie, etc. <S> for publication in a newspaper or magazine <S> Her mail was being censored. <S> She shall not moderate her criticism. <S> A panel moderated by a Harvard University law professor was assembled to resolve the issues. <S> The company's safety procedures are being reviewed. <S> I reviewed her first novel. <S> [Reference: the New Oxford American Dictionary .]
| Censoring removes material from a work; deleting a scene, placing black bars over exposed genitalia, "bleeping out" obscenities, and so forth. Moderating has to do with examining a text for appropriateness and taking action as appropriate.
|
A saying for something that's good but also has a downside I'm trying to transition from a list of pros to a list of cons, and would like to have some sort of transition quote. Something in the form of, "But, alas, (((something something quote quote)))" Everything that has a beginning has an end, something along the lines of that. <Q> More context would make providing a more elegant transition easier. <S> In the absence of that, here's a few general transitions that use the "But, alas," starting point. <S> But, alas, that which glitters is not always gold. <S> But, alas, every rose has its thorn. <S> But, alas, nothing is ever free. <S> But, alas, there are downsides [to this item being discussed]. <S> But, alas, [this item] is not perfect. <A> You might also say "There is no light without darkness"; of course you could substitute two other related polar opposites that might be more appropriate for your subject matter. <S> (warmth/cold, love/hate, etc.) <S> More prosaically, there's also "There's always a catch". <S> (Also, for his first suggestion, I prefer the phrasing "Not all that glitters is gold". :-) ) <A> You could call that "a mixed bag". <S> I used to think I had the perfect job, but as time went on I realized it was something of a mixed bag. <A> There's a phrase "curate's egg" referring to a (mythical, surely) man of the cloth who, when asked by his host how his egg was, replied that it was "Good in parts". <S> It can be used directly as " <S> But, alas, it's rather curate's egg", but you might prefer a more verbose option such as " <S> But, alas, like the curate's egg it is good in parts".
| In addition to Shaun's excellent suggestions, I like to turn the old adage on its head and say "every silver lining has a cloud."
|
Why is "t" sometimes pronounced like "d" in American English? Why, in American English, is the word Italy is pronounced /ˈɪdəli/ and not /ˈɪtəli/? What is the rule that is followed in the pronunciation of Italy to make the letter t pronounced like a d? Why is the same rule not followed for Italian , which is pronounced /əˈtæljən/ or /ɪˈtæljən/? <Q> First two questions: <S> The pronunciation of some American English consonants can be quite different from British English, in particular for R and T . <S> A t in the middle of a word can be pronunced as a soft d in American English (think of bottle , cattle , etc.). <S> See here , for example, for examples of this. <S> Third question: <S> Why it does happen for Italy and not for Italian <S> is clearly a matter of stress . <S> Thus /ˈɪdəli/ <S> but /əˈtæljən/. <S> Another example is (taken from the New Oxford American Dictionary , in US English pronunciation): <S> tautology (/tɔˈtɑlədʒi/) vs tautological (/ˈˌtɔdlˈɑdʒəkəl/), which clearly demonstrate that. <A> Not all Americans do, and not consistently. <S> The t in "-teen" is always pronounced as t. As Henry mentions the reason is that flap rarely happens in stressed positions. <S> As it doesn't happen in Italian. <S> Here 's good explanation of T pronounced D. <A> There's no /d/. <S> It's /ɪtəli/ pronounced [ɪɾəli], with alveolar flap in the pronunciation corresponding to phonemic <S> t. <S> It really is helpful, folks, to distinguish between phonemes and phones for a question like this. <S> If the schwa is lost in casual pronunciation, since you can't say a flap right next to an [l] <S> (the tongue tip has to come back down for a flap), the flap becomes [d]: [ɪdli] (which does not happen in my pronunciation, but I've heard it). <A> The determination of the sound is usually in rhythm. <S> Different English dialects have different rhythms for words, which causes letters to get assimilated, softened, and dropped. <S> If you pronounce the t as t instead of d in a word like butter, the rhythm will be out of sync with American pronunciations. <S> This is the same reason Brits often pronounce literally, litch-rally or lit-rally instead of lid-erally like Americans. <S> They don't soften their t's and the rhythm of the e is faster in British English. <S> As a result the t sound is either emphasized or assimilated into the ch sound.
| Flap-t (/d/ instead of /t/) often happens between vowel sounds or after a vowel and before a liquid. If the stress is on the t , it usually keeps its pronunciation and is not changed into a soft d .
|
"Peel", "pare", and "skin" I lately learnt these three words of similar meanings: peel , pare , and skin . In what case do you use each of them? Could you give me example sentences along with a concise description for each? <Q> The meaning of those verbs is: pare: trim something by cutting away its outer edges; cut off the skin of something peel: remove the outer covering or skin from a fruit, vegetable, or shrimp skin: remove the skin from an animal, a fruit, or vegetable Carlo pared his thumbnails with his knife. <S> Peel off the skins and thickly slice the potatoes. <S> He scrambled down from the tree with such haste that he skinned his knees. <S> [Reference: the New Oxford American Dictionary .] <A> While peel and skin are both nouns and verbs, pare <S> is only a verb, from which I deduce you're talking about these words used as verbs. <S> So: peel is primarily used for fruits and vegetables ( peel an apple ), as well as clothing (in the sense of removing: to peel off one’s pullover ); it can also refer to other coverings on the surface of things <S> skin is mainly used for persons, animals ( skin the cat !) <S> and fruits pare <S> is, in my book, used much less frequently, but is as generic as skin <S> So, as I see it, skin is the most generic term, while peel refers mostly to fruits and vegetables <S> (you probably wouldn't say you're peeling the cat ). <S> pare <S> is much less used, but as broad as skin . <A> ldoce defines: <S> Peel <S> [ noun ]: the skin of some fruits and vegetables, especially the thick skin of fruits such as oranges, which you do not eat: orange peel Peel <S> [ verb ]: to remove the skin from fruit or vegetables Peel and dice the potatoes. <S> Skin [ noun ]: the natural outer cover of some fruits and vegetables, the word also has many other meanings. <S> banana skins Skin [ verb ]: to remove the skin from an animal, fruit, or vegetable <S> Add the tomatoes, skinned and sliced. <S> Pare [ verb ]: to cut off the outer layer of something, using a sharp knife Pare the rind from the fruit. <S> It's good to know: rind <S> [ noun ]: the thick outer skin of some types of fruit, such as oranges grated lemon rind <S> zest <S> [ noun ]: the outer skin of an orange or lemon , used in cooking grated orange zest <A> "pare" is often used to indicate something was reduced in size or number, but in small increments. <S> It is quite common to hear someone speak of paring something down to its essential elements or paring back the budget for the next fiscal year. <S> One might think of this as peeling something, then peeling it again, repeatedly.
| "pare" has additional meaning and use over "skin" and "peel" in that "skin" and "peel" refer to the removal of a thin outer layer of something (as indicated in the other answers).
|
Word for "left alone and to die"? Is there a word that means "left alone and to die"? Edit: I believe there is such a word. I think I'm looking for abandoned and alone. Others expectations are that you'll die. <Q> Apart from the obvious close-but-no-cigar candidates abandoned and forsaken <S> , how about marooned ? <S> [put] ashore on a desolate island or coast and [left] to one's fate [placed or left] in isolation or without hope of ready escape <A> Neglected immediately comes to mind (particularly in the context of elderly people in hospitals), my Thesaurus is also suggesting condemned which would fit better in the context of a prisoner on death row although a building can also be declared unfit and condemned. <S> Forsaken might also work depending on context (it has many Biblical connotations). <A> I cannot think of anything that specifically means “to leave someone alone to die”, even though “leave alone” has many synonyms. <A> Perhaps castaway is sufficient Sailors were cast away onto desert islands with the intention that they would suffer a slow and painful death, or go mad (although that is technically being marooned).
| The closest I can think of are: “to be left for dead” : to be abandoned as certain to die, but it can also have the connotation of “almost dead”, which may or may not be desirable depending on the context “to leave him to his fate” : although it does not imply death in particular, it is usually implied that the fate in question is unfavourable strand , which means leave someone without means to move, may also be relevant in some cases ( stranded on an deserted island )
|
What's the meaning of the word "nerd-crush"? This is the context: I’m just going to come right out and say it, I have a huge nerd-crush on jQuery. I have for several years. Actually, it may be more of a love affair. <Q> The nerd in "nerd crush" identifies it as decidedly non-sexual. <S> It is a technical love, the slavering "fanboi" lust geeks (myself included) display when they encounter something of a software or hardware nature that is <S> particularly delightful (i.e. "pushes all our buttons"). <S> It is probably more of an obsession, really. <A> It may also mean an admiration for a fellow member of a subgroup oriented around a technical matter or bit of fandom. <S> e.g., I have a nerd-crush on Wil Wheaton . <S> This implies that I admire and appreciate his work, presumably reaching all the way back to his Wesley Crusher years, perhaps I follow his blog or twitter feed. <S> This doesn't imply physical or sexual attraction so much as intellectual affinity. <A> It could be defined as an " infatuation on a technical topic". <S> Since it could actually be a "love affair" means this is more than a temporary love or a short-lived passion. <A> The "crush" part of the phrase is ironic and indicates that the attached word is not something you could have romantic or sexual feelings for, but it's just so awesome that you do anyway.
| It borrows the term "crush" to indicate love or infatuation, but that is used semi-ironically. Nerd-crush and similar words are based on man-crush .
|
Spelling and plural of abbreviation "hi vis" We regularly use these "hi visibility jackets/vests": We use them often enough to informally abbreviate it to simply " hi vis ". I am struggling as to how to pluralise such a term. In speech it sounds moderately okay to say "hi vises" but as you can see it looks terrible in writing. Any better suggestions? Also would such a term be hyphenated? <Q> A few suggestions: <S> "Hi-vis jackets" / "Hi-vis vests". <S> These have the most naturalness, at the cost of an extra word. <S> "Hi-vis". <S> In a sentence you'd write, for instance, "we got a new batch of a dozen hi-vis today". <S> Could be somewhat awkward. <S> Define a new abbreviation in whatever you're writing, like "HVJ" or "HVV", and write "HVJs" or "HVVs". <S> Or even "HVs". <S> All it takes is putting a "(HV)" after the first mention: "A hi-vis (HV) is indispensable. <S> How many HVs does it take…" etc. <S> My own preference is for 1 over 3 over 2. <S> In any case, whatever you choose, do include a hyphen: it comes from "high-visibility jacket" where "high-visibility" is a multiple-word adjective that needs a hyphen. <A> It's extremely uncommon for new singular words ending in "s" to be pronounced with a "z" sound; a "proper" spelling (even though one can never say that the spelling of a new word that isn't a brand name or technical coinage is proper until it has achieved a certain critical mass of usage) would probably be the hyphenated hi-viz . <S> I would have pronounced "hi vis" as if it were the plural of "hi vi" if the term hadn't been explained, and I think that would be the first inclination of most readers. <S> The plural, if there is one, would probably be best spelled as hi-vizzes , but there's probably a better way around it -- like instructing people to wear their hi-viz gear rather than their hi-vizzes. <A> I think from context it's clear that you don't mean a vise. <A> Wouldn't it be more in keeping with usual English spelling to double the final 's' and get <S> hi visses <S> / hi-visses ? <A> As vises is an American English word (the plural of vise , which the equivalent of the British vice ), I would use hi <S> vis's . <S> If the word is preceded from an adjective, then I would write hi- <S> vis for the singular and <S> hi-vis's for the plural. <S> Hi vis seems a greeting; that is the reason I would write hi-vis and hi-vis's , if I would really need to.
| I believe it should be hyphenated, hi-vis, making the plural hi-vises.
|
Any authoritative source on British rules on space before question mark? Is it ever correct to have a space before a question or exclamation mark? is affirming what I always use, but now some translators at my office said that I always need a space before. I am sure they are French or something but before I answer them, I would like to see some British source confirming it. UPDATE: No, Wikipedia is not authoritative unless it has a link to a publication that is.The people I need to correct are likely native English speakers who sat too long next to French translators or something. I need some heavy tome to throw at them :) UPDATE: The translators ate their words. All is well in the world. <Q> As far as authority goes, I'd put my money with Fowler's Modern English Usage . <S> In the first edition, Fowler uses spaces before colons, semicolons, question marks, and exclamation marks, but not before full stops or commas. <S> In the second edition, edited by Gowers, none of these stops are preceded by a space any more. <S> The third edition by Burchfield (another authority in the field) doesn't have them either. <S> Frankly spaces do look a bit old fashioned to me. <S> My advice would be to not use spaces any more; however, if you should decide to use them after all, it would still be correct—just uncommon. <A> This appears to be a typesetting question, more than a usage one. <S> Terminal punctuation is not set off with spaces in English because it is, well, "terminal" punctuation. <S> You cannot terminate a space. <S> As a question of typesetting, however, a designer might use spacing — particularly in a title or such — to get a particular look. <A> This is just hear-say (in a way): <S> My father in his day was a "layout artist" - these were the people that did all the text and image layouts of books and newspapers, by cutting out photos and text columns and snippets (sometimes even single letters) and very carefully, and very precisely pasting them onto a board to be photographed and then printed (late 1960's onward). <S> Now my father learned his craft on a lead type printing press (in the days they still used lead type!) <S> and he said the space before punctuation was often added when the last letter of the sentence would have crowded the punctuation mark, due to the letter's size or shape, and depending on the font used. <S> Also, they used half or third spaces usually, not full spaces. <S> This was in Switzerland, so it might not fit the British reason why Fowler's pre-war <S> Modern English Usage uses spaces before the question mark, although as they used lead type then to print books (just as my father had), it may well be. <A> Is Wikipedia authoritative enough? <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark#Stylistic_variants <S> It clearly mentions the French usage of having a space before the question mark - unhappily without reference. <S> However this French wiki page explicitly states that French typography requires a space before a question mark, but other typographies 'American in particular' omit a space: <S> De nombreuses autres (américaine, en particulier) <S> ne mettent aucune espace avant ces signes. <S> That wiki page has a number of references. <S> All of the examples on this Oxford Dictionaries online page omit a space before, but other than that <S> , the only references I can find to spacing in English are on sites aimed at teaching English as a foreign language, <S> e.g. this German one , this about.com page comparing English and French punctuation, and this EnglishClub page . <A> <A> Do you trust Microsoft? <S> When you type a question in Microsoft Word and leave a space before the question mark. <S> It says you have a grammar mistake and puts a green line under it. <S> I know you're looking for a book or something though. <A> In older typography, it was the practice of many printers to put a narrow space before a colon, semicolon, question mark, or exclamation point. <S> As someone has pointed out above, this was the practice followed in Fowler's Modern English Usage (that is, there are narrow spaces before these marks in the book; Fowler did not discuss this or other typographical issues). <S> The Internet provides many sources saying that such use of spaces is the French standard and is incorrect in English. <S> This is not a historically-informed assertion. <S> I suspect that the typewriter is responsible for the omission of spaces before all punctuation marks; the typewriter provided only the full space, which looks a bit awkward in front of a colon or interrogation point, so people just omitted them. <S> In any event, these spaces are seldom seen nowadays, but of you want to "plenk" (in German typography, the verb for the insertion of such spaces is plenken ), you should not let anyone intimidate you with a claim that it is "incorrect." <S> Just remember, if you composing on a word processor, to use a non-breaking space and to use font > character spacing > spacing to limit the space to 1.5 or 2 points. <S> In other words, plenk or not, as you please.
| I would suggest that the Oxford Style Manual and the Times Manual of Style would likely be sufficiently authoritative for your purposes.
|
What is a word for a person who has been initiated into secret knowledge (apprentice, ___, master)? I'm looking for a noun that can fit well in a 3-level scale: apprentice, ____, master. The scale describes the progress of a person from a layman/uninitiated ( apprentice ), through being accomplished and versed in the secret knowledge he acquired, and finally arriving at the ability to teach and mentor apprentices into the same knowledge ( master ). The noun initiate has connotations of being a beginner and thus isn't good for my need. <Q> Journeyman would feel like the most natural choice to me. <S> (Addendum: Freemasonry goes with fellow craft between entered apprentice and master mason , but that's a bit wordy for my tastes.) <A> It sounds like adept may meet your needs. <S> The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn initiatory structure has 10 grades divided into three tiers, and the middle tier is the adept grades (5=6 adeptus minor , 6=5 adeptus major , and 7=4 adeptus exemptus ). <S> Honestly, I would also be perfectly comfortable <S> using initiate for your situation, not really feeling it very strongly has the beginner implications you mention. <S> Adept clearly has a much stronger connotation of competence, though. <S> If you were to go with this option for your middle grade, I would also suggest thinking about using initiate or neophyte rather than apprentice for your initial grade, to distance a bit further from the traditional guild apprentice-journeyman-master structure. <S> In fact, drawing a bit further from the Golden Dawn, in which the next grade up from the adept tier is 8=3 magister templi <S> ("Master of the Temple"), we could get a super-sexy progression of neophyte-adept-magister . <A> Whenever I hear secret knowledge , naturally I immediately think of Freemasonry. <S> So, I understand there are three degrees of Craft or Blue Lodge Freemasonry (info via Wikipedia): <S> Entered Apprentice – the degree of an Initiate, which makes one a Freemason; Fellow Craft – an intermediate degree, involved with learning; Master Mason <S> Therefore, fellow seems appropriate here. <S> You may simply go with member . <S> Might have problems with gender neutrality on that one, though. <A> Just for fun, I'll throw in another word, based on the question's tag line more than on the content: Acolyte <A> I would not go with Journeyman in spite of its timeless use in guilds as an expert who is not a master. <S> In my opinion its application is more akin to Artisan or Craftsman or someone else who, while still considered an expert, can have varying skill levels from person to person bearing this title. <S> Even a world class glass-blower can be considered a journeyman in my opinion. <S> Adept , I think, is a generally good middle-grade word since the subject is secret knowledge. <S> I think there are other options available to you, provided you consider bumping apprentice down to something more unskilled (where fun words come in, such as Probationer or Novitiate ). <S> However, the context is very limited; secret knowledge can be a little ambiguous. <S> If the secret knowledge pertains to a skill or technique, I'd go with Practitioner for your middle-grade because of the phrase <S> licensed practitioner which is reminiscent of black-belt level students in a martial arts studio: <S> They are experts that carry some influence over the new Initiates, Novices, Acolytes, or Neophytes while still learning and answering to a Master or Doyen (I really like doyen: a combination of technical expert and leading authority, the perfect hybrid of technical prowess and extensive understanding while still maintaining the Educator status). <S> For secret knowledge that is intended more for understanding than application, you might [carefully] consider <S> Graduate <S> since this intermediate level of knowledge is mimicked in modern education. <S> Somebody who is not a novice anymore (out of college) may continue their learning and get a Master's degree! <S> (coincidence?) <S> However, use caution in immediate context because since many people choose not to continue their education, Graduate has acquired a connotation of culmination or conclusion. <S> So when introducing Graduate as a tier, be sure there is clear reference to a master figure. <S> Scholar also accomplishes this, while a little weaker in my opinion. <A> How about practitioner ? <S> It is “a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession” ( New Oxford American Dictionary ). <A> I talked with my Boilermaker friend yesterday to prepare for this search. <S> He says the Boilermakers Union (NOT their full name) currently recognizes (at least informally) 5 levels: Helper, apprentice, journeyman, foreman and instructor. <S> They've moved away from the title master. <S> A helper provides the non-technical assistance needed to create a "boiler." <S> A helper lifts, carries, finds tools or holds parts during construction. <S> An apprentice is learning to perform the technical aspects of construction. <S> A journeyman has completed the apprenticeship program and is trusted to complete all aspects of construction under the considerably less focused supervision of the foreman. <S> For my secret knowledge/religious purpose, I'm using: Initiate, devotee, adept, practitioner and master . <A> Expert is commonly used as a skill level between apprentice and master . <S> Also, disciple or mentor .
| Another word that may fit is journeyman . An apprentice is closely supervised, and participates in formal instruction provided by the instructors.
|
Pronunciation of en- prefix as ahn- Recently, I pronounced the word enqueue as ahn-queue . The person I was talking to said he would have pronounced it with a more normal en sound (like in Ben or den). I'm not sure why I thought that ahn- was the way to pronounce this—it seems to be wrong according to the dictionary. The cases that ahn- seems to be correct are two-word french phrases (e.g., en route ). I also thought of envoy , which does allow the ahn- pronunciation as a second option. Is there a pattern for which words allow or require en- to be pronounced as ahn- ? Or is this just something you have to know word-by-word? <Q> The list of en- <S> words that can be pronounced /an/ rather than /ɪn/ <S> or /ɛn/ is pretty short. <S> From a quick search of the Carnegie-Mellon Pronouncing Dictionary , these words start with en- and can be pronounced /an/ <S> (some have alternate pronunciations with /ɛn/): <S> ENCLAVEENCLAVESENCOREENCORESENFANTENSEMBLEENSEMBLESENTENDREENTOURAGEENTOURAGESENTREENTREEENTREESENTREPRENEURENTREPRENEUR'SENTREPRENEURIALENTREPRENEURSENTREPRENEURSHIPENVOYENVOYS <S> I will note also that Merriam-Webster does also countenance /an/ for envelope . <S> However, few if any other en- <S> words can be pronounced /an/. <A> En- is pronounced in French roughly like English's ahn . <S> Most words beginning with en- <S> have a French origin, explaining this behavior. <S> Of course that doesn't work for all cases, for example engage or envy . <S> I don't know of any steadfast rule to follow. <A> Indeed, most of the en- <S> words are of French origin. <S> However, majority of them are pronounced | en |, as in envy . <S> It is not uncommon to hear some of them mispronounced | ahn |. <S> This is rife and quite acceptable in America, most especially for the word envelope . <S> All the compound French-derived words beginning with en are pronounced |ahn| . <S> En route can also be pronounced as written.
| When in doubt, if the word looks French, go with ahn .
|
Progressive form required for "as", "while", etc.? Are both forms grammatically correct? As I was entering the shop, I saw her. As I entered the shop, I saw her. <Q> In your first case (“as I was entering the shop”), you're saying that you saw here during that lapse of time. <S> In the second case (“as I entered the shop”), you're saying things happened simultaneously. <S> Both cases may be best exemplified as equivalent to: As I was drying my hair, I dropped the hair dryer As I fired the shot, I heard the loud noise of the gun <A> You can use either. <S> In that sentence, there is no difference in meaning between those two uses. <S> The "as I was" adds immediacy to "entered" and doesn't give any extra immediacy to "was entering". <A> Actually, when I read the question, I wondered about ‘As entering’. <S> ‘entering’ is the gerund form, ‘was entering’ is past progressive/continuous. <S> [Oh, checked back, psmears beat me to it.] <S> For the ‘ing’ form, gerund = participle. <S> There's another participle, ‘entered’, ‘gone’. <S> It's often confusing labeled ‘past partciple’.
| Yes, because the action of entering can be seen as either an instant in time (one moment you're out, the next you're in), or an process with a certain duration (the time during which you open the door, get past the entrance, etc.).
|
What does the phrase "little big" mean? What does the phrase "little big" mean? Samples (game titles): Little big planet Little big adventures Little big magazine <Q> My take on the titles you mention is that "little" refers to physical size, and "big" refers to aspiration or scope. <S> So "little big magazine" would be a small sized magazine aspiring to cover a great deal of subject matter. <A> "Little big" isn't really a standard phrase in English, so it's subject to interpretation. <S> It's meant to be more evocative than precise. <S> In the above cases you could take it to mean something that is suitable for both little and big people (children and adults), or something that is big in scope but miniature in size. <A> <A> Probably best known is the Battle of Little Big Horn of 1876 (other spacing and names are also used). <S> It is named for the nearby Little Big Horn River, a tributary of the Big Horn River, in turn a tributary of the Yellowstone River, and then the Missouri River and Mississippi River. <S> The apparent oxymoron makes it easy to remember, but in fact little does not apply to big but to Big Horn River ; similarly big does not apply to Horn River , but river applies to big horn . <S> I would not be surprised <S> is your examples copied this.
| It usually implies that something is little in one way but big in another; for example, a game may want to imply that it is "little" in being approachable and friendly, but "big" in having lots of things to do.
|
"Place the pot somewhere where it is 20–22 degrees warm." Place the pot somewhere where it is 20–22 degrees warm. The double where sounds a bit silly. Is there a better way to word this sentence? "Someplace 20-22 degrees warm" sounds too informal. <Q> Place the pot where the cat can't reach it. <S> This would be the simplest, default construction. <S> It will do in many cases. <S> The point is that somewhere as the antecedent of where is superfluous, because, if you use where without an antecedent, something like <S> somewhere is already implicit in it. <A> Place the pot somewhere that is 20-22 degrees warm. <A> The smallest change would be to replace "somewhere" with "someplace". <S> Place the pot someplace where it is 20-22 degrees warm. <S> Note that both this and the original sound a bit... awkward to my ear. <S> I wouldn't say "X degrees warm", for example. <S> Place the pot someplace warm (20 – 22 degrees). <A> Place the pot at a(ny) location where it is 20–22 degrees Celsius. <S> Or, to go to an extreme and sound really formal: <S> Ensure that the device used for containing items is located at a site which has a temperature between 20 degrees and 22 degrees Celsius, and should it fail to be at such a location, proceed to correct it until it is at a location at the desired temperature. <A> As reported in the other answers, somewhere <S> and where are superfluous; it's enough to say where . <S> Place the pot where the cat cannot reach it. <A> Place the pot in an ambient temperature of 20 to 22 degrees Celsius. <S> After looking at some other comments I noticed you were ambiguous regarding what measurement of temperature you had used. <S> I have assumed Celsius because, as the other commentators say, Fahrenheit would be below freezing point. <S> Notice <S> how using ambient temperature doesn't need the place or location mentioning.
| Place the pot where the temperature is 20-22 degrees.
|
How do you show possession with the word "year" ("year's" vs."years")? So, I develop for a company that does workplace-surveys. And one of our report-formats has just been translated into English. And with it a description on how to read the reports. This description contains the following sentence When historical reporting is included, the column for this year's survey will be thinner, and the column for last year will appear behind it in grey. Is this the correct spelling of year's in this context? I'm not a native English speaker/writer, but I do consider myself fluent, and this spelling tickled something in the back of my brain. If it matters, the report format only displays a maximum of two years at a time (this year, and last year). <Q> Year's means what belongs to the year. <S> Years means more than one year, but not what belongs to them. <S> Years' means what belongs to a group of more than one year. <A> Yes, it is. <S> You would use years when talking about more than one year with no possessive involvement: It had been years since I last thought about her. <S> We have been arguing over the same point for more than twenty years now. <S> Between the years 1914 and 1918, Newfoundland lost an entire generation of young men to an unspeakable horror that was supposed to be the war to end all wars. <S> You would use years' when talking about more than one year in a possessive sense: We agreed to review our agreement in five years' time. <A> When historical reporting is included, the column for this year's survey will be thinner, and the column for last year will appear behind it in grey. <S> should be When historical reporting is included, the column for this year's survey will be thinner, and the column for last year's will appear behind it in grey.
| Yes, it is.
|
What terms and expressions can be used in English to show one's love to his/her girlfriend/boyfriend? I know in every language there are a lot of ways and cute names to address your girlfriend or your boyfriend to show you love her/him. The names can be creative for any couple. As Andy mentions these names are called terms of endearment. These are some very ordinary I know for examples: Come here, sweetheart . Relax baby , we're on holiday! Look, darling , there's Mary. What else can be used to address your girlfriend/boyfriend? <Q> Why resort to cliché? <S> If you really want to find a great term of endearment, create your own. <S> Find something that the both of you share and use that. <S> Is there a character from a novel you both love? <S> Something you both shared a joke about? <S> Try that. <S> Often the best terms of affection are inversions of insults. <S> For example, if your special someone was eating a doughnut once and got powdered sugar on her nose, you might have called her "Sugar Nose" (in an affectionate way, of course) and shared a laugh about it. <S> Henceforth, Sugar Nose might serve as a special bit of sweet talk only the two of you can enjoy. <S> Edit: You might want to make sure you use these only in private, as they can have adverse effects if spoken within earshot of other people. <S> Sickness, nausea ... <S> you know what I'm talking about. <A> If you want are horrifyingly large list of terms of endearment, you could do worse than try here . <S> Partly it amuses me because, to many English, the French language is often considered to sound romantic - yet the literal translations are rather daft (but still innocent). <A> As they aren't already reported by others, I can report babycakes , and sweet cheeks . <A> The New Oxford American Dictionary has a list of terms that are rather standard: darling, dear, dearest, love, beloved, sweet, angel, honey, hon, sweetie, sugar, baby, babe, pet, treasure . <A> My husband and I are fans of Schatz or Schatzi from the German language meaning "treasure" <A> You could try pigsney , if you were feeling especially courageous. <S> See here... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pigsney
| Two of my personal favourites are 'ma petit chou' and 'ma petit cochon' (my little cabbage/my little piglet).
|
What section heading for a CV, regrouping things you do for the community? In a university researcher's curriculum vitæ, it is typical to split items between categories such as Education , Research activity , Publications , Teaching , etc. I want to include as a separate categories the things that you do for the community, in my own group and at large (i.e., people from my research domain). This includes things like peer review of publications and funding proposals, organizing seminars and workshops, etc. ( Edit : it is part of my job, not volunteer work outside of the scope of my job.) The term I came up with for the name of that category was “Collective responsibilities”, but I am not satisfied at all with that. What name would you suggest in this context? <Q> Other Professional Activities or Other Professional Responsibilities would suffice, IMHO. <S> A reasonably granular taxonomy is useful, but only up to a point - at which time, it is useful to have a catch-all category. <S> EDIT: <S> How about Professional Community Activities/Responsibilities ? <S> Say it how it is... <S> you need the professional to clarify it is work-related, <S> the * Community* to indicate the nature of the work, and optionally - Activities or Responsibilities - if the title is too long, you could arguably trim this last word without compromising the meaning. <A> If it's something that you do in your own free time that you don't get paid for, then Volunteer Work carries none of the negative connotations of Community Service whilst essentially meaning the same thing. <A> Are these Community Collaborations or Collaborative Activities <S> I might be on the wrong track here, since you might be doing these independently.
| Alternatively, if you don't feel the need to stress Professional , Community Activity might suffice.
|
Trolling: billy goats gruff or fishing reference? Where does the internet jargon "Troll" come from? The way I see it. If it's a fishing reference, then you can't accuse someone of "Being a troll" and if it's a mythology reference then someone isn't really "Trolling" they're just "Being a troll". It seems like it has roots in both, because it's like they're waiting under a bridge to pop out and get you it's like dropping a line in and waiting for someone to take the bait while moving around a lot. <Q> You really have to go to the newsgroups to see the evolution of the word. <S> Before 1991, the word almost exclusively meant actual trolls of the D&D / <S> Tolkien / Scandinavian vein. <S> Troll dolls became popular that year, and that kind of diluted the issue a bit. <S> Then around early 1992, there came a user named Troll on the old alt.flame usergroup that was (for lack of a better word) a troll - more of a proto-troll, as he was on a usergroup dedicated to flaming, so he fit in. <S> But even by their standards he brought the race-baiting, sexism, feigned ignorance, extremist political views, etc. <S> to a new high. <S> First post July 8, 1992. <S> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame/msg/472da61199f426b1?utoken=3mCmCCkAAACa7VhXKNFnDL2EKUH4mq34cDgoNievjXoMAC-Lp0spl0T7OnOQKuqZvRM6KifiAp0 <S> He seems to indicate his name comes from being a good insulter, and thus a sort of nasty guy -in other words, a troll. <S> I believe his name popularized a growing concept and made it the meme it is today. <S> Eventually it spread out, here's a 1993 post on alt.folklore.urban that still uses quotes around trolling to indicate its status as jargon.. <S> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.urban/browse_thread/thread/cd29352f5cb19116/16e2d7b5e327a44b?#16e2d7b5e327a44b <S> The second post explicitly conflates trolling and fishing. <S> And the third confirms that trolling at a.f.u. began "1-1.5 years earlier", which syncs with what Wikipedia broadly states about the etymology. <S> Then Kibology blew up and kind of ran with it, and actually added notes about it to their FAQ, and stabilized it forever. <S> So trolling when it was just flaming was "nasty thing", then when it became more sophisticated it became "fish baiting." <A> It's both for sure. <S> However probably almost immediately, calling the person a Troll for trolling brings you to the creature reference, and then you get "don't feed the troll." <A> The fishing reference is the original root -- the idea is that you're fishing for people to get a rise out of -- but other meanings of "troll" mixed in very quickly. <S> (Why wouldn't they?) <S> The Billy Goats Gruff story is not really a single or definitive source for the mythological troll, though. <A> Patent trolls are named after the troll in Billy Goats Gruff. <S> They jump up from out of nowhere and demand a toll for crossing their bridge. <S> By the way, troll dolls became popular in more like 1961, not 1991. <S> In the fishing context, I'd think of it as more someone who's just hoping for luck — tossing a line off the stern of your boat, while sailing across the ocean. <S> Not to say there aren't commercial fishermen who don't troll a lot and for whom luck is secondary to their knowledge and skill.
| I think the original reference to "trolling" is most definitely a fishing reference, because it is such an apt description of the activity.
|
What is the significance of the name John Doe in the 1940's? What is the significance of the name John Doe in the 1940's? <Q> You may hear this in police reports, hospital admissions, forensic examinations, or any other context in which officials need to refer to a person whose actual name they don't know. <S> John Doe (and its feminine equivalent Jane Doe) are effectively "placeholder names" used when a name is required and nothing else is available. <S> This is not unique to the 1940's, and as far as I know the usage has not changed since that time. <A> Looking for a John Doe in the Corpus of Historical American <S> I notice that the phrase was used before the 1940s in sentences like the following ones. <S> Mr. Craig could be spared from his office as readily as Mayor Hylan has been, nor would his family be left in want as in the case of many a poor devil of a John Doe . <S> The proceedings before the grand jury will be in the nature of a John Doe action involving a possible indictment for felony under the law forbidding the granting or obtaining of public office in exchange for a gift, promise or other compensation. <S> The CoHA didn't report any sentences containing a John Doe dated 1940s, but it reports sentences like this: Filipino health was about, the best in the Orient: in 35 years, cholera, smallpox and bubonic plague had been wiped out; the population had increased from seven to 16 million, and the average height of the "tao" ( John Doe ) from 4 ft. 11 in. <S> to 5 ft. 4 in. <A> If anything, its usage to mean "anonymous man" started during or before the 1940s. <S> This is largely used in English speaking North America, as I believe that the UK has a different term.
| The name "John Doe" is used in several English-speaking countries to refer to a person whose actual identity is unknown.
|
What's a word for an instance in which one has an opinion about something without having tried it? What do you call it when someone has a strong opinion about something without having any experience with that thing? For example, if someone writes an entire newspaper article about how disgusting pie is without having ever eaten pie. The word lodged in my brain is "hypocritical", but I know that's not correct. <Q> Are you thinking of "prejudiced"? <A> You might go with "closed-minded" or "small-minded" for the sense of not being interested in learning anything that might change their opinion, or perhaps "willfully ignorant" if you believe they've made a conscious decision not to educate themselves further about the matter. <S> I would describe what such a person is doing in that case as "speaking from ignorance" (in opposition to speaking from experience), but I can't come up with an existing word or phrase to describe someone as a person who routinely speaks from ignorance. <S> To coin a phrase for it, I might go with "an oral flatulator." <S> Edit: <S> The speaker has a preconceived bias . <A> I voted up prejudice, I think it fits. <S> In your comments you stated you want to emphasize the fact the prejudice is uniformed. <S> In that case, I think you could just qualify the prejudice: <S> naive prejudice ignorant prejudice unfounded prejudice groundless prejudice uninformed prejudice etc. <A> Pharisaical Hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory. <S> Sanctimonious <S> Feigning piety or righteousness <S> As in A sanctimonious smug bastard Self-righteous <A> Charlatan; fraud; counterfeit expert. <S> My own invention is "instant expert: just add water!" <S> Poseur (poser). <A> Someone mentioned it in a comment, but I'll put it into an answer: the person is "speaking from preconceived notions". <S> Prejudiced is based on pre-judging, but I think it's not what you want. <S> You can be, for example, racially prejudiced and yet have met people of the other race. <S> The pre-judgement is not on a racial basis, but on an individual basis: you are judging an individual without having met that individual, based on what you perceive about the race to which they belong. <S> Another option that hasn't been mentioned -- <S> but I also think it does not work in your situation -- is opinionated . <A> I would call that person a blowhard , possibly an ignorant blowhard if I didn't mind the arguable redundancy. <A> It's probably not what you are looking for, but confabulator is worth a mention. <S> One who confabulates makes up incredibly detailed fantasies that they believe are entirely true, usually based on some very small piece of real information. <S> For instance, you might show them a picture of sand and ask them to describe it. <S> They'll start with sand and then tell you about the palm trees and the blue ocean, and the two people drinking Coronas under a rainbow colored umbrella. <S> The important thing is that this is reality to them. <S> It's a pretty interesting phenomenon. <A> ultracrepidarianism the habit of giving opinions and advice on matters outside of one’s knowledge or competence <A> You might say that person has an unfounded opinion. <S> Baseless also works, as well as unsupported - although the last one is a bit more general, and could refer to lack of support from outside sources. <A> The term "armchair" is used a lot. <S> An armchair critic gives opinions on subjects they haven't directly experienced. <S> An armchair mechanic might say something won't work from a mathematical standpoint despite people doing it in their garages all the time. <S> An armchair activist yells at the TV about how we all need to get up and do something about whatever political situation they don't like, but who never gets up to do anything themselves (this case also qualifies as hypocritical). <S> This isn't quite the same as your example though. <S> In your example, you're talking about a purely subjective thing, while the use of "armchair" tends to be more objective. <S> I'm not sure that "armchair pie-taster" works as well. <S> Of note <S> , just because someone hasn't tried something doesn't mean they can't objectively determine that they would subjectively hate it. <S> As an extreme example, I can be pretty confident that I would dislike getting shot with a gun without getting shot first. <S> Similarly, I can use my experience in other fields of study to make a pretty good argument for a field of study I don't have experience with. <A> hubris Merriam-Webster exaggerated pride or self-confidence <S> "He exhibited a fair amount of hubris by ignoring his generals." <A> Jumping to conclusions Example: <S> Jumper: " <S> I have a strong opinion about X." Clear thinker: "Can you give a definition of X? <S> " Jumper: "No. <S> I've reached a conclusion without knowing the basics."
| Opinionated has the connotation of strong opinions not based on facts, but also does not imply this is because of a lack of exposure. My answers: prejudice ignorance naïveté
|
What is "newbie" as an adverb? The title says it all! What is newbie as an adverb? <Q> Noobishly/n00bishly is the most widely used adverbial form, I think. <S> If you talk that n00bishly about it, do you even know what it is? <S> can someone noobishly splain to me the O(1), O(N), O(N^2) and O(log <S> N)? <S> After googling for various possible adverbifications and comparing hit counts, this seems by far the most common: <S> newbishly 2,390 <S> noobishly 14,300 <S> n00bishly <S> 13,800 <S> newbily <S> 4,670 <S> (mostly not genuine adverbial usages)noobily 2,600 (ditto)n00bily 100 <S> (ditto) <S> Google hit <S> counts are, of course, not a terribly precise measurement; but in this case the results seem reasonably convincing. <S> The other relevant question is whether newbie , noob , n00b themselves get used as adverbs. <S> This is of course much harder to search for; I’ve not been able to find any examples, and I can’t imagine any that would sound natural, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. <A> <A> From Urban Dictionary used as an adjective: <S> "I have a newbish question..." <S> Or as an adverb: "That looks quite newbish..." <A> "Naively" comes to mind, from a functional standpoint. <S> The adjectival is fairly straightforward: newbish, noobish, etc. <S> But noob, nooby, or newbie is a noun. <S> We don't normally add 'ly' to nouns to form adverbs. <S> Rather, first we have to create an adjectival, then proceed to to the adverb. <S> Hence, "newbishly" or some variant. <S> However you elect to go, it will be a nonce coinage. <A> I'm a newbie english.stackexchange.com question-answerer. <S> It has the connotation of being at the very beginning of learning something, and is implicitly a request for forgiveness if the person describing him-or-herself as a newbie says something completely incorrect about the subject <S> s <S> /he is new to. <A> Newbish. <S> If you want to use proper English words, "unskilled" may work.
| If I wanted to use newbie in an adverb like manner I would go with: he was running like a newbie rather than creating some clumsy construction like newbily or newbishly , although I have heard the latter used.
|
Why is it said that "messages are sent to methods"? In object-oriented programming, it is said that messages are sent to methods. In this context, why is the word "method" used instead of "procedure" or "function"? In other words, why was the word "method" introduced to programming? <Q> The name 'method' came from a philosophy of object orientation that was fundamentally about message-passing: the object model of the universe can be summed up as "there are objects; they send each other messages". <S> Eventually, of course, there are objects that actually have some effect on the outside world, but that's a detail that's swept under the carpet in the name of uniformity. <S> When an object receives a message, it goes on to send further messages to other objects. <S> Naturally, it has to have a way of deciding what messages to send - a procedure to follow, a routine to go through, or, if you like, a method to use. <S> You can see this usage in the Blue Book , the original description of Smalltalk-80 (this is from the first section, Classes and Instances ): <S> An object's public properties are the messages that make up its interface. <S> All instances of a class have the same message interface since they represent the same kind of component. <S> An object's private properties are a set of instance variables that make up its private memory and a set of methods that describe how to carry out its operations. <A> The terminology is not well designed in my opinion. <S> I believe the earliest usages talked "sending a message to an object", which at least can be pictured. <S> Object and message were in use before method , probably with Smalltalk or earlier. <S> I think method must have been introduced by someone who desperately wanted to divorce the method from old hat functions (or procedures). <S> They differ slightly in the hidden nature of the implementation and the hidden instance parameter (" this "). <A> It's simply to distinguish a function that's part of a class or object from one that isn't. <A> In procedural programming your major primary units are procedures or functions. <S> In object oriented programming your major primary units are classes and instances (i.e. objects) of those classes. <S> Methods only exist in the context of a class or an instance. <S> A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but sometimes it helps to have a distinct name when you want to break old habits and look at things in a new way. <A> In the OO-Paradigma messages are send to an object. <S> Technically this will be accomplished by invoking a method. <S> For more details see also: Object Oriented
| Method is used instead of procedure or function because the authors wish to maintain a distinct terminology for object-oriented programming that separates it from procedural programming.
|
Difference between "invoice" and "bill"? I am talking about something you should pay. "Invoice" here doesn't mean the proof of payment.Sometimes I am told to pay my "bill", and sometimes they may refer to the similar paper (physical or virtual) as "invoice". The only difference I can think of is that "invoice" seems to be something you pay before you use while "bill" is the opposite. But this distinction is not clear since my university also calls the tuition fee as invoice now (I am already studying when I pay the "invoice"). Could someone tell me the difference? <Q> Normally that would include the issuer's name, address, terms of payment and if necessary an account number. <S> The invoice also is given a number - a unique key identifier with respect to the issuer. <S> Later, this number can be referred to in future correspondence. <S> A bill may or may not include any of the above, but an invoice usually will. <S> Rather, the distinction between these two words is more a matter of custom and the business in question being transacted. <S> For example, a lawyer bills a client, for billable hours. <S> In the abstract, "you should pay your bills on time. <S> " Work that is commissioned will usually generate an invoice. <S> Bill in the sense we're discussing is Anglo Saxon and dates from the 1400s, and invoice is French ( envoyer , "dispatch") from the 1500s. <S> You might make the case that invoices are attached to things that are delivered, but in practice it seems that various trades over time have selected one term or the other by tradition and custom. <A> An invoice is a formal written demand for payment: if you accept that it is valid then you should pay it in accordance with the terms of the contract, e.g. within 30 days. <S> A bill is simply a list, so might contain details which are not necessary for the invoice, and may or may not be a demand for immediate payment. <S> So you could imagine being told "Here is a bill showing everything you've ordered. <S> I'll send you an invoice as soon as it's been delivered." <A> A bill is "an amount of money owed for goods supplied or services rendered, set out in a printed or written statement of charges", while an invoice is "a list of goods sent or services provided, with a statement of the sum due for these"; the NOAD reports also that invoice means bill . <S> In some contexts, invoice is used as synonym of bill ; in other contexts, invoice is used to mean a document that contains a list of goods or services and the bill, but it contains also other specific data that are required by specific laws/regulations. <A> I believe that invoice does not presuppose obligatory payment. <S> For example, as developer of plug-ins for different CMSs (Content Management Systems) <S> I can obtain a copy of any commercial СТS as developer-contributor. <S> Nevertheless, I frequently have to fill and submit an invoice with a zero price for billing system of a vendor. <A> Am I wrong in saying: A bill quotes an already delivered, after the fact, goods and services (e.g., utility bill). <S> An invoice is presented prior or at delivery time for a defined quantity of goods and services. <A> In short: Bill : an account of money owed for goods etc., e.g. an electricity bill. <S> Invoice : a list sent with goods giving details of price and quantity.
| An invoice is a request for payment that contains information necessary to remit payment to the issuer.
|
"on the train" or "in the train"? Which of these is correct: "I am on the train" or "I am in the train"? <Q> Both, but they are used differently. <S> Being on the train is the most common use. <S> When you travel by train, you usually say that you are on the train . <S> If you want to describe your position, you could say that you are in the train , for example: <S> The train has derailed, I have a broken leg. <S> You can find me in the train. <A> Being on the train has the sense of being aboard or being a passenger on a conveyance. <S> Keep in mind that the word train refers to more than just railroads, and that a railroad train is something that comprises a group of connected cars and locomotive engines. <S> It is proper to say that the car you are riding in is in the train . <S> You would be in the train if you were part of a walking tour group or pilgrimage -- or even caught up in a conga line. <A> To answer this question, I cannot offer a better explanation than you will find in this George Carlin monologue: <S> https://youtu.be/vdPy5Ikn7dw?t=3m5s <S> You'll want to listen to the whole thing, but the part that addresses your question begins at 2:55 in the video. <S> EDIT <S> After nearly six years, link rot has destroyed this reference. <S> This one is currently working: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbFyq83SfcQ <S> Essentially, Carlin is making fun of the seemingly arbitrary pronouns English uses. <S> We say "get on the airplane" when what you're actually doing is getting in the airplane. <S> Carlin also pokes fun at the idea of an "almost" collision between two aircraft being called a "near miss": "It's a near hit, gang!" <S> he points out. <A> I am in the train right now. <S> (I'm not outside the train.) <S> I am on the train right now. <S> (Could be I'm travelling on the train.) <S> Hope that answers your question. <A> You're on because you got on. <S> Like you're in the shower, bath or car because you got in. <S> Unless you're on the roof of the car. <S> If you are on the roof of the train, you're on [the] top of the train. <S> When you're on the train, you can go in the buffet car, <S> when you do, you'll be in the buffet car of the train. <S> You also get off the train, but get out of your car, bath or shower. <S> Probably because you got on, possibly because it is short for getting on board. <S> The word train, is from the French verb traîner, to pull. <S> So it's called a train because it's being pulled, that might explain why you need to be on the train (to be pulled), rather than in it (to be pulling). <A> I'm on the train, but I'm in carriage D. <S> Don't ask my why; there's often no rhyme or reason to English prepositions.
| Being in the train has the sense of being a component member of the train.
|
Do "carat" and "karat" have the same origin? Do carat and karat have the same origin? Is it correct to say that carat derives from the Italian carato , while karat derives from the from Arabic ḳīrāṭ ? Is it possible that both words derive from Italian carato , but one is written with a k to avoid confusion with the other? <Q> There's essentially one word, with two meanings and two spellings. <S> Wikipedia has articles at Carat (purity) and Carat (mass) . <S> As a unit of mass, one carat (used for gemstones) is 200 milligrams, and as a measure of purity, n-carat gold (n≤24) is n/24 gold by weight. <S> (12-carat gold is 50% gold, etc.) <S> The spellings carat and karat are spelling variants of the same term. <S> While this is a very fine convention to avoid confusion between the two meanings, does this make them two different words? <S> Etymologically, the Online Etymology Dictionary says carat <S> mid-15c., from M.Fr. <S> carat "measure of the fineness of gold" (14c.), from It. <S> carato , from Arabic qirat "pod, husk, weight of 4 grains," from Gk. <S> keration <S> "carob seed," lit. <S> "little horn" dim. <S> of keras <S> "horn." <S> Carob beans were a standard for weighing small quantities. <S> As a measure of diamond weight, from 1570s. <S> The Gk. measure was the equivalent of the Roman siliqua , which was one-twentyfourth of a golden solidus of Constantine; hence the word took on a sense of "a proportion of one twentyfourth" and became a measure of gold purity (1550s). <S> Eighteen carat gold is eighteen parts gold, six parts alloy. <S> It is unlikely that the classical carat was ever a measure of weight for gold. <S> and karat <S> variant of carat <S> (q.v.). <S> In U.S., karat is used for "proportion of fine gold in an alloy" and carat for "weight of a precious stone." <S> So both the weight meaning and the 1/24th meaning come from Greco-Roman times (via Arabic, Italian, Middle French, in that order). <S> The Wikipedia sections <S> Carat (purity)#Derivation and Carat (mass)#Etymology agree: once upon a time, carob seeds, because of their reputation for uniform weight, were used as measures of weight. <S> This measure was roughly 1/24th of another unit, so the purity measure arose of it. <A> Wiktionary defines: <S> Etymology: <S> Carat : Middle French carat, from Italian carato, from Arabic قيراط (qirāṭ, “husk”), from Ancient Greek κεράτιον (keration, “carob seed”), diminutive form of κέρας (keras, “horn”). <S> Karat : <S> From Middle English, from Middle French carat, from Medieval Latin carratus. <S> ldoce lists the same origin for both. <S> Is it Greek or Arabic? <S> According to dehkhoda (the most reliable Persian dictionary) <S> the word qirāṭ was borrowed by Greeks (keration) from Arabic <S> and it's been reported by another book of that time (نقودالعربیه) the same way. <S> It has been used long before in many parts of the Arab territories. <S> There are some Persian poems (and for sure some Arabic) using the original form of word, back in 1000 years ago. <S> Note: <S> ldoce defines karat <S> an American Spelling of carat and makes no differences in meaning. <A> The NOAD lists the etymology of both spellings thus: ORIGIN late Middle English (sense 2) : from French, from Italian carato, from Arabic ḳīrāṭ (a unit of weight), from Greek keration ‘fruit of the carob’ (also denoting a unit of weight), diminutive of keras ‘horn,’ with reference to the elongated seedpod of the carob.
| So I think they both have the same word origin, but I couldn't find a source to report the word origin is from Italy. In America, a convention has been adopted to use the spelling carat for mass, and karat for purity. There was no confusion because as weight, carat was probably never used for gold (and is today only used for diamonds, pearls, other gemstones).
|
What is the common name for brackets, braces, and parentheses? I need to name a variable containing ()[]{} , what is the common name for all of them? Two side questions: parentheses is plural, or singular, or both? is abbreviating it as parens understandable? <Q> There isn't really an established generic for them; if I had to say something, I'd probably say enclosing glyphs . <S> Trying to use "bracket" as a generic doesn't really work because "brackets" usually specifically means <S> () in British English and <S> [] in American English. <S> Seeing that you're naming a variable, I would probably go with $enclosures . <S> Parentheses is a plural; the singular is parenthesis. <S> "Parens" is usual and understandable, yes. <A> I have heard [] called brackets , square brackets , and square braces ; {} called braces , curly braces , and curly brackets . <S> () called parentheses <S> While it's true I have never heard <S> () referred to as "curved braces" or "curved brackets" or anything like that, it is fine to lump them in with other "enclosing punctuation" as other answers and comments suggest. <S> I specifically recommend against enclosing glyphs because it is a little too snooty, as if you're some kind of English show-off trying to talk to programmers about programming. <S> Don't forget that <> are also common enclosures, referred to as angle brackets or angle braces . <S> Finally, so that this answer addresses everything asked, I'll reiterate that () are parentheses ; one of them is a parenthesis ; and that these can be freely shortened to parens and paren , respectively, especially when talking to programmers. <A> These can be called "brackets." <S> Regarding the side questions, "marks of parenthesis" is the standard term, and parentheses is possible, but a bit breezy. <A> In every IDE I've used, the concept of highlighting or validating matching enclosures has been referred to as brace-matching , so I would suggest brace as a candidate to cover all of the glyphs you mention. <S> A brace of things refers to a pair of something (the origin is from hunting), and is synonymous with pair . <A> Instead of "Enclosing glyphs", which sounds like something a technical standards organization would come up with to classify the symbols for something like Unicode, I'd suggest "grouping symbols." <S> "Grouping symbols" may imply a mathematical usage, but I doubt that the association with math is very strong. <A> Wikipedia article on delimiters gives " Bracket delimiters (also block delimiters , region delimiters or balanced delimiters )..." <A> PairedPunctuationMarks is the clearest that I can come up with. <S> However, as a programmer I would strongly urge you to name variables based on how they're used instead of what they are. <S> It makes for easier to read code. <S> So, if these symbols are going to be, say, part of the legal ways to delimit a certain kind of token in your code, a name like LegalUserInputDelimitersForFooRegex might be a better variable.
| "Parens" is the usual abbreviation. You can call all of them braces or call all of them brackets. I don't mind calling these symbols enclosures , though in programming contexts, this term might be a little too close to closures , which are something else.
|
What does "something 101" mean? Many times I saw the phrase something 101 , such as Microsoft Excel 101 . What exactly does it mean? <Q> The allusion is to a college course with the course code 101, which in the American system and probably others indicates an introductory course, often with no prerequisites. <A> It means: ( chiefly US, postpositive ) <S> Basic, beginner, starting from scratch. <S> Geology <S> 101 <S> tells us that you can't build a reservoir on sandstone. <S> Source . <A> In universities courses are (usually) marked by numbers, since they are hard to remember by name. <S> First number corresponds to study year this course should be taken in, followed by 2 (or 3) course <S> id. <S> Usually the same subject course has greater id if they have to be taken in the same year. <S> Therefore lower ids are usually assigned to basic courses. <S> So, most basic course would be 101 then as the first 1 is for the 1st year & 01 <S> is first the 1st course. <A> 101 is the lowest course number, there's no 'zeroth' level. <S> If someone attends a 220 course, they probably had 101 and 201 first.
| It means "introductory something".
|
Difference between "sorcerer" and "wizard" What is the difference between sorcerer and wizard ? I know that the nomenclature is unclear. However, the common usage seems to indicate: a wizard is born an ordinary mortal, learns magic and spells from books; a sorcerer is born a sorcerer, but needs to learn spells (possibly of a certain type) from a master. Is this correct, or is there more to it? <Q> I'm afraid that there is no definite answer, since both roles are pure fiction and their attributes may change as in role playing games <S> they have a difference (different spells and skills). <S> Only the etymology could give a clue From etymonline sorcerer 1520s, earlier sorcer, from O.Fr. sorcier (see sorcery). <S> Sorcerer’s apprentice was a symphonic poem by Paul Dukas (1897) based on a Goethe ballad ("Der Zauberlehrling," 1797), but the common figurative use of the term (1952) comes after Disney <S> ’s “Fantasia” (1940). <S> wizard mid-15c. <S> , "philosopher, sage," from M.E. wys "wise" (see wise (adj.)) <S> + -ard. <S> Cf. <S> Lith. <S> zynyste "magic," zynys "sorcerer," zyne "witch," all from zinoti "to know. <S> " The ground sense is perhaps "to know the future." <S> The meaning "one with magical power" did not emerge distinctly until c.1550, the distinction between philosophy and magic being blurred in the Middle Ages. <S> As a slang word meaning "excellent" it is recorded from 1922. <A> The terms do not have precise enough meanings in the general usage to articulate any clear delineations between them. <S> The specific meanings you're talking about seem closely related to the Dungeons & Dragons usage of the terms; clarification of that is a question for rpg.stackexchange.com . <A> These words have been used to describe a variety of characters in works of fiction. <S> There are common ideas which generally present themselves to one type or the other, but realize that nobody really existed who was either of these. <S> So there is no right answer here. <S> There are some things which seem to be common, however. <S> Wizards are wise and intelligent, and magically seem to be able to do whatever they wish with a gesture. <S> They solve problems by cunning, creativity, or generally thinking outside the box. <S> If you angered a wizard, he would be more likely to get back at you through a practical joke than to kill you. <S> Dictionary: a wise man (sage), one skilled in magic (sorceror) <S> Sorcerors derive their magic from a control of the world around them or nature's spirits. <S> There is also often an implication of evil. <S> Their power frequently manifests itself in command of fire, control of wind and rain, or the ability to animate elemental forces. <S> If you angered a sorceror, you probably wouldn't last long. <S> Dictionary: a person who practices sorcery (wizard), a person who possesses supernatural powers aided by evil spirits
| "Wizard" has greater implications of age, wisdom, and having a long flowing gray beard and pointy hat, while a "sorceror" (I prefer the -or to the -er ) is more likely to be ill-intentioned and wear a metal skullcap.
|
What's the difference between 'resolve' and 'solve'? What's the difference between 'resolve' and 'solve'? <Q> First of all, resolve has several meanings. <S> There is one meaning that is clearly closest to solve , which I will assume is the one you want to differentiate. <S> You have finished it, it is done, there is nothing left to concern yourself about. <S> This is not to say, however, that your handling of the matter was ideal, nor even necessarily satisfactory; there are many possible ways that the thing could have been dealt with, you picked one and saw it through. <S> When you solve something, you find (and presumably implement) a solution to it. <S> This means that you have dealt with it successfully , finding what was quite possibly the only way (or at most one of a few ways) to succeed. <S> For example: The issue has been resolved, although none of us is happy with the final outcome. <S> The question has been solved; the correct answer is posted for all to see. <A> Resolve is used to mean the end of a conflict--"The differences between the two parties were resolved." <S> Solve is used to mean the solution to a logical problem--"He solved the math puzzle. <S> " <S> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=resolve http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=solve <A> I think that re-solution means that you need to separate two or more entities. <S> Therefore, resolution also stands for measurement quality : the stronger is your optics or sensors, the finer you can find the difference (between objects). <S> Otherwise, if your resolution is too low, the objects look fused and you are confused. <S> Confusion is opposite to resolution in the sense that you cannot separate the fused entities. <S> Solution, on the other hand, means that you have only one task, one question and, if answer is found, you have solved it. <S> You have nothing to distinguish between.
| So: When you resolve something (a problem, an issue, a question), you deal with it conclusively.
|
"practitioners' community" or "practitioners community" I would say the first is the correct one (with apostrophe), but I see the other one much more. Don't know if it is relevant, but I'm a British English user. <Q> Stan Rogers has got the right answer but the wrong reasoning. <S> practitioners' is correct because what's being refered to is their community, so there's a possessive 's to be added. <S> But because the subject is already plural, the actual s doesn't get written. <S> Nor, incidentally, does it get pronounced in this situation, but pronunciation of the possessive s is independent of whether it's written or not. <S> practitioner's applies with a single practitioner for anything of his, including his community practitioners <S> is invalid with <S> no possessive apostrophe, because all you're left with is a plural noun. <S> That can't be used as a modifier to anything, including communities. <S> You can have a dog trainer , where the 'noun' dog modifies <S> trainer . <S> But you can't have a dogs trainer . <A> I haven't seen this specific phrase, so not sure if context would alter the question. <S> You can have a community of practitioners that they themselves do not own, in which case the second choice would be correct. <A> The ess-apostrophe version is correct if it is equivalent to community of practitioners or community to which the practitioners belong (and it's difficult for me to imagine how it wouldn't be with a plural practitioners unless the host sentence is very convoluted). <S> If it is equivalent to the community to which the practitioner belongs , then it would be practitioner's community . <S> I've tried to imagine a sentence where there would be no apostrophe, but everything I can think of would require a comma between practitioners and community . <A> Context is relevant. <S> The sentence structure and your intent should guide you to the correct usage. <S> I disagree with @FumbleFingers about the "dogs trainer". <S> Just because it isn't contemporary language doesn't mean it is invalid. <S> A "dog trainer" may work with a single dog at a time while a "dogs trainer" will work with a group. <S> "dogs' trainer" would refer to a solitary trainer that worked with a specific group of dogs. <S> Makes sense to me. <A> Both forms are grammatically correct. <S> The difference between them is that practitioners' is a possessive noun and practitioners is a plural noun modifier. <S> I found this exchange on plural noun modifiers that has some interesting quotes from <S> Quirk et al. <S> , A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman . <S> In short, the doubt about the validity of form #2 comes from a rule in the past that noun modifiers had to be singular ( apple tree , vegetable soup , rubber chicken ) <S> but today this is not an absolute and there are many examples of plural noun modifiers in everyday use, for example, parts departments , schools superintendents and options markets . <S> Quirk lists the following situations where a plural modifier may be used: the singular form might lead to ambiguity an Arts degree (a degree in the humanities) as opposed to an art degree (a degree in fine art) <S> there is no singular form of a noun (in pluralia tantum) <S> a customs officer <S> there is a need to denote variety a soft drinks manufacturer [but] a car manufacturer <S> a topical issue comes forth, often in newspaper stories. <S> Quirk cites examples of Watergate reporting from newspapers: the tapes issue <S> the tapes compromise <S> the Watergate tapes affair the White House tapes mystery and other examples, including jobs cut.
| "practitioners community" means a community of practitioners, whereas "practitioners' community" means a specific community to which the practitioners belong, implying there may be multiple communities or a larger community beyond the one being discussed. Grammatically both can be correct.
|
Can one "decrease" or "increase" sound volume? My daughter's English teacher insists that synonyms for "turn up" and "turn down" (volume)do not include the words increase and decrease. We wondered if we had been using increase and decrease incorrectly for years or....? <Q> Your daughter's English teacher is nuts. <S> Possibly the teacher may be focusing on the setting on the volume control as distinct from the sound volume itself, but even if so that doesn't hold much water; even if the setting is a countable quantity, we still speak of those as being increased or decreased. <S> I really want to know the teacher's detailed reasoning behind this assertion, because it seems nonsensical as given. <A> Your daughter's English teacher could very easily open a dictionary and find that she's incorrect: <S> Turn something up 1 increase the volume or strength of sound, heat, etc., by turning a knob or switch on a device. <S> 2 reveal or discover something : New Yorkers confidently expect the inquiry to turn up nothing. <S> 3 shorten a garment by raising the hem. <A> Sound volume could also be refered to as the measure of the pressure generated by a sound in decibels. <S> As the measured result of the actions turn up and turn down the synonyms <S> increase and decrease make complete sense. <S> I think that the teacher needs to re-evaluate their ability for critical reasoning.
| Sound volume certainly may be increased or decreased (as a non-countable mass noun).
|
What does ‘Pinkie-sized’ mean? I found the word, ‘Pinkie-sized’ in the following examples. From the definition of ‘pinkie’ as ‘small –Scottish / child talk in a dictionary at hand, and ‘small finger’ in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, I guess it ‘small-sized,’ though I’m not sure. ‘Pinkie’ gives me an image just like pinkish, therefore strange combination with 'size.' What does it mean? Is it a technical term? Pinkie-sized laser-powered video projectors coming soon ... Resolution is standard definition at 640 x 480, so it's not exactly going to be running your home theater, but that's not the intended use. ... The brain's pinkie-sized hippocampus, which helps to archive memories, shrinks naturally as we age. But studies indicate that aerobic activities such as walking not only may help the hippocampus stop shrinking, but might even help it grow. <Q> The pinkie is the smallest finger in your hand. <S> This is the one farthest from your thumb. <S> The pinkie may also be called the fifth finger. <S> Pinkie-sized means roughly the size of a pinkie (usually an adult pinkie). <A> Pinkie is an informal term used to refer to the smallest finger on the hand. <S> It is not a technical term, and shares nothing relevant in common with the color <S> pink <S> (it may possibly be etymologically similar, but that has no bearing). <A> It means "sized like the small finger"; it is generally used to refer to something that is small, in the same way thumbnail is used to means a small picture of an image. <A> The pinkie is a primarily American term for the little finger , i.e. the one most distant from the thumb. <S> (Note that native speakers of English would be unlikely to use the term small finger in this context.)
| Pinkie-sized is derived from that—something pinkie-sized is about the size of the average human's pinkie or smaller (it sometimes refers to just the distance between the last joint and the tip of the finger).
|
What is the origin of the British "guv"? Is it still used colloquially? I.e. is there a known historical reason behind why the British began calling each other "governor" and "guv"? The various online dictionaries I've consulted say it is now a way to refer to those of elder status, but I was wondering how it was adopted in the first place. And is it still used frequently amongst native British speakers? <Q> It depends where you go. <S> It is not used for elders at all, not that I've ever noticed. <S> It is used to show deference to either your boss, or a person you are currently serving. <S> It is quite common in East London, among a certain type of people, almost always men, to other men, <S> can't recall ever hearing a woman use it in public, or to a woman, apart from inside the civil forces (it is often used in the police and fire brigade for superiors by subordinates, regardless of sex). <S> Using it in full, as governor (usually slightly contracted by accent to guv'ner), is not overly common, it sounds odd to my London ear, slightly archaic. <S> If someone used it to someone, I would assume they were being insincere with the respect it implies; the senior prison manager is called a governor usually and the prisoners will use it with contempt. <S> Guv is used plenty though, plenty of people use boss instead, in the same way. <S> Particularly in immigrant communities. <S> I personally use sir in the same way, as do some more old fashioned people as a form of general politeness. <S> This usage is mainly employed in trade, if I get a taxi, the driver is liable to call me guv, or boss, or sir. <S> I am liable to call him sir. <S> By no means all people do this, it is just a form of politeness particular to certain situations. <S> Just a form of address. <S> This is <S> it's original usage in the current form, coming down from Latin via French. <A> Apologies for the resurrection... <S> The term 'guv' or 'governor' is most commonly used for a reason by manual tradespeople, to denote the person paying their bill, or the person who orders and accepts their work, to distinguish from the tenant, the property's legal owner, and so on. <S> The governor is the person who they are answerable to. <S> Since manual tradespeople tend to, on average, take a larger than average part in the social lives of their communities, their parlance propagates quite effectively. <A> Guv is used by prisoners in the UK as a respectful (but informal, even friendly) form of address for male prison officers of all ranks. <S> Female officers are addressed as miss , regardless of their marital status.
| Guv is still used in certain companies and organisations for the manager, or, more likely, foreman. In some communities it is used a lot, in others not so much.
|
What is an alternative for "thank you"? So... I am seeking a new job and several recruiters are helping me. Instead of saying 'Thank you', should I say 'I appreciate'? Which one is more polite? Could someone please tell me how to express one's gratefulness to someone else in English? <Q> "Thank you" is serviceable in all contexts. <S> Since it is so common, though, it may not feel like enough. <S> In that case, you can say "I appreciate your help" or "Thank you so much" or "I'm very grateful" — there are many ways to express gratitude. <S> Nevertheless, remind yourself that recruiters are getting paid for their work, so you shouldn't feel you have to be too effusive in your thanks. <S> A simple "thank you" will probably suffice. <A> The best one is: <S> I am honored. <S> Longer ones describing what you are honored by are even better: <S> I am honored to be graced by your presence. <S> It reminds me of Tolkien and Paolini. :) <S> If you don't like being a hobbit, there's always "Thanks", which makes everyone but elves comfortable. <S> (Sauron doesn't like being thanked either.) <A> In addition to @Robusto's answer, which I agree with almost completely, note that there may be regional differences in how effusive (or not) you might want to be with recruiters. <S> It is their job, and you probably don't want to sound puppy-dog-like in your enthusiasm, but it is often generically expected to provide at least pro forma <S> thanks (which may at least bias the recruiter towards suggesting some of the better bad jobs to you). <S> Definitely use at least <S> A few variations on "thanks", from most enthusiastic to least: Thanks! <S> Thanks, [your familiar name, or first name, nickname, etc.] <S> Thanks, [your full name] Some other variations I consider appropriate and acceptable: <S> Thanks for your efforts Thanks for your help <S> Thanks for you time <S> Thanks for your assistance <S> Less formal: <S> Appreciate [it, your help, your time, etc.] <S> Thanks, [recruiter's name] Compound endings. <S> That's great. <S> Thanks. <S> Sounds great, thanks. <S> Special use, for when you've already used "thanks" six times: Always appreciated, [your name] or more familiar, Always appreciated, [recruiter's name] <S> The "it" or "your help" is implied here, though you could also explicitly add it. <A> I like to use obliged in these types of situations, although thank you really is sufficient. <A> I tend to use thank you kindly a lot. <A> In Romanian, "thank you" is: "mulţumesc", the literal translation of which is simply: "I'm happy". <S> So I guess "I appreciate" <S> is another way of expressing that you are happy. <S> "I appreciate... <S> " is in my opinion more elegant than "I'm grateful" because "grateful" is closer to " <S> I'm indebted". <S> However, I'd also consider "I enjoyed..." <S> I would rank things like this <S> "I enjoyed..." which conveys a sensecommunity of thought and possibly aconvergence of interest. <S> "I appreciate..." which is a less strong but could be misinterpreted as a "refusal" (as in "I appreciate the effort but..."). <S> Consider that this phrasing is probably what you would use for instance if the offered opportunity came only as a second choice for you. <S> "I'm grateful... <S> " could sound like as "I didn't think I could make it !". <S> "I'm indebted...". <S> Use this <S> and they will slash half of your wages off. <S> That's my 2cts of course. <S> I any case you've probably finished that letter by now ;-). <A> For me, I personally prefer to use " <S> I would really appreciate your kind assistance" or "I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your kind assistance". <S> I think it is more formal to express your gratitude towards the person as "thank you" is a general statement which does not explain in details for what you owed him/ <S> her a thank you.
| "I appreciate it," instead of just "I appreciate" .
|
Do any non-transitive (in a mathematical sense) slang terms exist? Are there any words that are slang for another word which is itself a slang term for something else, but the secondary slang term is not slang for the original word? That is, given words Y and Z , where Y is a slang term for Z , does there exist a word X such that it is slang for Y , but not for Z ? <Q> Wiener and frank are slang terms for a hot dog. <S> Neither wiener nor frank is a slang term for a show-off. <A> "Lift" is slang for "ride" ("Give me a lift to the airport.") and "ride" is slang for "automobile" ("That's one sweet ride you're driving.") <S> but "lift" certainly does not mean "automobile". <A> It's arguable that what you ask for is impossible, slang or not. <S> Any example would have to involve a word with multiple meanings. <S> Strictly interpreted "is synonymous with" is an equivalence relation, therefore by definition transitive. <S> So if you say: A wanker is a tosser. <S> A tosser is a thrower. <S> But a wanker isn't a thrower. <S> You are relying on the polysemy of "tosser". <S> It has two separate meanings: masturbator and thrower. <S> See also the fallacy of equivocation .
| A "hot dog" is a slang term for a show-off.
|
Is English becoming easier or harder to learn? As we all know, English is evolving. Constructs considered repugnant 100 years ago are widely-accepted today. Thousands of words in our vocabulary have fallen into disuse while thousands more have been adopted. My question: is English becoming easier to learn or harder? This is especially relevant given that--for better or worse--learning English is fast becoming a requirement for many non-native speakers. <Q> I would say that English is in fact becoming easier to learn, because the pressure from the corpus of speakers is always toward simpler and more accessible communication, and the pushback from prescriptive linguistics on a number of points that have made "proper" English more difficult to learn (such as idiotic rules about how you should refuse to casually split infinitives and that a preposition isn't a good thing to end a sentence with) has gradually eroded. <A> The purpose of any language is communication, and as society changes, the things that we wish to express also change. <S> It is therefore inevitable that any language, let alone English which is so widely used, will be in a state of constant flux. <S> English is no easier to learn, today. <S> If 10 words have gone out of usage, another 10 have come into usage. <S> It is just as hard to write good, expressive English today as it was 100 years ago. <S> But the amount of English spoken around and written around the world, definitely exposes people to a lot of English. <S> So, it might be possible to pick up the language more easily just because so many people use it. <S> So, it might have become slightly easier to learn, just because of its immense popularity. <A> Comparing Modern English with Old English, you can say Modern English has been simplified, especially because Modern English doesn't use most of the grammar cases previously used in Old English. <S> Simplifying it doesn't mean to make it easier, though. <S> It also means that English now uses a single word (with different meanings) where Old English (or Middle English) used two different words. <A> I don't think that the changes to the language themselves makes the language much easier or harder to learn. <S> If the language would have been unchanged for a long time, it would definitely be harder to learn, simply because it would be harder to use to form sentences that are relevant for the time. <S> You can look at the spelling in english, which hasn't changed much. <S> It would be easier to learn english if the spelling was based on how words are pronounced now instead of how they were pronounced a hundred years ago.
| Just because thousands of words have fallen into disuse does not imply that English has become 'easier'.
|
"Weapon platform" or "weapons platform"? For a game I need an "orbital weapon platform"/"orbital weapons platform" and wonder which one is correct, or sounds better for an English native speaker. <Q> I think they're both possible; the difference to my ear is that I would expect an "orbital weapons platform" to be some sort of, well, platform, which supports or can support multiple weapons, while an "orbital weapon platform" could just be shortened to "orbital weapon." <A> "Orbital weapon platform" sounds like there might be only one (very large) weapon on the platform, whereas "Orbital weapons platform" sounds like it might be bristling with many weapons. <S> That's how it sounds to my native English ears. <A> It's the singular of a noun that is normally used as modifier for another noun. <S> Apple will publish the new version of its 64-bit operating system very soon. <S> The new orbital weapon platform will be operative before the end of June. <S> If I look at weapons platform on the Corpus of Contemporary American , I find eleven instances of the phrase (with six instances used in fiction contexts), and two instances of weapon platform ). <S> Five instances of weapons platform have been used in the period 2005-2010. <A> "Orbital weapons platform" is typical usage for the topic (compare exhibit <S> A and exhibit B , displaying an 18:1 ratio in favor), and sounds better to my native English-speaking ears. <A> "Orbital weapon platform" would be a single vehicle which is launched into orbit to stage a weapon. <S> So, if it's a Civilization -style technology which the user develops, it would be an orbital weapons platform. <S> If they launch a number of them one at a time, each is an orbital weapon platform.
| "Orbital weapons platform" would be a system or vehicle design allowing many weapons.
|
"You are not going to be able to ... " versus "you can't ..." Are there any differences between these two expressions? <Q> Yes, using "you can't..." doesn't imply any reason for what's keeping you from doing something. <S> It might be something that you are clearly able to do, but should avoid for some other reason. <A> When talking about physical or other external (im)possibility in the future, they are synonymous: <S> "You can't get in to the building tomorrow" <S> "You are not going to be able to get into the building tomorrow" <S> But if the issue is of permission, you would not normally say <S> "You are not going to be able to go tomorrow" unless perhaps you mean that somebody who has authority to give you permission has not yet made a decision <S> but you think that tomorrow they will forbid you to go. <S> Since "you are not going to be able to" has a future feel to it, it also cannot be used for a an impossibility or prohibition right now: <S> "You can't do that!" <A> The two sentences have a slightly different meaning because the second sentence contains going to . <S> She can't speak Italian. <S> She is not going to be able to speak Italian before tomorrow. <S> While the first sentence is equivalent to "she is not able to speak Italian", the second sentence is roughly equivalent to "she will not be able to learn Italian and speak it before tomorrow." <S> The NOAD (third edition) reports the following note about can : <S> Is there any difference between can and <S> may when used to request or express permission <S> , as in "may I ask you a few questions?" <S> or "can I ask you a few questions? <S> " Many people feel that can should be reserved for expressions denoting capability, as in "can you swim?", rather than for those relating to permission. <S> May is, generally speaking, a politer and more formal way of asking for something, and is the better choice in more formal contexts. <A> I would say that most commonly, "You're not going to be able to" is used in response to a stated intention to engage in a future action: <S> "I think I'll go to the fair tomorrow." <S> "You're not going to be able to do that, you already promised Mom you'd spend all day re-grouting her kitchen." <S> "You can't" is often used in response to an action that has just been taken or is about to be taken, as a precursor to an explanation of why that action is against the rules. <S> "I'll move my bishop here." <S> "You can't do that, bishops can only move diagonally." <A> "You can't" has many meanings <S> You can't do <S> X can mean one of the following: <S> It is not possible to do X (You can't lift yourself up by the bootstraps.) <S> It is possible to do X, but it's not allowed <S> (You can't kill people just because they disagree with you!) <S> It is allowed to do X, but it's not a good idea (You can't just party all night before the exam, you'll fail it!" <S> On the other hand "You are not going to be able to do X" has a specific meaning that you can try, but you're not expected to succeed. <S> It overlaps with "You can't" <S> but it's a more narrow sense.
| The expression "you can't..." can also be used as a request to keep someone from doing something, in that case the person is always able to do that action, or there would be no point in the request.
|
Use of "I am having" on Stack Exchange sites I use Stack Overflow a lot and have noticed a certain trend that I myself got caught up in at one time of using the phrase "I am having a problem" in place of "I have a problem." I would use this phrase for an event in the future, for example, "I am having a steak dinner tonight," but for a problem that I need solved and am asking for a solution, I'd use "I have a problem..." What would force us to use this phrase? Is it even valid English for the present tense? <Q> "I have a problem" also has an idiomatic usage meaning the speaker is objecting to something, which isn't a meaning that occurs with "I am having a problem". <S> It's perfectly valid; it is the present participle . <A> From my observation, I think that Indian English uses the present progressive in a number of cases where other Englishes do not. <S> "I am having a problem" or "I am facing a problem" is a phrase I have often seen in posts from people in India, on this site and elsewhere. <A> To me, "I am having a problem" implies that I expect a resolution to it. <S> (Hopefully from responses to my post!) <S> . <S> If I "have a problem", I"m not so certain that I will.
| "I am having a problem" sounds more like the speaker is talking about a current and recent ongoing process, which is probably why it tends to show up on SO.
|
What is the best paper-based dictionary? I'd like to have a dictionary in paper that won't be very big, at least there should be one tome, and it should be something like thefreedictionary.com but in paper, to use it offline. Please advise. <Q> For American English, at least, you can't go wrong with either of these: <S> Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary <S> For British English, I recommend: Concise Oxford English Dictionary <A> I like the advanced learner's dictionaries. <S> For American English, they are Merriam-Webster's Advanced Learner's English Dictionary Oxford Advanced American Dictionary <S> They may not contain etymologies or as many words as the bigger dictionaries but have definitions and example sentences that are very helpful to both native speakers and advanced learners alike. <A> I really like the Collins English Dictionary . <S> Also very good (it is particularly well laid out) is the Oxford Dictionary of English . <S> Both of these dictionaries contain much encyclopedic material. <S> The Oxford really doubles as an encyclopedia and its American English counterpart is the New Oxford American Dictionary . <A> The OED is widely regarded as the best English dictionary but the full dictionary is about 27 volumes and requires several shelves. <S> There is also a single-volume microprint version that comes with chunky magnifying glass. <S> But it's still much bigger than a regular "desk dictionary". <S> New editions are released very infrequently. <S> Then there is the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which is sometimes published as a single volume and sometimes as a two volume set. <S> New editions are more frequent than for the full OED. <S> Also excellent is Webster's Third New International . <S> New editions no longer seem to be published. <S> The OED focuses on British English and Websters focuses on American English but both deal with all varieties. <S> Oxford also publishes many other dictionaries out of Britain and America. <S> The name "Websters" is not trademarked so unfortunately besides the many other genuine Websters dictionaries you will also find many inferior ones using the Webster name as a free ride. <S> Other good desk dictionaries of English are published by Collins regularly and in Australia <S> The <S> MacQuarie Dictionary is the most highly regarded.
| For British English, they are Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Collin's Cobuild Advanced Dictionary Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Macmillan Dictionary for Advanced Learners
|
Is it "a SSD" or "an SSD"? Possible Duplicates: an SQA or a SQA? Do you use “a” or “an” before acronyms? Since SSD (solid-state drive) is pronounced es-es-dee, I'm wondering whether one should write "an SSD" or "a SSD". Saying "a SSD" out loud feels a bit off... <Q> Definitely an SSD. <S> The use of a vs. <S> an is always determined by pronunciation, not by spelling. <S> You don’t even need to find acronyms to give examples where they disagree: one would always say/write a European , not *an European , and an honest man , not *a honest man . <S> The only case where there’s <S> doubt is when pronunciation varies. <S> For instance, with the acronym SCSI, computer professionals usually say “scuzzy”, but non-techies meeting it for the first time usually say “ess see ess eye”. <S> So one might reasonably encounter either a SCSI cable or an SCSI cable , depending on the writer. <S> However, as you say, SSD is (as far as I know!) <S> always pronounced letter-by-letter; so <S> it’s definitely an SSD . <A> The rule is actually about using an 'a' before a consonant sound and 'an' before a vowel sound . <S> Now the rule is generalised to the one that you've stated, i.e. using 'a' before a word that starts with a consonant and 'an' before a word that starts with a vowel. <S> The generalisation is true in most of the cases and this is precisely the reason why the rule is stated in its diluted form. <S> But if we follow the rule we find that the exceptions vanish. <S> SOA, as John has mentioned starts with an 'ES' sound which is a vowel sound. <S> Hence the 'an'. <S> Read more here <A> It is not correct to say "A hour" even though its first letter is a consonant. <S> It begins with a vowel sound, so you should say "An hour." <S> The same rule applies to abbreviations. <S> The only case for not using "An" is if the reader is likely to say "Solid State Drive" instead of "Ess Ess Dee" even though you have not written it that way. <A> The rule is that if the word (in its pronunciation ) starts with a vowel, you use "an". <S> In other words, if the phonetic transcription of an English word begins with a vowel, you use "an". <S> Examples: an orange (/o/), an apple (/æ/). <S> If it starts with a consonant, you use "a". <S> Remember that <S> /w/ <S> and /j/ are considered consonants, which explains "a union" (/juːnjən/) and "a one-legged man" (/wən legd mæn/). <A> I think the intent of the rule is the sound of the following word, not strictly if it begins with a consonant. <S> I believe it is entirely dependent on pronunciation, not classification of the letter. <S> Consider these two examples: <S> He is a solid choice for class president. <S> ... <S> The next district superintendent is an S. A. Wilson High School graduate. <S> (The initials 'S' <S> and 'A' are pronounced as the letters themselves.) <S> Here is some supporting information from the Purdue Online Writing Lab . https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/1/
| Whether to choose "A" or "An" is an absolutely phonetic relationship. Current convention for your particular example indicates you should write "An SSD" based on this Google Ngrams :
|
What is the difference between illegal and unlawful? I often hear an unlawful act, so what is an illegal act? Dictionary.com defines the words as: illegal forbidden by law or statute. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc. unlawful not lawful; contrary to law; illegal so it appears they might be synonyms. Is there some nuance that I'm missing? <Q> For all practical purposes, they are synonyms. <S> Various sources describe possible minor differences, such as that illegal acts are criminal acts, whereas unlawful acts may be contrary to some non-criminal law, like tort law or contract law; however, if you check actual usage, I doubt whether you will find much of a pattern in that regard. <S> The Oxford English Dictionary gives one as a synonym of the other. <S> Unlawful obviously comes from un- and law ; illegal comes from Latin in- (which means "un-") and <S> lex ("law") <S> . <S> Usage may very well vary in different countries, since each country has its own legal system, even though Anglo-Saxon systems are often much alike. <A> The New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd Edition describes <S> illegal as "contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law", and describes unlawful as "not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. <S> " <S> In American English, then, illegal is used in phrases like illegal alien , where it means a person present in a country without official authorization , and which is never replaced by unlawful . <S> Looking at the Oxford English Dictionary , I found a note about the usage of illegal and unlawful . <S> Illegal and unlawful have slightly different meanings, although they are often used interchangeably. <S> Thus handball in soccer is unlawful, but it is not illegal. <S> A third word with a similar meaning is illicit : this tends to encompass things that are forbidden or disapproved of by custom or society, as in an illicit love affair. <A> If something is unlawful , it means it is against the law, but not necessarily a criminal act; it can be a civil wrong, such as trademark infringement, for which the wrongdoer may be sued, but will unlikely face criminal prosecution. <S> Illegal describes an act that is unlawful and also a criminal act, such as drug trafficking. <S> EDIT: <S> It appears these definitions aren't so cut and dry. <S> This article discusses their usage in greater detail... <A> Very occasionally (C.S. Lewis?), one hears "unlawful" used in the sense of 'Moral Law', as opposed to 'man made' laws. <S> Otherwise, for practical purposes synonymous, as already stated. <A> One difference to note is that unlawful is generally only used in the context of state or federal laws, wereas illegal can be used to refer to any set of rules. <S> For example, in sports people can perform illegal moves, and when a computer program crashes it will sometimes say that it performed an illegal operation. <S> Within the context of the law though, they are much more synonymous save for the differences that the other answers mention. <A> This is an important definition and so far we've not really had it from the comments. <S> The true definition is within the context of the difference between Statute and Constitutional Law, yes despite baseless assertions to the contrary, we British and all Common Law jurisdictions have one, that’s why we have a Constitutional Monarchy. <S> Constitutional Law includes Constitutional Instruments such as in 1215 Magna Carta and 1688 Declaration of Rights, both of which are a part of the US Constitution in addition to the US Constitution itself and Common Law. <S> These are the only things that are Law per se. <S> There is no such thing as Statute Law, the term is a misnomer, more properly it should be Statute Legislation, which can only be lawful if it follows the superiority of Common Law. <S> So ‘legal’ refers to statute legislation and ‘lawful’ refers to constitutional and common law. <S> Lawful is higher than legal.
| Something that is illegal is against the law, whereas an unlawful act merely contravenes the rules that apply in a particular context. I believe unlawful is mostly just a more formal or technical synonym.
|
What does “pregnant pause” mean? Question is self-explanatory. Just curious and want to expand my knowledge of English. <Q> Edit: <S> Merriam-Webster has this : 3. <S> rich in significance or implication <the pregnant phrases of the Bible — Edmund Wilson <S> > <a pregnant pause <S> > <S> Wikipedia has this bit specifically on comic timing: <S> A pregnant pause (as in the classical definition , "many possibilities") is a technique of comic timing used to accentuate a comedy element, where the comic pauses at the end of a phrase to build up suspense. <S> It's often used at the end of a comically awkward statement or in the silence after a seemingly non-comic phrase to build up a comeback. <S> Refined by Jack Benny , the pregnant pause has become a staple of stand-up comedy . <A> I've always taken it to mean a pause that engenders an expectation ("pregnant" = "expecting") for the listener. <S> This as opposed to a pause to let the listener reflect on what was just said, a pause for the speaker to catch his breath, a pause for the speaker to find the right words, etc. <S> (wait for it) ...dary!!! <A> I think that pregnant in this case has the meaning of heavy, loaded, gravid, with burden. <S> (In most slavic languages the word for pregnant is derived from "with burden") <A> A pregnant pause is one that takes on the characteristic of being anticipatory, but inscrutable, to the observer, whether by design or not, of the pause maker. <S> In the sense that pregnancy is an anticipated but uncertain revelation in the making, a pregnant pause is an anticipated but uncertain utterance in the making.
| A pregnant pause is a pause that builds up suspension in the listener/viewer, for a greater dramatic (especially comic) effect of what follows after the pause. It could be used in telling a joke, making a sales pitch, storytelling, or as a form of emphasis that can only be described as legen...
|
What is correct, "in-stock" or "on-stock"? Do we have products in stock or on stock? <Q> No hyphen. <A> It should be <S> Do we have products in stock ? <S> where in stock functions as an adjective. <S> If products are not in stock ( available ), then they are out of stock . <S> When these adjectives precede the nouns they modify, they are compounded as in-stock and out-of-stock : <S> How many candles do we have in stock ? <S> How many in-stock items have expired? <S> The online store displays mostly out-of-stock merchandise. <S> Note that there also exists the phrase, on the stocks , which means in progress/in the making : Plans to introduce better products <S> are on the stocks . <A> Products can be "in stock", "on hand", or "on the shelf". <S> All these have the same meaning.
| The correct phrase is in stock .
|
Meaning and Origin of "Honky Tonk" Monday morning. A colleague of mine is blasting country music from his cube...fantastic. After hearing the word "honky" and "honky tonk" quite a few times, I'm intrigued. This is obviously a Southern term, but does anyone have more information on the origin and actual meaning? <Q> Etymonline says : honky-tonk, "cheap night club," 1924, earlier honk-a-tonk (1894), of unknown origin. <S> As a type of music played in that sort of low saloon, it is attested from 1933. <S> Wikipedia adds : The origin of the term honky tonk is unknown. <S> It states that the term came from the sound of geese, which led an unsuspecting group of cowboys to the flock instead of to the variety show they expected. <S> The [Oxford English Dictionary] also states that the first use in print was in 1894, [...] written "honk-a-tonk". <S> However, the terms honky tonk , honk-a-tonk , and honkatonk have been cited from at least 1889 <S> [.] <S> The "tonk" portion of the name may have come from a brand name of piano. <S> [...] It is unlikely, however, that a Tin Pan Alley piano manufactured in 1889 would have influenced the vocabulary in Texas by January of that same year. <S> The Phrase Finder has some additional discussion . <A> I found an 1889 example of honky-tonk : some 35 years earlier than the OED's 1924 honky-tonk , and some five years before their 1894 honk-a-tonk . <S> The Fort Worth Daily Gazette (Fort Worth, Tex.), of January 24, 1889 : <S> A petition to the council is being circulated for signatures, asking that the Honky Tonk theater on Main street be reopened. <S> I found a good definition in <S> The Iola Register <S> (Iola, Kan.), June 23, 1893 : <S> When a particularly vicious and low grade theater opens up in an Oklaholma town they call it a "honky-tonk. <S> " <S> The name didn't just "come from" anything; it just growed. <S> The Sun (New York [N.Y.]), November 26, 1897 : <S> BURNED <S> DOWN <S> THE "HONKY TONK" Louisiana "regulators" break up a Vicious Resort and Shoot a Man. <S> NEW ORLEANS, Nov. 25.-Last night <S> a party of regulators, about thirty-five in number, appeared at the Gramercy sugar refinery, in St. James parish, to break up a "Honky Tonk" there, where gambling, drinking, and all manner of vice prevailed. <S> The regulators severely whipped the eight negro women in the "Honky Tonk" as well as the men they found there. <S> Some of the negroes ran under the house to escape the beating. <S> The building was set on fire and burned to the ground. <S> Fears are entertained that some of the negroes were burned to death under it. <S> Oscar Dressner, a white storekeeper, who lived near the "Honky Tonk," came out to see what the regulators were doing, and <S> they, fearing that he would recognize them, opened fire on him. <S> He received four dangerous wounds in the back. <S> Ho was brought to the Turo Infirmiry in New Orleans for treatment. <S> He says he can Identify five of the men engaged In the affair. <S> More: 1898 , 1898 , 1898 , 1898 , 1898 , 1899 , 1899 <A> <A> I read in a newspaer article called AJ Boyd <S> if I rememer right that in the old west in cowboy saloons there was always a piano where the piano player whatever he knew. <S> In time some man started writting piano music for those saloons, standarizing popular songs that caught on. <S> His name was ______Tonk. <S> In time people starting requesting from the piano player to play some of that Tonk music. <S> Eventually they rhymed it with Honky Tonk and those saloons came to be known as Honky Tonks. <S> MN
| The earliest source explaining the derivation of the term (spelled "honkatonk") was an article published in 1900 by the New York Sun and widely reprinted in other newspapers. It's from the word "tonkin" , the name of north Vietnam under the French colony, many of those people were migrated by French to their islands to be workers, at that time "tonkin" sometimes called "tonk", and people in the west thoughts they are part of China too.
|
Could you name some numbers that have a special meaning in English, like 666? The question "What does the term “86'd” relate to?" made me wonder what similar cases we have in English. I'd like to know some other numbers that have a commonly understood meaning beyond their use as a mere number. I have seen "666" used many times with a special meaning. It is written on fences, and used in US movies like "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" : I believed that its meaning is commonly known. However, I was bewildered by an answer contending that the meaning of "666" was unknown. Is 666 commonly understood? (For example, in Russian, the number 7 symbolises luck, if anyone knows any Russian.) <Q> Some that come to mind: 69 -- a position... 31337 or 1337 -- "eleet" way of spelling "eleet" 42 -- answer to everything <A> 7 is also generally considered lucky in the West. <S> 13 is regarded by many as unlucky, but by others as lucky (the latter tend to be antinomian sorts). <S> The British royal family is infamously triskaidekaphobic . <S> 20 means location to those familiar with the sort of radio code where one would say "what's your 20?" <S> 93 means "love" and "will" to occultists who follow traditions derived from Aleister Crowley's work. <S> 101 means "introductory" or "basic", from the American college course code. <S> 404 means "missing", "not found" or "unavailable", from the HTTP status code. <S> 411 means "information", from a common dialing code for telephone company information services. <S> 420 refers to cannabis use. <S> 5150, a California police shorthand for a mentally disturbed person, was made famous by the Van Halen album of the same name . <A> 007 <A> I think that the number of numbers with a non-numeric meaning to all anglophones is rather limited, since they are very cultural in nature. <S> The answer that you link to indicates for instance that Biblically based meanings (such as 3, 7, 12, 13 or 666) aren't as universal as I'd assumed, for instance. <A> 42 is the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. <A> 666 comes from common translations of Revelation 13:18 : <S> This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. <S> (ESV) <S> There are many theories as to the meaning of this number (even theories contesting the number itself). <A> 13 - Considered unlucky (in most English-speaking countries) <A> Does 50 <S> (pronounced "five-oh") count? <S> There's also 187 , a slang term for murder.
| 23 has some sub-cultural currency as a number associated with strange coincidences, among other things. 616 - the 'real' number of the beast ! The connotation is commonly understood to be bedevilment, curse, or evil.
|
The word for "Those who are notified" In general usage (and hopefully correct usage) a "notifier" is someone who notifies. What is the word for the person who is notified? For example: "Instruct each [X] to respond to the notification within 3 days." <Q> While I expect that you're looking for something like notifiee , I'm not aware of any such word that would have that exact meaning. <S> That being said, there are several good options that could work: In the general case, (though these may overuse <S> the notify root for your taste): <S> Instruct each of the notified to respond... <S> Instruct each notified individual to respond... <S> If the notification is a written message that they received. <S> Instruct each recipient to respond... <S> If the notification is some sort of pop-up in a program <S> Instruct each user to respond... <A> If those that are notified had to subscribe (e.g. to a mailing list) to receive the notifications, then you can call them subscribers . <A> I know this question is old and you've already accepted another answer, but for the sake of those like me who come after, the word you were looking for is notificant . <A> From Wiktionary :
| Notifyee (plural notifyees ) (rare, nonstandard) a person or organization that is being notified
|
What exactly does "already" mean when used in the imperative mood? This is a question about American English usage of the word "already". As a UK resident I don't completely understand when I hear Americans give commands like "Stop it already!" In the UK the word already is not normally used in the imperative mood and the sentence I've just quoted would leave an English person thinking "If you're saying I've already stopped it why are you asking me to stop it again?" <Q> It is informal, and I understand it to express impatience, i.e. to mean something like “right now”. <S> The New Oxford American Dictionary has: (informal) used as an intensive after a word or phrase to express impatience: enough already with these crazy kids and their wacky dances! <A> The implication of an imperative with "already" is that the proper time for carrying out the command has passed, and the person being spoken to is remiss in waiting to be told: <S> Bob: Oh, I really should be going. <S> My meeting starts in a minute. <S> Mary: So leave already! <S> Mary's point is that Bob should have left some time ago, and she's annoyed by his delay. <S> Be careful when using this construction. <S> Saying it to your boss, for example, if he is an American and at all ill-natured, would be a CLM, a Career-Limiting Move. <A> Not only is already used in this way informal, it can be downright peremptory and even aggressive, but it is always imperative. <S> Examples: <S> Stop being such a jerk already! <S> Shut up already! <S> We've gone over the details, now let's just do this thing. <S> Are you going to let him push you around like that? <S> Grow a pair already! <S> Fight back! <S> Now, it doesn't have to be an angry or negative statement. <S> It can be spoken among friends <S> You want me to introduce you to that chick? <S> So buy me a beer already. <S> Dude! <S> I haven't seen you in, like, months. <S> Sit your ass down already and tell me what's shakin' with you. <S> or lovers <S> Yeah, it was a great party. <S> But enough talk — unzip my dress already! <S> I like to read too, but <S> right now I want you to put down that book and give me a kiss already. <A> This is most likely rooted from the Yiddish idiom, as in "enough, already", and can be taken to indicate lack of patience in most contexts.
| It indicates that the speaker is out of patience and wants to end this part of the conversation and proceed to the next stage (or to exit it altogether).
|
Usage of "p." versus "pp." versus "pg." to denote page numbers and page ranges At the risk of saying something foolish, I won't attempt to answer the question myself. I understand that all three synchronically more or less equivalent and substitutable, but it would be quite nice to know the traditional usage notes on the abbreviations. <Q> As far as I know, pg. <S> is not an acceptable form, at least in formal writing. <S> for a range. <S> In many cases, actually, you don't need any of them. <S> Quite commonly you'll find references in the form volume:page(s) , like 5:204 or 8:99–108 <S> (or, for works of a single volume, something like Blah Blah Blah 108). <A> Per Strunk and White's Elements of Style, p. is used to denote 1 page, pp. <S> to denote a range of pages. <S> This form of citation is used when you are using brief/in text citations. <S> Otherwise, one would use the citation style for the type of formal paper that you are writing, for example, MLA would be "don't do it wrong" (Author's Last name 45) where the numbers indicate the page number where the quote is found, and the author's full name will be listed (along with other details about the source) in your works cited list. <A> The APA style of referencing, which I have most frequently used, requires that p. is used for single page references or citations <S> ( Book Title , p. 13) while for multiple pages you must cite it as (pp. 35-40) . <S> So p stands for page, pp stands for pages. <S> I have not encountered pg to be used, but I do use it in informal note taking.
| The correct forms are p. for a single page, and pp.
|
Is it correct to say "I found the map" or "I have found the map"? Is it correct to say "I found the map" or "I have found the map"? <Q> "I have found the map" (present perfect tense) indicates the map has just been found, or was found in the not-too-distant past; it conveys an air of finality. <S> Consider these two examples <S> : John combs the cellars, looking for the precious document. <S> His week-long search has, thus far, proved abortive. <S> Suddenly, he happens upon a chest half-buried in the dirt floor of a long-forgotten chamber. <S> With some effort, John pries it open and, to his amazement, there lies the ancient scroll—the Map of __. <S> Incredible! <S> Unable to contain his excitement, John rushes out to find his mates, screaming at the top of his lungs, "I found the map! <S> I found the map! <S> I found IT!" <S> "It's absolutely impossible to get to the island. <S> We don't know how to get there and the secret map has been lost for ages. <S> " <S> John turned around in his chair and said calmly, "There, you got it wrong Kevin. <S> It is absolutely possible to reach the island. <S> " <S> Measuring his words for effect, he pronounced: "I have found the map." <S> Everyone stared at him, dumbfounded. <A> They are both correct as the first is past and the second is present perfect. <A> They are both grammatically correct. <S> As @Jimi Oke says, the tense you use depends on what you're trying to convey.
| It's correct to say, "I found the map," (past tense) if one is directly reporting that event as it happened in the past, no matter how recent or distant.
|
Why is god, a common noun, capitalized? Possible Duplicate: When should the word “God” be capitalized? I thought god is a common noun, but many people capitalize it when it is not the first letter of a sentence or a title. <Q> When you are referring to the creator of the universe of some religions, you write God ; when you are referring to a superhuman being (or a deity) of some other religions, you write god . <S> The difference is that in monotheistic religions there is only one god, and God often becomes (as in Christianity) a proper noun; in non monotheistic religions (e.g. Hinduism), there isn't a single god, and God is not the name of one of the gods (it is god Vishnu, not God Vishnu). <S> This is similar to what happen with Moon , used when referring to the natural satellite of planet Earth, and moon , used to refer to the natural satellite of any planet (e.g., Jupiter moons); the same happens with Sun , which is the star around which planet Earth orbits, and sun , which is used to refer any star similar to the Sun (with or without planets). <A> When being used as a common noun, it is referring to the concept of a god (or god as a "type," if you will) and is not capitalized (just like "human" or "dog" would be) <S> Examples: <S> The following are all correct: <S> I pray to God three times a day. <S> I pray to a god three times a day. <S> I pray to Him three times a day. <A> Only religious writings and publications, and material written by the devout, would capitalize pronouns and possessives when in reference to the Christian god. <S> Secular writing is not enjoined to follow the practice. <S> Capitalization of "God" generally serves as a marker for the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. <S> Secular writers will usually capitalize "God" out of convention, but not necessarily respect for said deity or the adherents of same. <A> It depends on whether you subscribe to a monotheistic universe (where you use a capital letter, since there is only one God), or a polytheistic universe (where you use a lower case letter since there are many gods), or an atheistic universe (where you probably use a lower case letter, but don't believe that 'god' exists and avoid the term whenever possible).
| Answer: It (and some pronouns), when referring to the creator of the universe, is a proper noun and is capitalized (just like "Bob" or "Joe" would be).
|
What do ‘a little Marilyn Monroe drag,’ 'whassup,’ and 'worked her derriere off' mean? The Washington Post’s article on the 83rd Annual Academy Awards on ABC written by Hank Stuever under the headline, At Oscars, the kids were all right and the 'Speech' was well-prepared was full of Greek to me who have little knowledge about American culture and entertainment world. As I cannot pick up all the words and expressions I felt difficulty in understanding, I just want to make sure of the meaning of three phrases: NYU, whassup a little Marilyn Monroe drag worked her derriere off What do these phrases mean? Though I guess whassup is ‘What’s up,’ and work one’s derriere off means ‘Work very hard,’ I’m not sure. Is it very rude if I tell somebody, particularly to a lady, that ‘I worked my derriere off in the office?’ Here's the context for the above-mention phrases: Anne Hathaway hosted the 83rd Annual Academy Awards on ABC Sunday night. And her co-host, James Franco, did what exactly? (Besides be handsome? Besides a little Marilyn Monroe drag? And besides shouting "NYU, whassup!" to the Best Live Action Short winner? What, that's not enough?) Hathaway worked her derriere off and Franco came off like that lacrosse boy you wish your daughter didn't hang out with so much. <Q> In order: NYU, wassup! <S> This is known as a "shout-out"; in this case James Franco was referring to the fact that one of the Oscar recipients thanked the film school at New York University, and was either saying that in a gently mocking way or else actually did attend NYU film school himself and was calling out to acknowledge that fact and the people at that school. <S> A little Marilyn Monroe drag ... <S> Marilyn Monroe was a film star of the 1950s and early 1960s. <S> Generally drag means dressing in the clothing of the opposite sex, but in this case it might be more figurative. <S> It could be that Franco merely did some kind of Marilyn Monroe impression. <S> I didn't see that part, so I can't tell you exactly which. <S> Working off her derriere <S> This is a polite way of saying "working her butt off" or "working her ass off", which means working very hard. <S> Figuratively speaking, it implies that one works so hard that one's buttocks actually fall off. <A> "Marilyn Monroe drag" would be James Franco dressing up as Marilyn Monroe, the famous actress. <S> Derriere is French for butt and working your butt off is indeed working very hard. <S> "NYU, whassup!" <S> is a "shout-out", basically a mention of someone (in this case, New York University) while on the air (or in print) as a public acknowledgement that you hold them in some esteem. <S> (see wikipedia's Name-Dropping entry .) <A> Whassup does indeed mean "what's up". <S> NYU stands for New York University; the Best Live Action Short winner goes (or went? <S> he certainly looked young enough to still be a student, but it wasn't clear from his acceptance speech) to that school. <S> a little Marilyn Monroe drag : at one point in the program, James Franco appeared in drag, i.e. dressed as a woman. <S> I didn't think the intent was to make him look like Marilyn Monroe , but apparently his pink dress reminded this reviewer of the famous screen siren 1 . <S> worked her derriere off <S> : again, you're correct that this means "worked very hard". <S> While it's somewhat informal, it is not impolite at all; in fact, derriere is a euphemism for ass/arse (depending on which side of the pond 2 <S> you hail from), so this is a more polite version of the phrase <S> worked her ass off . <S> 1 <S> Screen siren = female movie star, often more famous for her sex appeal than her acting ability. <S> 2 <S> Pond in this context = the Atlantic Ocean <S> ; British and American English use the words ass and arse slightly differently . <A> Well, there are three questions here, I'll take one to start with. <S> derriere , means backside, bottom, butt, ass . <S> I believe the phrase comes from the usage of "to work off", meaning to lose or incrementally reduce something by work. <S> You can "work off a debt", by performing work in return for money to pay your debt off. <S> In dieting you can "work off some excess weight" by exercising or working hard. <S> It is this last meaning that may hold the key, "work my butt off" may mean work so hard your bottom reduces. <S> It could also mean you worked so hard you wore yourself out, no strength left.
| If you "work your derriere off", it means you work really hard, intensely. To go in drag means to dress appropriately for the opposite sex; almost exclusively used to refer to a man dressing as a woman, although theoretically it could refer to a woman dressing as a man.
|
Is "administrate" a valid English verb? What's the difference between it and "administer"? We had an interesting discussion yesterday about the use of administer and administrate . I feel that there is a case for both usages -- sometimes you might administer something, and other times you might administrate something -- but I couldn't convince my fellow co-worker who thought that administrate was some kind of neo-abomination. This was mainly because I couldn't cite a convincing example. So then, is administrate an acceptable verb, and what usages exist that differentiate it from administer ? <Q> Off the top of my head, the only thing that springs to mind is that administer is maybe more common in the sense of give (out) . <S> So if you want to avoid connotation with that meaning, "administrate" could serve this purpose (though you could also manage , organise , steer ...). <S> Just possibly administrate suggests more closer being an administrator in the sense of it being one's job title/function (as opposed to just administering something on an ad-hoc basis). <S> So apart from that, it may just depend on whether you like the sound of verbs ending in -ate. <A> "Administrate" appears to have a history going back almost 400 years (rather to my surprise), and is an exact synonym for administer. <A> The NOAD reports that administrate is a less common term for administer , when it is used to mean "manage and be responsible for the running of a business, organization, etc." <S> Administer has been first used in Middle English, and it derives from the Old French word that comes from the Latin administrare . <A> The word, "administrate" is indeed listed in Merriam-Webster as a verb. <S> However, I would use “administer,” which is the more common/usual word. <S> In the business world, “administrate” often has the connotation of work handled by a secretary, not a professional. <A> I've found that in the tech world they favor administrate. <S> If you have admin. <S> Privileges on a server, file directory, forums etc. <S> you tend to administrate rather than administer.
| Administrate has been first used in the sixtenth century, and it derives from the Latin administrat ( administrated ), from the verb administrare .
|
Is there an antonym for “capitalize” (as in letter-case)? A word that starts with a lower-case (lowercase?) letter can be capitalized , but what is the converse action? Google has only one page in the top results that addresses this and the closest thing to a proposed answer is decapitalize , which trips spell-checkers, so de-capitalize . <Q> While I'll caveat that some people aren't fond of it being used as a verb, lowercase is frequently used in the manner you're referring to. <S> For example: Chicago style is to lowercase all of these. <S> Chicago Manual of Style or Lowercase shortened, informal or descriptive names of committees. <S> KU University Style Guide <A> <A> The standard options are "titlecase," "sentencecase," "uppercase," and "lowercase." <S> Various abbreviations and marks for these are used in proofreading. <S> It's somewhat specialized vocabulary because outside of publishing you rarely have cause to say things like, "this word needs to be lowercased." <A> If being proper / correct is not your greatest concern.. <S> Say you simply wanted your listener to "Re-write this sentence withOUT Capital letters."… I'd wager a bet that asking them to decapitalize it <S> - would give you as good a result - as any. <A> The alphabets may be referred as upper-case and lower-case. <S> Another way to describe it is to say 'majuscule' (majuscular) for upper-case and 'minuscule' (minuscular) for lower-case. <S> Reference: http://www.synonyms.net/antonyms/majuscule <A> Wiktionary records uncapitalize with usage examples. <S> Verb uncapitalize <S> ( third-person singular simple present <S> uncapitalizes , present participle uncapitalizing , simple past and past participle uncapitalized ) <S> ( transitive ) <S> To convert the first letter (or more) of (something) from uppercase to lowercase; to make uncapitalized. <S> The easy way to uncapitalize text is to highlight it and press Shift + <S> *F3*, — Stanley Zarowin, Journal of Accountancy, A Quick Way <S> to Capitalize and Uncapitalize , 2004 Synonyms decapitalize <S> I would definitely prefer the prefix <S> un- <S> to <S> de- <S> to avoid any ambiguity. <S> The word decapitalize already exists with a different meaning and usage in a different field. <S> See also: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/decapitalize
| The verb is lowercase - defined by Merriam Webster as: "to print or set in lowercase letters."
|
Meaning of "native speaker of English" Who is considered a native speaker of English ? I am a little confused by the various answers found online. <Q> A "native speaker of English" refers to someone who has learned and used English from early childhood. <S> It does not necessarily mean that it is the speaker's only language, but it means it is and has been the primary means of concept formation and communication. <S> It means having lived in a truly English-speaking culture during one's formative years, so that English has been absorbed effortlessly as by osmosis. <S> One can have been born and grown up in a country that lists English as one of its official languages and not be a "native" speaker. <S> For example, Canadians from Quebec cannot automatically be considered native English speakers even though many speak English quite well; they were brought up speaking French as a first language and think in French (or Canardien , as I have heard unkind Parisians refer to it). <S> But the rest of Canada does largely consist of native speakers of English. <S> Speaking "like a native" of any language means more than just knowing vocabulary and grammar. <S> Many educated foreign speakers speak better formal English than, say, many Americans or British or Australians. <S> But formal English is only one aspect of the language. <S> Knowing instantly what slang means, what cultural references mean, how to reduce syntax to a bare minimum and still convey precise meaning — all these things, and more, are what constitute native speech. <A> It's apparent that different people have different notions of what a "native speaker" is. <S> To a linguist, the term generally implies that a speaker has "internalised" the language through "natural acquisition", rather than through deliberate instruction/learning. <S> A "native speaker", as opposed to an extremely proficient second language speaker, can often make instant judgements about whether sentences "on the fringe" of the language's grammar sound grammatical. <S> So for example, native speakers can probably instantly make judgments about whether the following sentences of English "sound normal": <S> Which students did you think had done their homework? <S> Which students did you wonder whether would turn up late? <S> These are the parents affected by the measures. <S> These are <S> the parents baked a cake by their children. <S> It appears that a non-native speaker, even an extremely proficient one, will tend to make a judgement about these sentences much less readily. <S> There are other, essentially non-linguistic, definitions of "native speaker", e.g. "the language that I speak most and have the most cultural attachment to" or "The language that I acquired first". <S> An issue which I'm actually currently discussing on another forum with fellow translators is that there are people claiming to be "native speakers" of English who write sentences such as "I have experience of translator since 4 years". <S> I personally think this is an unuseful definition of "native speaker", but it shows how much confusion/variability there is. <A> In reality, I would say that a native speaker of English is a speaker of English which also thinks primarily in English and which other native speakers of English would recognize as such. <S> It's certainly a circular definition <S> but I think that that's a key part of any definition. <S> Trying to leave it out caused me to give an incomplete definition earlier.
| Literally, a native speaker of English is somebody that learned English as their first language.
|
How would you define the relation between (for example) "Italian" and "languages"? I'm building a web site where I have a list of topics, and I need to denote the relation between them. e.g.: Topic: Italian. Ancestors: Languages -> European Predecessors: Verbs, Nouns... Another example may be: Topic: Internet Explorer. Ancestors: Software -> Browsers Predecessors: Menus, Add-Ons, keyboard-shortcuts... And so on. The problem is that I'm not sure "Ancestors" and "predecessors" are suitable. Other options I had in mind are subtopics/supertopics, and children/parents. What do you think? Which way articulates the meaning best? <Q> How about category and subcategory ? <A> The precise words for what you mean are: hyponym (to be more specific) and <S> hypernym (to be less specific). <S> The typical example is: horse is a hyponym of animal . <S> About your language example, I would say that Italian (as a language) is a hyponym of European language , which in turn is a hyponym of language . <S> But the relationship between Italian and verb or noun is a different one. <A> You can consider using the pairs superset <S> /subset or branches/leaves . <A> What about hierarchies? <S> In OLAP <S> terminology one can have multiple overlapping <S> hierarchies with different relationships. <S> This is quite flexible and comfortable approach, I daresay concept <A> Instance Italian is an instance of a language. <S> IE and FireFox are instances of internet browsers. <S> Technical stuff follows: <S> There is a distinction between subset and member (or instance) <S> but sometimes they overlap. <S> For a set (a collection of things) one can have a subset (a subcollection). <S> A given set can have many members -inside- it. <S> A subset is of the same kind as the superset. <S> A member can be any kind. <S> A subset of size exactly 1 is usually thought of as a member or instance (because it sounds weird informally to call a subset of size 1 'a subset', i.e. "Italian is a subset of Romance languages", though technically correct sounds goofy when you think of Italian as a single language <S> (linguistically one can think of Italian as the set of only partially mutually intelligible dialects spoken by people on the Italian peninsula). <S> So if you start with the set of all languages, you can then have the subset of European languages, and a subset of that the Romance languages and then the subset (or better, the instance) <S> Italian. <S> The subset relation forms <S> a hierarchy (formally a partial order) described by 'is-a'. <S> A circle is an ellipse is a curve. <S> A hypernym is the word for the concept that is a parent/ancestor/predecessor/superset/superclass of the hyponym. <S> A hyponym is the word for the concept that is a child/descendant/successor/subset/subclass of the hyponym. <S> As to member, because membership is not usually thought of as a transitive relation, it doesn't really have all these successor/predecessor terms.
| I would say that Italian contains words (and words is a hypernym of verbs and nouns ).
|
Is it absolutely necessary to use "than" over "then" in a comparison? Do you think you are smarter then me? While this question should be using than ...I have to wonder if this is a debatable topic within English or is this cut and dry? If this specific instance is indeed cut and dry are there any instances on the usage of then and than that would cause a hot debate amongst English professors? <Q> There is no ambiguity between when to use then and when to use than . <S> It is purely a phonologically driven error that people make when they are writing, because often the vowel in than is reduced, causing then and than to sound similar or identical (depending on your accent). <S> Note that it is possible for the improper use of then in place of than to lead to an unintended meaning: I am more interested in taking a nap than going to the party. <S> The above means: I prefer a nap over attending the party. <S> I am more interested in taking a nap then going to the party. <S> This one means: I prefer taking a nap, and afterwards attending the party. <A> It's cut and dry: people who use "then" in a comparison are spelling it wrong. <A> The correct way to write this is: <S> Do you think you are smarter than me? <S> "Than" is a conjunction or preposition, whereas "then" is an adverb, noun, or adjective. <S> I do not believe there is a situation where they are interchangeable. <S> A brief explanation which illustrates the differences well can be found here . <S> (I originally suggested that it should be written "Do you think you are smarter than I ? <S> " <S> I rescinded it because @Kosmonaut pointed out that many people use "me" instead. <S> His comment links to 2 discussions on the subject. <S> I don't believe that "I" is incorrect, but most people probably wouldn't find fault with your using "me" instead, and I don't want to derail this thread any more.) <A> In the example sentence, than is certainly correct while then is wrong. <S> There is a construction however in which there could be confusion. <S> Hardly had he laid his head down on the pillow than the phone started to ring. <S> Here than means the phone started to ring immediately after he laid his head down, and this could be confused with then , since then can be used to mean something happening after another. <A> When it comes to the use of the word "then", when you really mean "than", I much prefer pointing out your misspelling than calling you an idiot. <S> or When it comes to the use of the word "then", when you really mean "than", I prefer pointing out your misspelling of the word then calling you an idiot. :-)
| I can't think of a situation where there's any ambiguity about the choice between then and than ; they're completely different parts of speech. The two words are quite distinct.
|
Is there a word to make the distinction between a Year/Month Combination and a Month Is there a word/phrase that would distinguish the combination of a year and month from a month? I'd call "January" a month I'd call "January 2011" a _ ___ ? <Q> January is a month. <S> January 2011 is a month of a year, or a month and a year. <S> (It is not a year and a month; a year and a month is a duration.) <S> January 31, 2011 is a date. <S> I can't think of any way other than that to name the month-and-year combination. <A> I'd call January 31, 2011 a day. <S> I'd call 2011 a year. <A> January is (the name of) <S> a month January 2011 is (the name of) a (specific) calendar month. <A> I meet this problem desigining Business Intelligence applications. <S> Objects that combine the Year and Month often simplify business rules. <S> For example Year-Month between 2010-03 and 2011-02 (a rolling year) is a lot easier for a business user to create/understand than <S> (Year = 2010 and month <S> >-03) <S> or (Year = 2011 and month <= 02) <S> I call such an object a 'Year-Month' : clumsy maybe, but self-descriptive. <A> I'm afraid all that is is a "month and year". <S> Even database design has not come up with jargon for that yet, shockingly. <A> Unfortunately, there is nothing I would consider elegant, nor anything close to universally understood, to distinguish those two types of month. <S> In fact, I would simply use the term month to describe either of them. <S> In programming contexts, you usually have other cues, like the length and data type of the field. <S> In lay contexts, you usually provide other verbal cues. <S> It should be clear whether you are talking about a month in a particular year or a month in any nonspecific year. <S> (Note that adding calendar to one of them is not very effective, as it could easily work for either type of month. <S> If I had to choose, I would go the opposite way as antonio.)
| I'd call January 2011 a month.
|
How can I express "bottom" superlative? Suppose you have some elements (let's say coins) laid out over a table in vertical order. How can I make reference to the coin at the bottom? The lowest coin? The one that is below any other? I just don't know how to say that. <Q> The one at the bottom is the "bottommost" coin. <S> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bottommost <A> You should use bottommost and topmost. <S> The postfix "most" shows physical position. <S> Use the postfix "most" with adjectives that compare three or more things. <S> If you have two coins, do not use bottommost and topmost. <S> You'd use bottom coin or top coin. <S> If you have three coins, two are potential bottom coins, since only one is on the top. <S> Because there are more than two possibilities to be the bottom coin, it is appropriate to use bottommost to refer to the coin on the opposite end of the top. <S> Bottommost: <S> Situated at the very bottom. <S> Topmost: <S> Situated at the very top. <A> If there are multiple columns, then topmost and bottommost are (at least theoretically) the less ambiguous way to refer to the coin at the top of the highest column and the bottom of the deepest column respectively, although many people may feel obliged to further clarify with something like "take the topmost or bottommost of all the coins" instead of just "take the topmost or bottommost coin". <A> Are they in a stack or laid out in a line? <S> If they're in a stack, it's the bottom one, if they're in a line, it might be clearer to say "The closest one". <A> One "superlative" degree of "bottom" is "rock bottom" (couldn't possibly get any lower).
| If there is a single column, referring to the top and bottom coins in the column is perfectly appropriate.
|
What did Charlie Sheen mean when he used the phrase "banging 7 gram rocks"? Today’s Quote of Time.com (TIME@time.chtah.com) carries the following line of Charlie Sheen’s remark. Being totally ignorant of the background of CBS and Warner Brothers’ cancellation of the production of the program, I have no idea about the phrase, ‘bang 7 gram rock.’ I understand the line after ‘Because that’s how I roll ...’ means he is single-mindedly do what he decided to do – to sue CBC and Warner Broth. Can somebody translate the above line into English easier for a foreign learner like me to understand? "I probably took more than anybody could survive. I was banging 7 gram rocks. Because that's how I roll. I have one speed. I have one gear: Go." CHARLIE SHEEN, who on Monday night, in addition to giving incoherent interviews, announced that he plans to sue CBS and Warner Brothers for canceling the production of Two and a Half Men.” <Q> Banging 7-gram rocks. <S> Seven grams is a LOT. <S> According to the Wikipedia article, "Large amounts (several hundred milligrams or more) intensify the user's high, but may also lead to bizarre, erratic, and violent behavior. <S> " If a large dose is less than a gram, one wonders how Mr. Sheen survived at all. <S> That's how I roll. <S> Slang for "this is my normal, customary behavior. <S> " <S> I have one speed and one gear: go. <S> If he is moving at all, he is moving at his maximum speed. <A> taking it a sentence at a time: <S> I probably took more than anybody could survive. <S> -> I did so many drugs I should have died [from an overdose]. <S> I was banging 7 gram rocks -> <S> I was taking 7 grams of hard drugs [crack cocaine, probably] at a time. <S> That's how I roll. <S> -> <S> That's the way I am. <S> I have one speed. <S> I have one gear: <S> Go. <S> -> I take chances, I take risks, I don't care about the negatives. <A> "Banging" means snorting or smoking cocaine. <S> He probably sniffed a ton of coke, I can't see Charlie being a crackhead. <S> Cocaine, as we all know, is very common in Hollywood. <S> He's been on the stuff for years. <S> Over time, he probably needed to do more to get high (obviously). <S> I'd say doing seven grams at a time is insane, but I think he meant he did seven grams in a sitting, or a night, and it was nothing to him. <S> How's that for translation?
| He's talking about taking ("banging") crystals of crack cocaine .
|
Why is "liquorice" pronounced (or spelt) so strangely? Liquorice is pronounced ˈlɪkərɪʃ . But every other word I can think of ending with -ice is pronounced differently (such as police or rice ). How did liquorice get such a strange pronunciation, or alternatively, to be spelt like that? <Q> It actually used to be pronounced /lɪkoɹˈɛs/, as evidenced by the Old French word we borrowed it from, "licoresse". <S> The last phoneme probably shifted from /s/ to /ʃ/ <S> due to a similar process that happened with the words "pressure" and "sugar". <S> Why it changed and not other similar words? <S> Who knows. <S> English speakers for a long time have had a twisted lack of consistency. <S> Why are the two words, from the same language and borrowed at roughly the same time period, "prestige" and "vestige" pronounced so differently? <A> lickerish , which broadened its sense to "greedy, desirous" and at one time had the side meaning "tempting to the appetite". <A> I have always pronounced liquorice with 's' not 'sh'. <S> I had never heard it pronounced as 'sh' until I moved from Scotland to England, so as far as I'm concerned, the English pronounce it incorrectly and the Scots pronounce it correctly. <A> I had this argument in school with my English teacher; I pronounced it with the iss , not the ish . <S> She showed me a dictionary where it was pronounced ish , but instead of taking her word I decided to do some research in older dictionaries... <S> we were both right. <S> The original way was the way I had said it with the iss sound, but due to an overwhelming amount of people pronouncing it <S> ish <S> it was changed. <S> Shortly after it had been changed, there were two ways printed and an explanation, but now it seems this has been lost over the years and simply changed to ish . <S> I refuse to roll with the masses and still pronounce it <S> iss <S> not ish . <S> Ah well, it is my choice; and in my mind, I am equally correct saying it this way. <A> I am Scottish but moved with my family to England as a child. <S> Having been brought up most of my childhood in England <S> I always used the 'liquorish' pronunciation but was told off by my Scottish mother who always wrote it 'licorice' - using the 'riss' pronunciation <A> Liquorice <S> (American English: licorice ) is a word that derives from the Old French <S> licoresse (the equivalent of the modern French règlisse ). <S> The English word kept the pronunciation of the original word. <S> There is another word that has a similar pronunciation of -rice , and that has origin from a French word: caprice <S> (AmE /kəˈpris/, BrE /kəˈpriːs/).
| As a supplement: The pronunciation with [ɪʃ] may also have been influenced by a very old variant of what is now lecherous :
|
Should this abbreviated question use "lose" or "lost?" The main site Meta is currently displaying a banner that reads Lose some reputation points? A system-wide recalc of scores happened. This raised the question Fix the grammar please? “Lose”->“Lost” some reputation points? In this case "lose" sounds correct to me, since the full sentence is "Did you lose some reputation?" Is one form more correct than the other, or does it not matter? <Q> Did you lose some reputation points? <S> Have you lost some reputation points? <S> Since English telegraphic style allows both "Did you..." and "Have you..." to be omitted, neither is incorrect, and some readers might balk at either one. <A> The first one is more ambiguous and can support multiple "timeframe" references. <S> (Did you) lose some reputation points? <S> - past (Would you like to) lose some reputation points? <S> - future <S> Whereas the latter implies something that has happened <S> (Have you) lost some reputation points? <S> The ambiguity of the first form leans towards choosing the latter form for clarity. <A> I'm going on shades of meaning here, but to my ear, "(did you) lose some reputation points? <S> " has an underlying connotation that you took some action that, directly or not, caused the loss of points. <S> "(Have you) lost some reputation points? <S> " has no such implication of agency; something happened, maybe as a result of your action but also maybe because of something entirely out of your control, and now the points cannot be located. <S> So in addition to the ambiguity that Richard cites in his answer, I prefer the "lost" formation for its closer (in my opinion) approximation to the actual truth, which is that the system did something that made your reputation vanish, not you.
| Either could be correct; it simply depends on how you reconstruct the full sentence from the headline:
|
What is the opposite of postpone? Possible Duplicate: How do I say “Our meeting is preponed”? A friend of mine asked me this question, and it caught my curiosity. Is there an explicit opposite of the word postpone? As in, do something in advance? Clearly what I just said is functionally equivalent to the answer I am seeking, but I was wondering if there was a single word that is the antonym. More context: Bob was supposed to start work in July, but due to a work visa issue, he had to begin in advance. <Q> The most business-speaky option is expedite . <S> Other alternatives include accelerate , hasten , and advance . <S> Technically prepone is in fact the precise antonym, but I honestly wouldn't be caught dead using it. <A> I think the best antonym is "bring forward". <A> I would argue that "do in advance" also doesn't cover it, since it doesn't have a sense of "move the schedule forward", only "complete prior to the scheduled time". <S> (Given human nature, I'm not at all surprised that a word so common as "postpone" has no clear antonym; but perhaps we'll get around to making one eventually.) <A> Prepone Which appears to be Indian based... <S> UPDATE: <S> Found this on Urban Dictionary with regard to prepone. <S> Has been in use in urban English spoken in India since at least the 1950s <S> Also noticed that the SE spell checker does not know what to do with prepone <S> other then mark it misspelled.
| In fact, "move the schedule forward" is the best way I can think of to say it, or "reschedule at an earlier date" to be even more wordy. Although "prepone" is the obvious counterpoint to postpone, it smacks of neologism (in American English, at least).
|
What are the differences between 'offer', 'propose', and 'suggest'? What are the differences between offer , propose , and suggest ? <Q> The differences are of formality, weight, and exchange. <S> As Aaron's answer illustrates, offer <S> has an element of exchange or cost implied. <S> For example, the phrase "make an offer" when negotiating the price of something. <S> For example, food often comes with a "Serving Suggestion" (we think about this much would be a good portion) — using propose here would seem overly formal. <S> Suggest is also used to distinguish between a recommendation and an order. <S> "I suggest you do this" has a different tone to "Do this. <S> " <S> Sometimes an intensifier is used to convey that what is formally only a suggestion is actually a command " <S> I strongly suggest you [x]... <S> " <S> Propose is the most formal. <S> You propose to your girlfriend that the pair of you get married; it's unlikely that you would suggest the same thing. <S> The best working definition of propose <S> I can think of is "to make a formal submission for appraisal. <S> " <S> This is why researches write proposals for research funding and not suggestions . <S> Does that help? <A> Suggest an idea to grab somethingsweet <S> Propose <S> we go eat ice cream <S> Offer to pay for the ice cream <A> (1) <S> An offer is open-ended; it puts something in front of another person leaving that person free to accept or reject the offer. <S> E.g. <S> "We offer several afternoon activities for you to consider." <S> "Please offer a cold drink to our guests." <S> (2) <S> The speaker would be happy if the thing happens, but it's okay if it doesn't. <S> E.g. <S> "I suggest that tomorrow morning we all go on a picnic together." <S> (3) <S> A proposal carries the speaker's endorsement of the idea or activity being proposed; it's like saying you think this should happen. <S> It is often, but not always, used in a more formal context than the word offer. <S> You may see the phrase "business proposal" or "marriage proposal." <S> E.g. <S> "I propose that we continue this discussion at the meeting next week." <S> "I propose that tomorrow morning we all go on a picnic together." <S> Note: <S> He proposed to her last night! <S> This alway means that he asked her to marry him. <S> When propose is used on its own, it means that someone proposes marriage. <S> A very different meaning attaches to the word "proposition" used as a verb. <S> To proposition someone has a sexual connotation; the speaker is asking for sex in exchange for money. <S> E.g. "She thought he was nice until he propositioned her." <S> Note that PROPOSE and SUGGEST are closer to each other in meaning than either is to OFFER <S> (I'm a native speaker of American English and a certified teacher of ESL/EFL, specializing in Legal English.)
| A suggestion is a soft way of presenting an idea for something to happen; you may hear people say, "Never mind, it was just a suggestion." Suggest and propose differ in their level of formality and weight. An offer is from some party to another party, whether you're offering your hand (to balance somebody), your house (to host a party), or a discount (on the sale of an item).
|
"To kill a fly with a..."? I seem to recall that there is an expression for when you are throwing something too big at a particular challenge: "To kill a fly with a..."? Or am I way off here? Edit: maybe it's not a fly after all? I found this article talking about 'Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut'. <Q> ... tactical nuclear weapon? <S> Google autocomplete suggests "sledgehammer", "bazooka", and "cannon". <S> I think "sledgehammer" is the only one I've actually heard used, and <S> I suspect it's what you're looking for. <A> A Korean proverb exists which states... <S> Do not draw your sword to kill a fly. <A> Actually the idiom goes, "to break a (butter)fly on the wheel ". <S> The wheel in question being a torture device, for humans rather than flies. <S> From Wikipedia : The breaking wheel , also known as the Catherine wheel or simply the wheel , was a torture device used for capital punishment in the Middle Ages and early modern times for public execution by bludgeoning to death. <S> The sledgehammer mentioned in the top answer is from a different idiom entirely, "cracking a nut with a sledgehammer". <S> Same idea, of course, but the idioms are not to be mixed and matched at will except for comedic effect. <S> In German and Russian, there's also "to shoot sparrows with cannons" <S> ( mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schießen/стрелять из пушки <S> по воробьям ). <S> That one hasn't caught on in English, though. <A> It could be "kill a fly with a sledgehammer", "kill a fly with a cannon", "kill a fly with a bazooka". <S> There are other phrases that are used to mean "using something that is excessive". <S> Use a surgical knife to slice bread. <A> One that I heard once <S> and I liked a lot was "to swat a fly with a Buick". <A> Any expression can be improvised. <S> Killing a fly with any weapon will probably get the point across. <S> My favorite expression of this type is "to use a hammer to slice bread." <A> There is a similar phrase "like burning down a house to kill a fly" (or fleas, or rat, etc.) <S> which both highlights the overzealousness, as well as the likely collateral damage.
| To reply to the additional question, "to kill a fly with […]" is the usual phrase.
|
"Passed" vs "past": Usage in an error message I wrote code to detect a problem where live video playout of a file had moved beyond the end of the clip on disk. The clip itself may be growing due to an ongoing recording or a transfer of the file across a network. The error message described the effect ("displayed black") followed by a helpful hint about the possible reason: passed media EOF? I waffled for quite a while between that and past media EOF? Both are true: The "play head" has passed the end of the file and it is now past the end. Ultimately I chose passed because it described the event. It allows for the fact that the file may grow and then stop again, causing a second occurrence of the message when we pass the EOF once again. It does cause confusion for people who are dealing with a file that won't grow. In that case past EOF seems more accurate. Is one clearly better than the other in this application? <Q> A key difference between them is that passed is talking about process while past is talking about state . <S> Because of that, I would tend to go with <A> If the act of passing the EOF is what caused the error to arise, then the implication is that now that we are safely on the other side of it, there should be no more error. <S> Also, passing the EOF marker in the other direction should raise the error again. <S> If the fact that we are on the wrong side of the EOF is what is causing the error, then our condition of being past the EOF marker is the issue, and we can expect that moving back onto the other side of it will fix the error. <S> (This usage is also perfectly consistent with a file that can grow or shrink.) <S> Therefore I would prefer the use of "past." <A> Since "passed" in this context could refer to a bad parameter being passed to a function, I would lean toward "past. <S> " I do agree with the other answer in that you might consider adding an extra word or two to make things clearer. <A> If you are at a point in the media time line that is in the past of the end of the stream, then you are still within the media (or even before it started). <S> If you have passed the end of the stream, then you are in the future of the end of the media time line.
| passed for a transient message that will naturally go away some time after its described event occurs and past for a message that will continue to be displayed as long as the state it is describing applies. Using past would actually be wrong.
|
How should I shorten this sentence? In an email, I would like to write the following sentence: The weight of services given by Company B is not less than the weight of services given by Company A . I want to shorten the sentence, but I'm not sure if this is correct: The weight of services given by Company B is not less than Company A . What are my options for explaining this with just one sentence? To make the context more clear: Company A and Company B are two partner firms in the same sector sharing the revenues according to specific conditions. They can merge or split in the near future. The aim of this sentence is to emphasize that the service quantity of Company B is larger than or (at worst) equal to the service quantity of Company A . <Q> I like Jimi Oke's shortest suggestion, but I will also add one further minor tweak: <S> "No less than" is a better idiom for expressing "at least equal to". <A> Options for contraction: <S> The weight of services given by Company B is not less than that of Company A. <S> The weight of services given by Company B is not less than that of those given by Company A. <S> The weight of services given by Company B is not less than the weight of those given by Company A. <S> A couple suggestions that could do the job just as well, or better: Company B offers just as many services as [does] <S> Company A. Company B offers just as substantial a range of services as [does] Company A. <S> The range of services offered by Company B is as broad/substantial as that of Company A. <A> Your proposal is OK, but to lessen the (remote) possibility of someone taking it to mean that "Company A weighs as much as the services," you could say: The weight of services given by Company B is not less than that of Company A. <S> I am guessing, but by not saying company B has MORE weight than A, I assume then that they are the same. <S> In that case: The weight of services given by both companies is comparable. <A> Strange phrase "weight of services" does 'weight' imply weakness (as in burden) or strength? <S> How about "Company A's services outweigh Company B's"?
| The weight of services given by Company B is no less than that of Company A.
|
"Solution for" or "solution to" a problem? I need to find a solution to/for this problem. Can to and for be used interchangeably here? Is one of them just plain wrong? <Q> I need to find a solution to this problem <S> I need to find a solution for this problem <S> I need to find a remedy for this problem <S> All three sentences are correct, although the second is less common. <S> However, for is preferred in certain cases, and I give two examples to illustrate this: A bunch of students are working on a physics problem set in the common room. <S> C and J are done with questions 1 through 4 and are currently working on 5. <S> A just finished solving question 4 and wants to check her work with C and J : <S> "Hey guys, could you show me your solution for number four? <S> I'm not sure I did it correctly." <S> Joe had just bought a fridge for a dollar from an old lady down the road. <S> Still unable to believe his luck, he wasted no time in setting it up in the corner of the hovel he shared with his brother, Alex. <S> Only after plugging in the fridge did Joe realize that the door wouldn't close properly. <S> He repeatedly slammed the door shut only to have it slowly creak open each time to his chagrin. <S> " <S> Hey, bro," Alex finally said, "calm down. <S> Calm down!" <S> He pulled out a crowbar. <S> "There's a quick solution for this." <A> I would use 'to' exclusively. <S> The problem has a solution, the solution belongs to the problem. <S> I will find a solution to the problem for my boss, because that's what he pays me to do. <S> I will agree with both RGB and JasperLoy that if I heard "a solution for the problem" I wouldn't think it was necessarily incorrect, it just doesn't sound as good to me. <A> As a native English speaker I regard to and for as interchangeable in the sentence you quoted. <S> Update: I searched the British National Corpus (BNC) at Brigham Young University (BYU). <S> BYU-BNC found 1165 examples of "solution to" but only 208 examples of "solution for".
| Usually, one will find that to is the preposition of choice for the word solution . I would probably use for more often, but I wouldn't regard to as wrong.
|
'Target group' or '(Target) market'? I am looking at a corporate brochure that includes the phrase: Our international target group includes governments, businesses and semi-private organisations. Somehow the word 'target group' does not sit well with me in this context. The company is Dutch (as am I) and we know the word 'doelgroep' to identify those businesses or individuals you are creating your services or products for. 'Target group' is a literal translation of this word. I'm inclined to use '(target) market' instead. What do you think? <Q> I would use "target group" if the company is giving a service or making a product. <S> It fits with the term "user group". <S> Another way to look at might be if you are referring to people, then group sounds better. <S> If you are referring to all the other assets along with people (like companies...) <S> then market sounds right. <A> Personally I think target group here makes more sense, as an organization or a government is certainly not a market but it is body (or a group). <S> Though it certainly does not go well with international (you're tempted to use the term target market here) <S> you might want to rephrase it as: "The markets we target internationally comprise of governments, semi-private organizations and businesses." <S> What say others? <A> Either target group or market would be fine. <S> Target market is unidiomatic. <S> Also, market may be your better bet in this context, as target group could be too general. <A> If you compare them in both the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American you'll find that "target group" is slightly more common, because it has a wider meaning, but that it is used in the relevant sense. <S> E.g. (from COCA): <S> "...That's especially true of advertising directed at a particular group, such as adolescents or young-adult males - it's called 'dog-whistle' advertising because it goes out at frequencies only dogs can hear. <S> " In this case, the "dogs" are the commercial's target group of young adults. <A> Good question, made me think. <S> If in doubt, I'd use "target customer(s)" but the key for me is the word "target" - <S> most business people will know what "target group" means, used in context like that.
| If company is functioning in economics, trade or advertisement I would call "target market".
|
"a patient who is" or "a patient whom is"? I am still very confused on when to use who and whom , I understand the idea these sentences are correct: He is the person who won the competition. That is the person whom I went on holiday with. But what would be correct in the following sentence: This image shows a patient who is... or whom is? Would it be who because the patient is the subject, or is it? <Q> The distinction between cases in the English language is not as strong as it used to be, or as it still is in some other languages, such as German. <S> Because of that, we are left with those odd words that are case-dependent, such as 'who' and 'whom', that continue to be problematic. <S> When used in the nominative case, such as in the subject of a sentence, use the word ' <S> who'. <S> When used in the accusative case, such as in the object of a sentence, use the word 'whom'? <A> "A patient" is indeed the object of the sentence, but "who is..." is a relative clause modifying that object, so effectively "who" is standing in for the subject of a new clause. <S> So "who" is correct. <S> By the way, in your second sentence, it should more correctly be: "...with whom I went on holiday." <A> Counter-question: does it really sound natural to you to use whom in your second example? <S> Of course, if you do, then fair enough, but I suspect that: most speakers would automatically use <S> who and find it more natural; if anything, whom split from the preposition is something of a hypercorrection-- it may well be that what makes the stranding preposition so productive is partly the breakdown of the case system, so there doesn't seem to be so much rationale in pretending that this is an example of "normal" case marking and maintaining "whom". <S> As far as I can observe, whom is only really very common directly after a preposition, and even then, who is possible ("these are the people for who(m) it's difficult to find work"). <S> So this means direct and indirect objects, objects of prepositions, but not subjects or complements that aren't actually direct or indirect objects <S> (so: "He was not the person who he seemed/appeared/was deemed to be"). <S> In your third example, who would indeed be deemed to be the subject of the relative clause. <S> The fact that this distinction doesn't generally come naturally to speakers shows that it isn't really case marking, and hence there's actually not that much rationale for using whom at all. <S> If you want to make your life simpler, you could just not use <S> whom at all ever...
| The prescriptive answer would generally be that whom is used specifically in cases deemed to be in the "objective" case.
|
Is it recommended to use "we" in research papers? Is it recommended to use "we" in research papers? If not, should I always use passive voice? <Q> We is used in papers with multiple authors. <S> Even in papers having only one author/researcher, we is used to draw the reader into the discussion at hand. <S> Moreover, there are several ways to avoid using the passive voice in the absence of we . <S> On the one hand, there are many instances where the passive voice cannot be avoided, while, on the other, we can also be overused to the point of irritation. <S> Variety is indeed the spice of a well written scientific paper, but the bottom line is to convey the information as succinctly as possible. <A> I edit them professionally and see it used frequently. <S> However, many papers with multiple authors use such constructions as "the investigators," or "the researchers. <S> " In practice, there really aren't that many occasions when the authors of a scientific paper need to refer to themselves as agents. <S> It happens, sure. <S> But not that often. <S> Rather, the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion sections should speak for themselves. <S> Any reference to the authors should be minimal as except in rare cases they are not germane to the findings. <A> APA (The American Psychology Association) has the following to say about the use of "we" (p. 69-70). <S> To avoid ambiguity, use a personal pronoun rather than the third person when describing steps taken in your experiment. <S> Correct: <S> "We reviewed the literature." <S> Incorrect: <S> "The authors reviewed the literature." <S> [...] <S> For clarity, restrict your use of "we" to refer only to yourself and your coauthors (use "I" if you are the sole author of the paper). <S> Broader uses of "we" may leave your readers wondering to whom you are referring; instead, substitute an appropriate noun or clarity your usage: <S> Correct: <S> "Researchers usually classify birdsong on the basis of frequency and temporal structure of the elements. <S> Incorrect: <S> "We usually classify birdsong on the basis of frequency and temporal structure of the elements" Some alternatives to "we" to consider are "people", "humans", "researchers", "psychologists", "nurses", and so on. <S> "We" is an appropriate and useful referent: <S> Correct: <S> "As behaviorists, we tend to dispute... <S> Incorrect: <S> "We tend to dispute..."
| It's definitely OK to use "we" in research papers.
|
Can I say "due call"? If there is a phone call I forget to make, can I say this call is a "due call"? Or is there a better word which can describe it? <Q> If the phone call has not been made by the expected time, I would recommend using "overdue" instead. <S> For example: "I need to make an overdue call." <S> or "The phone call is overdue." <S> I cannot think of a situation where I would use the phrase "due call" to refer to a call that was not made at the expected time. <A> If you mean a call that was planned, then you can say "a due call", in the same way you say "talks are due to adjourn tomorrow". <A> If you forgot, then I assume there was a predetermined time you were supposed to call. <S> In that case, "past due call" would be more applicable, and I think perfectly acceptable. <A> Due could take on different meanings depending on whether it is placed before or after the noun it modifies. <S> Ordinarily, due would mean necessary; appropriate; required (not with respect to time) <S> when placed before a noun, as in due attention, due diligence, due regard, etc . <S> In this case, however, due should follow the noun if it is to acquire it's more popular meaning of required at a certain time; owed; etc. <S> Options in this case are: A call I forgot to make A call I am yet to make A call <S> I [still] have to make A call I need to make An overdue call A long overdue call <S> A call [long] <S> overdue <S> A call due [ <S> when e.g. yesterday] <S> A call past due <S> I should also add that due call would usually be taken to mean a required call (not of the telephone variety, more often than not), as in the following example: First speaker: 'I wish Joe hadn't called the superintendent out on that issue.' <S> Second speaker: ' <S> I disagree! <S> The superintendent was clearly in the wrong.' <S> Third speaker: ' <S> Yeah, that was definitely a due call .'
| "The phone call is due tomorrow" can be used to indicate an expected time in the future or "The phone call was due yesterday" for a missed call.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.