source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Proper/official pronunciation of “conch” A moment ago on Mr. Sunshine , Matthew Perry pronounced the end of a conch shell as in church . I learned it as being pronounced with a k sound. On WikiPedia, both are listed as pronunciations, but on the Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com sites, the audio clip pronounces with a k . Is there a proper or official pronunciation, perhaps from a different, originating language? <Q> The pronunciation of a borrowed word in the originating language has no bearing on the "proper" pronunciation of the word in English. <S> However, the word conch comes from Latin concha , which would have been pronounced /konkʰa/ in Latin (to my knowledge). <S> The raised "h" represents an aspirated /k/ sound, and it is different from both of the /tʃ/ <S> and /k/ <S> sounds suggested in the dictionary. <S> As it happens, we also sometimes have an aspirated-k (kʰ) in English — however, we do it word-initially and in stressed syllables (only), and never in non-word-initial unstressed syllables. <S> So, the unaspirated-k at the beginning of that word and the aspirated-k in the second syllable are reversed with respect to the natural English pronunciation (i.e. /kʰonka/ would follow English aspiration rules), and so pronouncing the word in the Latin way would sound quite odd mixed in with normal English speech. <A> My scuba diving adventures have taken me to many places where conch is a delicacy, served raw, fried, and so forth, and in all cases it is pronounced "conk" by the locals. <A> It is pronounced like conk I know from living on an island that has a main export of conch and having it in almost every meal <A> The New Oxford American Dictionary lists three: <S> conch <S> |kä ng k; kän ch; <S> kô ng k| Or kahnk , kahnch , kawnk . <S> Take your pick. <S> They're not making it easy. <A> I believe words with ch that come from Greek are normally pronounced /k/, like archaeology, chorus, chemistry, and Achilles. <S> I can't think of any that aren't. <S> The reason is probably that, as Kosmonaut has explained, it was pronounced /kʰ/ in classical Greek and Latin (or perhaps /k/ <S> in Latin; note that Latin only had ch in Greek loan words). <S> The Oxford English Dictionary gives both pronunciations, so both are acceptable; but I'd personally prefer /k/ <S> as the more idiomatic one.
| According to the most official source we have in English, the dictionary, both pronunciations are valid .
|
How is vehicle fuel efficiency expressed outside the United States? I've been wondering this for a long time and Google doesn't seem to want to give me the answer. In the United States, the term "miles per gallon" is most commonly used to express the fuel efficiency of an automobile. Given that "mile" and "gallon" are artifacts of the U.S. customary system of measurement, how would someone in a country that uses the Metric system go about expressing this rate? "Kilometers per liter"? "Meters per U.K. gallon"? "Furlongs per hogshead"? <Q> The standard measure is in litres per hundred kilometres. <A> From Wikipedia's page on fuel efficiency : In the context of transport, fuel economy is the energy efficiency of a particular vehicle, and is given as a ratio of distance travelled per unit of fuel consumed. <S> Fuel economy is expressed in miles per gallon <S> (mpg) in the USA and usually also in the UK—there is sometimes confusion as the imperial gallon <S> is 20% larger <S> then the US gallon so that mpg values are not directly comparable. <S> Litres per mil are used in Norway and Sweden. <A> Its kilometers per liter. <S> Like 40km average that means in a liter vehicle has ability to run 40 km.(Indian measurement) <A> Here in Germany, it's measured in how many litres of fuel you need to drive 100km (presumably in a particular fashion and with a particular load). <S> I know that Volkswagen were very proud about 10 years ago when they claimed that the production version of the VW Lupo was the first "3L car" – i.e., used 3L (or less) to go 100 km. <A> In the UK we use miles per gallon <S> (m.p.g.), but bear in mind that while our miles are the same as American ones, our gallons are bigger. <A> Once when visiting Canada, I saw a TV commercial for a car, advertising its fuel efficiency in miles per (imperial) gallon. <S> This surprised me, because Canada is (for the most part) a metric country: maps, road signs, and odometers give distance in kilometers, and fuel is sold by the liter! <A> In my country of Iran, it is expressed in L/100km. <S> However, colloquially, people just say the number without the L/100km part. <S> For instance, you would hear people saying something like: "This car burns 5 on highway and 8 in city."
| In countries using the metric system fuel economy is stated in kilometres per litre (km/L) in the Netherlands, Denmark and in several Latin American or Asian countries such as India, Japan, South Korea 1 , or as the reciprocal ratio, "fuel consumption" in liters per 100 kilometers (L/100 km) in much of Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
|
What does 'two-bit paper pusher' mean? I often find a joke titled, ‘When a grandma goes to court’ followed by the line, ‘Lawyers should never ask a question if they aren’t prepared for the answer.’ I don’t know if it’s a popular joke or not. It deals with an elderly woman called to the stand as the first witness. She knows everything about the background and secrets of both prosecuting and defense attorneys. Realizing that she knows too much, the judge asks both attorneys to come to the bench and tells, “If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I’ll send you both to the electric chair.” In this joke, the old woman says to the prosecuting attorney, "You think you are some big shot on the rise, but you don't have the brains to realize you are nothing more than a ' two-bit paper pusher .' Yes sir, I know you!" What does “two-bit paper pusher” mean? <Q> It means that she considers the attorney to be an unimportant clerk rather than an important lawyer Two bit : small change (ie cheap/unimportant, in this context)- <S> According to WikiPedia A bit is : <S> The word bit is a colloquial expression referring to specific coins in various coinages throughout the world. <S> "Two bits" or "two bit" continues in general use as a colloquial expression, primarily because of the song catchphrase "Shave and a Haircut, two bits. <S> " <S> As an adjective, "two-bit" can be used to describe something cheap or unworthy. <A> 'two-bit' means 'petty, insignificant' .'paper <S> pusher' is a term used for office workers who do paperwork . <S> In this context, the term 'two-bit paper pusher' is being used as a put-down or a mild insult. <S> The old woman considers the attorney to be working in a menial job; this is further clarified by her saying she does not think the attorney is a ' big shot '. <A> When used literally, two bits is the same as 25 cents, or 'a quarter'. <S> I had always assumed that this derived from the term 'pieces of eight'. <S> If a whole 'dollar' is divided into eight equal bits, then two bits are equal to a quarter. <S> I do not know if this is the true origin or not. <A> Two bits means "twenty-five cents" which means "cheap" or "low paid." <S> "Paper pusher" means "petty bureaucrat," not a decision maker.
| So a "two bit paper pusher" means "a low-paid, petty bureaucrat." Paper pusher : someone who does nothing but push paper around on a desk or delivers paper from one office to another in a push cart
|
Singular form for “headphones”? Can you wear headphones (plural) in only one ear? Or would I have to use a singular form? She wore headphones in one ear and listened to him with the other. EDIT: I want to show that even though she has a set of headphones , she's only wearing a singular piece of it in one ear. <Q> In one ear, it's an earphone . <S> The New Oxford American Dictionary actually defines headphones as: a pair of earphones typically joined by a band placed over the head, for listening to audio signals such as music or speech <A> As with pants , which always come as a pair , headphones always come as a set . <S> I can put on my pants , one leg at a time, before going to the store to buy a new pair of pants . <S> I can also wear my old headphones while shopping for a new set of headphones . <A> Earphones/earbuds are those worn in the ears without a headband. <S> While they come in pairs, one can have an earphone/earbud in one ear, leaving the other dangling. <S> Some, but not all, headphones have a band. <S> The earphones or earcups <S> (you may not find this in the dictionary) that make up the pair are worn over or on the ears. <S> Your example could be correctly written in a number of equivalent ways: <S> She wore an earphone in one ear and listened to him with the other. <S> She had headphones on with an earcup slid off <S> so she could also listen to him. <S> She left an earbud in one ear and listened to him with the other. <S> She wore headphones but had only one ear covered while she listened to him with the other. <S> She wore headphones with only one earcup on, and listened to him with the other ear. <S> She wore headphones with a cup over one ear and listened to him with the other. <S> Once the word earphone is used, it is implied that it is present in a pair or set of earphones/headphones, with only a very few exceptions.
| Thus, one can wear headphones with only one earcup/earphone on.
|
Which one has red color in this phrase "the red bottle's lid"? the bottle or the lid? Which one has red color in the following phrase? the red bottle's lid the bottle or the lid? Edit Now I understand the actual sentence with which I am faced. A more insidious attack strategy is to coerce an unwitting third-party visitor’s browser to send unwanted HTTP requests on the attacker’s behalf, abusing the identity relationship already established between your application and that victim. <Q> The red bottle's lid <S> Normally it would be the bottle that was red. <S> Because "red" stands before "bottle", and "bottle's lid" is not a single compound noun but two separate nouns, the ordinary pattern of [adjective, noun it belongs to, anything else] <S> take precedence over the less frequent pattern [adjective, noun that is the possessor of another noun, head noun to which the adjective belongs] . <S> What kind of a lid do we have here? <S> A red bottle's lid. <S> Ah, but how do you know this lid comes off a red bottle? <S> I see some glass splinters stuck to the lid. <S> Things change if you are using the first noun as a noun adjective, resulting in a compound noun: <S> The red bottle lid <S> In this case, "bottle" is a noun adjective, not simply a regular noun with the possessive s; that makes "bottle lid" a single compound noun. <S> Then "red" belongs to the entire compound noun; and because the final element of a compound noun ("lid") is the head (the "core" of the compound), the adjective mostly describes a property of the head. <S> The lid is red. <S> What kind of red lid do we have here? <S> A red bottle lid. <S> Ah, right. <S> The red lid of the bottle Here "red" simply belongs to the first noun that follows it, because we have no compound noun, merely a prepositional attribute "of the bottle" and a head "lid". <S> What kind of a red lid do you have there? <S> It is the red lid of the bottle ! <S> Huh, of what bottle? <S> Oh, you know, of the bottle you got me drunk with yesterday, in order to have sex with you, which I would otherwise never have subjected myself to? <S> Ah, right. <A> the red bottle's lid means the bottle is red. <S> the red bottle lid means the bottle <S> lid is red. <A> “The red bottle's lid” refers to the lid of a red bottle, which is indicated to be uniquely identifiable by its colour (i.e., you can't say that if there is more than one red bottle) <S> “The red bottle lid” refers to a red lid belonging to a bottle; it can also weakly imply that the lid is not currently attached to a particular bottle. <A> The bottle has the red colour in that sentence <S> the colour of the lid is completely unknown <A> the red bottle's lid = <S> the bottle is red. <S> If a lid were red = <S> the red bottle lid (or of course, the bottle's red lid if talking specifically about a specific bottle)
| “The bottle's red lid” refer to the red lid of a particular bottle
|
What does "If she smokes, she pokes" exactly mean? What does part she pokes of phrase If she smokes, she pokes exactly mean? <Q> There is an implication of doing so more readily or enthusiastically than may be otherwise expected. <S> You may wish to consult Urban Dictionary on the topic. <S> But then again you may not. <A> Women smokers were considered to be more promiscuous - mass culture with the advent of the roaring Twenties, but traveling across the Americas prior to that through literature post Civil War (see Elmer Gantry) - <S> which was really an American version of an idea that had been circulating via French Postcards visually. <S> She smokes, she will have sex <A> Actually, the phrase should be, "if she smokes, she ALLOWs poking." <S> If she is "loose" with regard to smoking, she is likely to be "loose" regarding other matters such as sex. <S> But the original phrase is an abbreviation.
| The "she pokes" part means "she engages in sexual intercourse of a heterosexual variety".
|
‘With me being one of them’—grammatically correct? Would the phrase 'With me being one of them' be grammatically correct? Sounds a bit odd in my head and I triple-checked mentally but couldn't tell if it was correct or not. 'With I being one of them' doesn't sound correct either. Has to be 'me' or 'I'. Those two are the only first person pronouns... if I recall correctly. <Q> You have several options. <S> I am repeating some of the other answers because it seems practical to have them all together: I hope my plagiarism will be forgiven! <S> 1) <S> Five people went to the party last night, with me being one of them. <S> This is common and accepted, though not by all purists: it does look a bit informal to me (mostly owing to "with"), which might be fine in the context of a party. <S> "Being" would be a participle; the construction would be called "fused participle", or "accusative with participle" in classicist terms. <S> 2) Five people went to the party last night, with my being one of them. <S> This is how "me" would traditionally be expressed; but "with" still looks informal, which contrasts weirdly with traditional "my". <S> "Being" would be a gerund here. <S> 3) <S> Five people went to the party last night, I being one of them. <S> This would be the classical absolute construction. <S> It is impeccably correct, but it sounds rather stiff, especially in this context. <S> "Being" would be a participle. <S> 4) <S> Five people went to the party last night, with myself being one of them. <S> I know this construction exists, but using "myself" this way might result in some criticism. <S> This would certainly not be my choice. <S> 5) <S> Five people went to the party last night, <S> and I was one of them. <S> This looks much cleaner. <S> Why use complex constructions in this context if you don't need to? <S> The version with "...; I was one of them" looks OK as well. <A> I and me are indeed the only first person singular pronouns. <S> Since it is not the subject, me is the correct choice in this instance. <S> This: Five people went to the party last night, with me being one of them. <S> would generally be rephrased. <S> Five people went to the party last night; I was one of them. <A> Since me is still the object, the objective case is still called for. <A> I think "me" would be far more usual here than "I". <S> In general, "I" is only used as the subject of a finite verb (so not gerunds and infinitives), so for example even without a preposition people would tend to say: Him being older than the rest helped us a lot. <S> If you don't like this phrasing, then you could always paraphrase "with the fact that I am one of them", "the fact that he was older than the rest". <A> Arnold Zwicky writing on the Language Log in a post called " Here Comes the Accusative " discusses the use of accusative pronouns ('I' is nominative and 'me' is accusative): ... <S> the basic rule for nominative/accusative choice in English is: nominative for subjects of finite clauses, accusative otherwise. <S> According to this rule, the clause 'With me being one of them' is correct, even without the preposition, since 'being' is not a finite verb.
| "Me being one of them" is an inversion of the normal subject/object order in order to emphasize the object, me . The phrase, while not technially incorrect grammatically, does seem rather awkward when it is not used colloquially.
|
To make something opaque = opaquen? To make something opaque is to 'opaquen'? How about to make something transparent? Is it 'transparentize'? Edit 1 This is for a computer code library that manipulates colors. I have verbs to describe the actions like Brighten and Saturate , but I also want to find a nice words to describe making something more or less opaque. <Q> There's opacify : to cause to become opaque. <S> It sounds a bit awkward/made up, but the meaning is unambiguous. <S> Make transparent is more difficult. <S> Clarify could work in certain limited contexts, but not in yours, I think. <S> Unfortunately, I think a multi-word construction such as SetTransparency is your only choice here. <A> Translucent is between opaque and transparent, so... <S> Translucify? <S> (As a bonus, it sounds bad-ass, like an album from a band called Translucifer!) <A> Opaquen is not a word. <S> However, people reading your code (undrestandably) might not realize that you are using opaque as a verb, so it probably is not the best option. <S> I would reccommend SetOpacity . <A> I don't know of any verbs for your uses of to make something xxx . <S> If there are any, they will likely not be known to your average audience, so it's best to stick with <S> the to make form for the sake of clarity. <A> I've never seen opaquen used; in its place, I've simply seen opaque verbed. <A> It depends on what you are making opaque. <S> Some words that can be used include: obfuscate, solidify, cloud, darken, muddle, and confuse. <S> Antonyms include: evanesce, clarify, purify, and lighten.
| According to the Random House Dictionary , opaque is an acceptable word as an adjective, a noun (i.e. something that is opaque), or as a verb (i.e. to cause to be opaque). For the inverse operation I've seen deopaque .
|
Mrs. Malaprop = Malapropism - any other examples Are there other literary examples where-in a character or subject eventually morphed into descriptive verb/genre? <Q> We seem to be talking about eponymous terms derived from fictional characters? <S> Another may be chauvinism , but it's unclear whether Nicolas Chauvin was a real person. <S> Evidently pecksniffian had some currency at some point, but seems to have declined in popularity. <S> Lamentably similar is panglossian . <A> You're looking for cases in which "a character or subject eventually morphed into descriptive verb/genre". <S> Other answerers have assumed you mean just a fictional character (and not a subject, by which, to be honest, I don't know what you mean), and I'll do the same. <S> They've also not restricted to descriptive verbs and genres, suggesting milquetoast and quixotic , so I, too, won't so restrict. <S> Some they haven't mentioned are Achillean , aphrodisiac , argonaut , bacchanalia , Mickey Mouse , Falstaffian , Ichabod , Moses basket , Oedipus complex , oedipal , Electra complex , Timonism , and sword of Damocles . <A> "Today we'll learn how to build a turdy stable" - (a Sturdy Table). <S> Well, if we're limiting ourselves to fictitious persons (not that I see that in the question), I suppose "Bushism" is out. <S> Too bad. <A> One of my favorites is milquetoast , describing a timid, submissive person. <S> It comes from the name of a cartoon character, Caspar Milquetoast, created by H. T. Webster in 1924. <S> There's also Faustian , to describe a bargain in which one trades their moral integrity for material gains. <S> Pandemonium came from Paradise Lost . <S> We now associate it with mayhem and discord. <S> Milton conceived of it as the name of the place where demons live. <A> I believe mondegreen may be another example of a term derived from a fictional character. <S> The caveat is that it's not derived from an actual fictional character, but instead from a character by the name of Lady Mondegreen <S> that Sylvia Wright thought was in a poem due to the mishearing of the line "laid him on the green" . <A> "Sati" was the name of a Hindu goddess, which turned into a term for a widow killing herself at her husband's funeral pyre. <S> If you have time to waste, TV Tropes' neologism page would have an example of works of literature creating new terms. <S> It'd list not just neologisms based on character names, but other neologisms such as "thought police", however. <S> Edit : <S> Not a single example - people haven't spent enough time on the web site! <A> I think the American version of 'malapropisms' is 'Archie Bunkerisms'. <A> When referring to any imagery that is absurd, bizarre, impossible to construct, or self-referential, I like the home-grown term <S> Escheresque (after M. C. Escher). <A> Don't forget Jeremiad or picaresque (from Picarillo de Tormes).
| Four of the most famous of those would have to be quixotic , faustian , gargantuan , and holmesian . "Spoonerism" - after the Rev. Spooner, who reputedly continually interchanged the first letters/sounds of words.
|
Is there any common context for "enoughs"? I noticed today that ENOUGHS is valid in Scrabble(tm), and I realize "enough" can be used as a noun ("I've had enough!"), but I'm unaware of any context where one might use its plural. Perhaps it's used in some setting I'm not aware of? <Q> Like other indefinite pronouns of this kind ( plenty , nothing , etc.), it is usually only used in the singular. <S> ("Enough is enough.") <S> The only use of enoughs that I could find is in this book . <S> Even here, it is used within quotation marks to show its unusual usage. <S> Lerner thinks that this won't work; the connections are too tenuous as all the "enoughs" show. <S> The Corpus of Contemporary American English cites 5 instances of enoughs being used. <S> Apart from errors like "Enoughs enough", it has a couple that might work: <S> Good enoughs, 40%. <S> Divorce caused tumult but didn't make lasting impression, good or bad... <S> -- <S> USA Today <S> (Presumably, this is in explanation to some kind of graph or study.) <S> ...if you were nimble enough and canny enough and stubborn enough and enough other enoughs... Make of that what you will. <S> I'm not sure if this kind of usage qualifies the word's acceptance in Scrabble. <A> 7th here http://www.english-test.net/toeic/vocabulary/words/333/toeic-definitions.php Definition of enough (noun) form <S> plural: <S> enoughs adequate amount; sufficient degree <A> I decided to consult Google and found "close enoughs" and "just enoughs." <S> These could be used as "There have been too many close enoughs already!" <S> However, the same phrase more properly written would be "There have been too many 'close enough <S> 's already!" <S> I cannot think of a time where enoughs would be used alone <S> so this is a meager answer at best.
| Enough is being used as a pronoun in "I've had enough!"
|
"suffer" and "lack" can be used together? Can I say: The assets suffer from a lack of reliability. Is suffer an admissible word in this context? <Q> Yes, it's fine. <A> Suffer and lack can most certainly be used together. <S> Thus, your example is correct: <S> The assets suffer from a lack of reliability. <S> Suffer goes well directly with negative nouns; some common phrases (mostly literary) are: <S> suffer <S> loss • suffer want • suffer defeat <S> • suffer depression <S> • suffer <S> pain • suffer <S> shame • suffer <S> neglect <A> The reason you ask this is probably that you perceive some slight overlap in meaning, which usually indicates bad style, as do most pleonasms. <S> To suffer = to go through something negative (as in "I can tell she is suffering"); a lack = <S> the negative situation in which there is something you do not have. <S> And yet this collocation is fine. <S> As the others have noted, the verb to suffer happens to have many cast-iron idioms that contain other negative words as well. <S> Perhaps you may feel somewhat relieved if you consider the origin of the word. <S> It comes from Latin suffero , which means "to undergo, to bear" (its elements are sub "under" and fero <S> "carry, bear"). <S> "To undergo something negative" has much less of this overlap. <S> I believe the English verb was used with the sense "to undergo" more frequently in the past than it is now; that is probably why it sometimes feels a bit unusual in some idioms if you are not familiar with them. <S> But any decent dictionary will still give you the sense "to undergo", even though it is now somewhat less common.
| "Suffer" and "lack" work well together; a lack of something is possibly the most common cause of suffering.
|
Should "guess what" be a question or command? In other words: should it be “Guess what?” or “Guess what!” ? Or does the correct usage depend on the context and intent of the speaker? <Q> I think it can vary by speaker. <S> My inclination would be to use "guess what? <S> " when the speaker pauses to accept guesses, and "guess what!" <S> when the speaker keeps on speaking, thus: "I got something for you," Sue said brightly. <S> "Guess what?" <S> "A book? ... <S> a donut? ... <S> a chicken?" <S> Fred guessed. <S> "No, silly! <S> The keys you left at the restaurant!" <S> vs. <S> "Guess what!" <S> Sally shouted as she ran into the room. <S> "I made bail!" <A> I believe it should actually be Guess <S> "What?"! <A> If "Guess what" is to be a complete sentence, it's unequivocally an imperative one. <S> Logically, if not linguistically, the reply has to be a question itself… Guess what. <S> What? <S> …unless the responder actually plans to guess . <A> I think it is a command rather than question. <S> The speaker is forcing / telling the listener to guess correctly about the fact in their context of speach. <S> Because he knows the fact and now he is putting a puzzle in excitement in front of listener to guess it right.. <S> Guess what! <A> Logically it seems that it is an imperative statement. <S> But if you do a google search for "guess what" or a COCA search for "guess what" you'll see that it is quite frequently written as a question. <S> In addition to the two cases mentioned by Hellion it is also used in other ways, such as Guess <S> What: Netflix Is Now Primarily A Digital Video Company <S> Google <S> : Guess what, Apple, we've discovered the internet <S> In these examples it's neither an imperative nor a question. <A> I know this question was posted a long time ago, but I feel the need to chime in. <S> In regards to Hellion's response: "Guess what" would never be punctuated with a question mark. <S> My reason for saying that is because of the inflection. <S> Listen to how statements and questions are said. <S> A statement (such as "I am so happy.") starts high in tone and ends lower in tone. <S> A question (such as "How are you doing?") starts lower and ends higher. <S> Inflection always dictates how a sentence is punctuated. <S> When someone says "Guess what", it never sounds like a question. <S> Say a couple of short questions out loud, listen to the inflection, then say "Guess what" last and you will see what I'm talking about. <S> Which day? <S> How high? <S> What time? <S> Guess <S> what. <S> I think a lot of people punctuate this sentence incorrectly for two reasons: <S> The word guess implies that thought is required for the response. <S> The word <S> what is commonly used in questions ( who, what, where, why , and how ). <S> A good example as to <S> why I think this is the case lies in another sentence that gets punctuated incorrectly: "I wonder what he is thinking. <S> " A lot of people would punctuate this with a question mark because "wonder" implies thought and the word "what" is being used. <S> But, this is a statement. <S> You are saying that you're doing something (wondering), not asking a question. <S> Similarly, listen to the inflection in this sentence. <S> It starts high and ends low—the opposite of how a question sounds. <A> Actually, "guess what" can be written correctly as a question. <S> For example, the following dialogue: Eric is having conversation with Ashley. <S> Ashley: <S> "Hey! <S> I just got my test score back!"Eric: <S> "Oh, yeah, how'd you do?"Ashley: "Try to guess"Paul overhears conversation at this point and joins in"Guess <S> what?" <S> (as in "[I didn't hear the conversation before. <S> Try to] guess what?) <S> Other than this type of situation <S> , I believe it's punctuated with a period or an exclamation point. <A> If you mean it as a contraction of can you guess what , then it requires a question mark. <S> If you mean it as a command with an implied you, as in [You] guess what , then it requires a period.
| It is a command; you are telling someone to do something.
|
"Excuse Me"... Is it polite or just a terse way to ask others to step aside? I often hear people saying "excuse me" when I open a door and someone else is entering/leaving from the other side. In spite of the fact that I may be the first person to have opened the door and making my way out, the other guy would say "excuse me" in a way as if I should make a way for him first. What do you think it means—a polite expression or a curt way of asking me to step aside? <Q> It could be either, and is entirely context and attitude/tone of voice dependent. " <S> Smile when you say that, partner. <S> " I'm told English is not so bad as some other languages in this regard - sometimes the meaning is entirely in the "atmosphere" rather than in the grammar. <A> It can be either, but often enough it's just an acknowledgement that the vagaries of movement have caused either <S> or both of you to inconvenience the other, with no particular implication of anybody needing to do anything. <S> This is illustrated by how often people say "excuse me" in polite tones when it was apparently the other person who made an error. <S> I would say it is mostly social lubricant . <A> British [and related] speakers would likely use <S> excuse me to politely ask someone to make way. <S> Here in the US, it's almost the other way round, where the person who somehow happens to be in your way would be more likely to say excuse me . <S> Regardless of the tone, one may find this rude if they are not used to this particular usage. <S> I was brought up to always say, "Please, excuse me", and I consider this the gold standard in politeness if you want someone out of your way. <S> If someone were about to bump into me or found me in their way, however, the first thing that would come to my mouth would most likely be, "[Oops,] <S> I'm sorry" (whether or not I was at fault). <S> Most people around me would naturally say, "Excuse me". <S> No please would be required in this context. <A> It is traditionally used when a person wants to get somewhere and others are unintentionally standing in the way. <S> Sure, if someone says it in a rude or demanding manner, then the politeness of the words may be "overridden" by the rudeness of the tone of voice. <S> Likewise if the demand is clearly unreasonable -- like if everyone is trying to get to the same place and one person expects others to make way for him because he fancies he is more important than evereyone else. <S> Like, if you're at a party and you want to get to the food table, and someone who already has food is standing in your way chatting with a friend, it is completely acceptable to say, "Excuse me, I'm trying to get to the food table. <S> " It is generally considered rude to say, "Get out of my way" or "You're in my way". <S> If everyone is trying to get to the food table, of course you should wait patiently in line, and not shout "Excuse me! <S> Excuse me!" <S> as you push your way to the front. <S> It is certainly true that if you say it in a rude or demanding tone of voice, then it ceases to be polite. <S> But that is true of any polite phrase. <S> If you say, "Thank you for your help" in a sarcastic voice, you change it from a polite phrase to an insult. <S> If you say, "Please pass the salt" in a demanding manner, it ceases to be a polite phrase. <S> Etc etc. <A> Beause the speaker is asking to excuse him even if it is not his mistake. <S> e.g. Some person is standing in his way on a footpath. <S> Then it is that person's mistake but still the speaker will say 'excuse me (speaker)' to request the person to give a way. <A> I agree with Jimmi Oke. " <S> Excuse me" sounds like a command to some people, while to others it sounds like a request. <S> I agree it is all about tone of voice from a usage perspective, but there are the physical indicators that go with it. <S> For example, I know someone who snaps, "Excuse me," in a short but civil manner, while at the same time barging past and shoving others out of her way without even looking at them. <S> I was taught to give a reason for the request to excuse me, if there is no emergency compelling me hurry. <S> For example, "Excuse me, but my child got away from me." <S> When possible, I follow it with "Thanks," at the least. <S> When I am in distress, I am sure that my request to "Excuse me" sounds obnoxious. <A> I only say "Excuse Me" when I am struggling to pass by and the people in my way are being un-co-operative (or aren't aware of my presence) and I always add "Please". <S> People often respond with surprise because it is quite a stern phrase to use - or perhaps that's because in busy situations, people aren't accustomed to being spoken to by strangers well within their personal space. <S> In a pub - where I tend to spend a worryingly large portion of my time - adding "Mate" at the end is a way of softening the commanding aspect of the phrase, and in that sense it tends not to concern anybody. <S> Most will move - on the assumption that the speaker may be a member of staff - before they look.
| Normally, "excuse me" is a polite alternative to "get out of my way". I think it is a polite way. It depends not just tone of voice, but it also on what part of the anglosphere you happen to be on.
|
"State" vs "country" as "nation" I came across an article talking about the difference between state and country , when they mean nation , like United States of America , United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland and Democratic People's Republic of Korea . The article says that the USA and the UK can be referred to as country while North Korea can only be referred to as state . The rationale behind that is country means people with citizen rights + elected government + land while state means only government. Because in my native language, there is no difference between state and country when they are translated as nation , I am curious to know whether the point the article tries to make is true or not, or to what extent it is true. Edit: The people in Libya are now fighting for their rights. When they say we love Libya , they certainly do not refer to Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. How to distinguish that Libya from the GSPLAJ? According to the article, the former may be called country while the latter may be called state . <Q> The NOAD reports the following definitions for those words. <S> state: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government <S> nation: a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory <S> In the case of federal countries (e.g., USA, Austalia, Germany) <S> a state is just a part of the country; in the other countries (e.g., Italy, France), the state coexists with the country. <A> There is no standard definition. <S> State can mean sub-national or national, or wider in the case of the Plurinational State of Bolivia ; in the United Kingdom it is often taken to mean all levels of government considered together. <S> For example, the United Kingdom currently regards itself as made up of four countries (for example here ) in one nation, which is not how other places see themselves. <S> It is all a matter of local use, usually driven by political and historical reasons. <S> There are other oddities: the Commonwealth of Nations has the Commonwealth of Dominica and the Commonwealth of Australia as members; Australia is a federation made up of states and territories. <S> Meanwhile the United States includes four commonwealths as if they were states and holds two more as unincorporated territories. <A> State pretty much always used to mean a high governing authority for an area. <S> Nation is similar, but implies a certain level of social cohesiveness. <S> Here's what wikipedia has to say about the difference: <S> The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. <S> The term "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide, and this distinguishes the nation-state from the other types of state, which historically preceded it. <S> The United States of America pretty much spoiled "state" in its original sense, for purely historical reasons. <S> Basically the individual 13 colonies that made it up wanted to act in concert, but keep all governing authority over their own citizens to themselves. <S> Hence "United States". <S> After a few years this proved a bit unworkable (13 states each with their own currency and charging each other import and export tariffs kinda sucked for trade), so they got together and created single over-government to cover the entire federation of 13 states (a "federal government"). <S> They still tried to leave a lot of power up to the individual states though. <S> Over the years a lot of that power has bled up to the Federal government, so technically the USA is really one state. <S> However, the name USA had stuck by then, and we still call our second-tier governing units "states". <A> I have never heard of this distinction, and I am highly doubtful of its legitimacy. <S> Here's how I think of them: <S> State: a group of people where at least one person has power and authority Nation: identical to a state in the legal sense; alternatively, a group of people identified by one culture (less common) Country: land that is under the control of a state <S> Note that there is also a distinction between state and government , which your quote seems to not note. <S> The state is the sovereign power, but delegates the actual governing to the government. <S> In the United States, for example, the state is the government and vice versa-- <S> the President is elected to become both the head of state and government. <S> However, in contrast, the United Kingdom has a separate state and government. <S> Her Majesty is the head of state, and the Crown is the state, but the government is the Cabinet and is headed by the head of government, the Prime Minister. <S> While Her Majesty does not actually make policy, she still rules the United Kingdom. <A> In British english, the word state usually refers to an area controlled by one government. <S> The word nation can mean the same thing, but can also mean a group of people linked by culture, who for various historical reasons, live in several different states. <S> An example is “the Kurdish nation”. <S> Within the UK, in common usage, the word state is sometimes used to mean something controlled and funded by central government; for example “state school” as opposed to “private school”.
| The difference between nation and country is that country refers to the people, the territory, and the government, while nation refers to the people, and the territory.
|
Unclear use of the word "our" When we say "Our team worked hard", then is it expected to refer the speaker + his own team OR the speaker + listener + their team together? Because in both these cases OUR is common word to be used! <Q> The ability to distinguish between the inclusive we and the exclusive we is referred to as clusivity and is a feature lacking in English. <S> Without additional context, you're correct that it's impossible to determine whether you intended to include the listener in the pronoun or not, although in many cases knowledge of the basic scenario you're describing can be enough to clarify (e.g. if you and the listener were never on a team together or at least a hard working one). <S> However, should it fail to be clear based on such knowledge you're pretty much stuck either adding in a clarifying phrase or simply avoiding the use of <S> our by spelling out who you mean. <A> It depends greatly on context. <S> If the sentence were preceded by a statement defining the team, or including/excluding the listener, then this would be clarified, but otherwise, the phrase is unclear. <S> In what situation was the phrase used? <A>
| If you want to be sure to exclude the listener, you can say "My team" instead of "our team".
|
Isn't the word "uninstall" wrong? I've never understood this. Why is the proper usage "uninstall"? You can't actually "unin" something at all and this isn't that case with most (all?) other use cases. Examples: You make someone sane, but you don't uninsane them. You make something accessible but never uninaccessible something. You can make something adequate but never uninadequate something. <Q> Insane is the opposite of sane , from Latin in- <S> “not” and sanus . <S> Inaccessible is the opposite of accessible , from Latin in- <S> “not” and accessibilis . <S> Inadequate is the opposite of adequate , from in- and adequate . <S> Install is not the opposite of stall . <S> It comes from Latin installare , from <S> in- <S> in the meaning <S> “in” (not “not”) and stallum . <S> Uninstall is not a double negative. <S> Install simply happens to begin with an in , much like insert (not the opposite of sert ), <S> invert (not the opposite of vert ), invent (not the opposite of vent ) <S> , indicate (not the opposite of dicate ), include (not the opposite of clude ), etc. <S> Edit: here are a few more words beginning with unin- : from in- : <S> unintentional, unindexed, uninclined, uninfected, uninquiring, uninjected, uninitiate, uninformative, unincluded, unindent, unintuitive, uninvitingly from inter- : uninteresting, unintelligent, unintelligible, uninterpretable, uninterpolated... <S> Courtesy of Wiktionary . <A> What Reg says. <S> I'd like to add that you are not the only one who is reluctant to use "uninstall" for one reason or another, as I have heard similar complaints elsewere. <S> I think there are two other things that add to this dislike: <S> "Un" followed by "in" sounds almost like a duplicate syllable, which generally doesn't sound good. <S> If you were to negate a prefixed verb in Latin or needed a verb with opposite meaning, you would usually not simply add another prefix, but rather replace the old suffix, as in increase–decrease , inhale–exhale , convert–revert , etc. <S> Using unin- clearly marks the word as a hybrid construction. <S> Note that hybrid constructions go further than mere Anglicising: instead of only adjusting the sound of the foreign word a bit and inflecting it, as in Anglicisation, whole new dictionary articles are being created. <S> Of course we use hybrid constructions all the time, and a great many now feel completely natural; but a newfangled odour might still cling to some newly formed ones, though it remains unclear why some are immediately acceptable while others are not (like unrevertableness ). <S> I think prefixes are generally harder to swallow than suffixes, like -able . <S> Probably owing in part to these considerations, alternatives have been proposed, like deinstall and simply remove , which I think are both acceptable, and even exstall , which nobody would understand. <S> While I have some sympathy with those who resist new words, there comes a time when we need to give up; I think that time has come for uninstall . <S> It is still not my favourite word of all times, but I won't stop using it now. <S> At least it is not gaudy, like many new words from the advertising business. <A> <A> Shouldn't it more logically be disinstall by analogy with disinvite, disinfect, disinherit, disinter ? <S> But it's too late... <S> the software developers have already invented the word; we can't disinvent it.
| It's un-install, not unin-stall!
|
Is it common for English people to say "crap" instead of "crab"? When you read "crab", do you think of "crap"?Is it usual to pronounce wrongly? <Q> No. <S> They are two different words. <S> If someone is saying crap when they mean crab , either their accent still needs a lot of work or else they really don't like the meal. <A> Native speakers' brains are already on the right path. <S> We won't mess it up in a conversation between native English speakers. <S> When a native speaker hears, "What's your name? <S> Mine ..." we already have "is" in our heads queued up. <S> If we hear anything else, we will be surprised. <S> A non-native speaker may not have this anticipation, and may hear "Minus" instead of "Mine is". <S> This exact problem happened this morning between my German roommate and me. <S> Native speakers would almost never hear "minus" where the speaker said "mine is", and likewise we will never confuse "crab" for "crap". <S> Of course, I make the assumption that the speaker is also a native speaker. <S> Non-native English speakers also have subtle linguistic clumsiness that throws off this anticipation effect. <S> So another time we could mess it up is if the speaker says something that we have to parse word-by-word to understand, throwing off the sense of rhythm and anticipation. <A> Voiced and unvoiced stop consonants at the ends of words can be hard to distinguish. <S> Particularly at a break in the sentence or immediately before another <S> stop consonant there <S> really isn't much to voice, so <S> the difference between 'p' and 'b' (and 't' and 'd', and 'k' and 'g') can be quite slight. <S> Colin Fine points out that the preceding vowel tends to be lengthened before a final stop consonant, and thinking about it <S> I have an unproven suspicion that it happens for stressed syllables too. <S> As @tenfour pointed out this doesn't matter so much for native speakers. <S> We know without having to think about it what the next words plausibly could be in a spoken sentence, both from syntax and semantic information. <S> We will frequently 'correct' what was actually said to fit our expectations. <S> This can go as far as inserting entire omitted words because we know they must have been there. <S> We have to be paying attention to notice that a mistake actually occurred. <S> I saw an entertaining experiment that demonstrated this effect in a TV documentary some years ago. <S> One person was given a piece of text to recite, with secret instructions to get a word wrong. <S> A second had to listen to what was being said and repeat it a second or so later -- <S> English to English simultaneous translation, if you like! <S> The repeater passed on the right word, without realising that there had been any error. <A> In American English at least it seems that in addition to devoicing, vowel length might also distinguish the pronunciation of "crab" from that of "crap" <A> I think you are thinking that these two words (crab and crap) are same , but it's not like that. <S> Crab and crap both are different words. <S> Go to the links , you'll get the things clear. <S> Crab Crap <A> I can't say I find it particularly common, but Dutch speakers of English might well pronounce them the same way due to their native language's devoicing of the final consonant (in a similar way that a Dutch speaker may have problems pronouncing a difference between beat and bead, and pod and pot.)
| I suspect the two words have significantly different collocational profiles, so it seems unlikely that they would be mistaken for one another even during speech, although one could imagine a situation on a dock on the Chesapeake Bay, where a deck-hand on a fishing vessel saying "I have to take a crab" might be misunderstood as meaning "I have to take a crap", or vice-versa.
|
What's the difference between "kind" and "type"? For example: This is some type of mushroom. This is some kind of mushroom. There are different types of books. There are different kinds of books. I think that they are all valid sentences, but somehow I have the impression that a type is a bigger group than a kind . Is this correct? <Q> They are sometimes interchangeable, but not always. <S> Type refers to clearly distinguishing and essential characteristics or traits shared by members of a group. <S> Its root meaning is "impression." <S> O+ is the most common blood type in the United States of America. <S> To mankind in general Macbeth and Lady Macbeth stand out as the supreme type of all that a host and hostess should not be — Max Beerbohm. <S> Kind , on the other hand, usually refers to a group trait that is shared innately by the members (see "mankind" above). <S> Its root meaning is "race" or "offspring." <S> The true test of civilization is, not the census, nor the size of the cities, nor the crops, but the kind of man that the country turns out — Ralph Waldo Emerson. <S> The rule which forbids ending a sentence with a preposition is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put" — misattributed to Winston Churchill . <S> Interchangeable use: <S> She's not that kind/type of person. <S> She is not nasty. <S> She's very nice. <S> See examples below: <S> She's not my type . <S> (= <S> I'm attracted to a different kind of girl ) <S> She's not your kind. <S> ( = <S> She's a fundamentally different sort of person ) <S> See link1 and link2 . <A> I'm afraid it's rather nebulous and very context dependent. <S> Both can be very general or very specific depending on what you're talking about. <S> For this kind (or type) of general purpose use you can regard them as equivalent. <A> I'm not a native speaker, but to me it looks like this: type — if the thing can be further subdivided, into subtypes or kinds; kind — if there is no further subdivision. <S> Came to this conclusion after reading this page on Yahoo Answers. <A> I always understood type to refer to typology where there is an antitype–type representation. <S> Kind is a grouping by classification.
| In short, type is used to differentiate one group from the rest and kind is used to link an individual to a group.
|
"Based on" instead of "based off of" I sometimes see cases where off is followed by of , and it sounds awkward to me. For example, I would prefer This story is based on a true story. to This story is based off of a true story. What do native speakers think/prefer? Should I avoid that kind of usage? <Q> The former is certainly preferable in UK English, formal or otherwise, whereas the latter is a style usually heard in conversational American English. <A> I checked in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and there are only 7 instances when based off of is used, limited to spoken style. <S> On the other hand, based on occurs with very high frequency in all sorts of discourse, particularly academic but also spoken. <A> You can’t base anything off of anything. <S> Something is always based on something else. <S> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/based.html <S> Entire contents of that link: <S> "You can build a structure around a center, but bases go on the bottom of things, so you can’t base something around something else. <S> Similarly, you can build something off of a starting point, but you can’t base anything off of anything. <S> Something is always based on something else." <A> Some may wonder, how can these be synonymous, if " off " and " on " have the opposite meaning? <S> The key word in the Wiktionary link is nonstandard , which can be loosely translated as: <S> yes, you'll hear it, but yes, there's a better way to say it . <S> Also, some prepositions in such phrases are incidental, and can fluctuate. <S> You might say: This movie was based on a true story . <S> This movie was based upon a true story . <S> This movie was based off of a true story . <S> All would have the same meaning, although the third has an amateurish ring to it. <A> Based on is the regular combination according to convention. <S> Based off of is rather informal but also frequent. <A> It's very much a recent, emerging usage ... ... <S> but looking at a selection of the written instances there, I see no obvious reason to assume the writers are all linguistically incompetent. <S> The same pattern arises with the even more common based out of , covered by this earlier question . <S> In neither case does it seem irrefutable to me that such usage is either grammatically or logically invalid. <S> It just looks "odd" to older people because statistically speaking they won't have heard these constructions so often as what they consider the "correct" versions, and when they do hear it, it'll often be from younger people who they assume are grammatically ignorant anyway. <S> I would advise OP that if he wants to avoid anyone <S> thinking he's illiterate, he should avoid such constructions. <S> But not everyone will think he's illiterate if he does decide to use them. <A> Off what would such a clumsy expression be based? <S> (I agree with Brian that one cannot "base off" of anything.) <S> Here's ONE American <S> who, while acknowledging that "based off" and "based off of" can be heard in illiterate spoken American English, does not support it. <A> Generally speaking, it's better to avoid wordy ways of stating the same thing. <S> So in this instance, "based on a true story" is more correct even if it is the same meaning as "based off of a true story. <S> " <S> Though it's more like a guideline than a rule, and if you used one other than the other, most people would likely not even notice. <A> "Off of" is used in various forms of English (UK as well as US) where standard dialects have "from" or "off". <S> But I have never heard "based off of", "based off" or "based from": <S> in my experience the phrase is only "based on". <A> Never heard it in Australia. <A> "Based on" is standard and traditional". "Based off of" is a new usage, until recently only used by children. <S> I don't know how a locution becomes standard among children when adults have never heard of it, unless it came from a cartoon show on TV or something like that.
| Really the only time when "based off of" is used is when it replaces "serves as a basis for" since "based on" provides essentially all the same meaning except for that. To my ear its an obvious Americanism, and clumsy too. In academic papers I'd stick to based on . I would avoid it if you are trying to reach an international audience.
|
Difference between "empathetic" and "empathic" Apparently both words empathetic and empathic mean the same thing, yet I see one person refer to the specific type of writing as empathetic writing , while another empathic writing . Who's correct and why? <Q> For better or worse, the meaning of the word empathic has been forever tainted by its use in the science fiction and fantasy realm -- I would avoid using it interchangeably with empathetic just to avoid the connotation of spooky action at a distance. " <S> Correct" and "right" aren't interchangeable either -- using language correctly isn't right if it raises unnecessary misunderstanding. <A> An empath is a person who reads the emotions of those in the vicinity, so logically empathic implies a connection to an empath. <S> Empathetic is more like the tendency of someone to care for another in general. <S> So where empathic seems to pertain to a person's ability to perceive emotion, empathetic is more like how others tend to sympathize with a person or situation. <S> So if you're referring to a writing, I would use "empathetic" unless you want to imply that it's something for which you personally feel emotion. <A> As I've seen the terms used, "empathetic" describes an ability or state of sharing someone else's emotional state or experience, thus, An attorney must be empathetic to a degree, or else his client will feel judged or will feel that he is being invalidated, and the trust essential to the relationship will be hard to develop. <S> An attorney who is too empathetic, however, runs the risk of internalizing his client's concerns, making the subject of the engagement personal, and losing the professional detachment that is essential to sound legal advice. <S> Julie is so reserved with her emotions that I can't imagine how Sarah picked up on her frustration; Sarah must be empathic. <S> Empaths, however, are properly discussed only when one is aboard the starship Enterprise . <A> Merriam-Webster says: empathetic , adj . <S> : involving, characterized by, or based on empathy empathic , adj . <S> : <S> empathetic The Grammarist notes that empathetic is used about five times more often than empathic in news publications, "probably due to analogy with sympathetic ." <S> Google Ngrams , however, shows empathic winning; <S> Language Log speculates that this may be due to the prevalence of empathic in psychological research and, yes, science fiction.
| "Empathic" describes someone who has an unnatural or uncommon degree of empathy, thus,
|
When does a word become a 'word'? Possible Duplicate: Creating a new word The rule of thumb used to be that when a word hit the Oxford Dictionary, it was considered to be an accepted word - this, however, seems to have transitioned into a lagging indicator in the last 5 years, primarily because so many new words are being created around the technological advances/services/products which seem to dominate our lives. When does a word 'officially' become a word - usage, social impact, cultural acceptance, mass media propagation? <Q> Despite what many people seem to think, there is no such thing as the English Language Police Force. :-) <S> No official body exists to decide whether or not a word is "officially" a word. <S> A good rule of thumb would be "it's a word when you can use it without worrying whether or not your audience will understand you. <S> It isn't hard and fast for all situations, but it works most of the time. <A> When is an embryo considered to be a baby? <S> Dictionaries merely 'make it official.' <S> They don't create words anymore than filling out the paperwork for purchasing a new car "creates" the car. <A> There is no answer, or several. <S> First of all your "officially" is meaningless: there is no authority who can make this determination. <S> It is clear that there is a continuum from a nonce-word (that somebody made up and used once) to an ordinary word that everybody acknowledges as such. <S> But there are various lines to be drawn within that. <S> Once a "word" has been used several times in print, (and not just quoting each other) <S> it is almost certainly a word. <S> In earlier ages there were plenty of words (for example, profanity) which never or hardly ever got written, because they were not regarded as "proper", but no sensible description of the language today would exclude them as words). <S> What of a "word" which is in general use among some particular group (for example, an occupation, or a social clique): is it a word? <S> Probably yes, but some might disagree. <S> BTW, the dictionaries, including the OED, tend to react somewhat faster than you're implying.
| The creation and evolution of a word is determined by the frequency and context of those who use it.
|
What's the difference between "another" and "other"? Possible Duplicate: “My another account” vs. “my other account” Sometime it's vague for me when to use other vs another . For example, You need to buy other book You need to buy another book. What's the difference between them, and when to use other or another ? <Q> There's a formula: another = <S> an + other. <S> Think of it as of an article plus the word "other" that have historically merged into one word. <S> Grammar requires some article before "other book"; either "the" or "a." <S> Depending on the context, you get either "You need to buy the other book" (if, for instance, the guy bought only the first book out of the set of two) or "You need to buy an_other book" (any other). <A> Another implies extra or additional with respect to the current amount. <S> "I'm going back for another sandwich." <S> "Pass me my book. <S> Not that one, the other one. <S> " <S> It can also be a pronoun referring to things or people: <S> "Let's wait for the others to arrive." <S> Going back to your example, if I said "You need to buy the other book," I'd be implying a mistake <S> has been made, not that you should buy an additional book as if I had said "You need to buy another book." <A> English can use definite and indefinite articles before other thing (or other used as a noun) in the same way it uses them before nouns in general; by contrast, Spanish, for example, does not use an indefinite article before otra cosa . <S> But instead of writing an other thing , English writes another thing , losing a space. <S> So it is "You need to buy another book" in the same way <S> it is "You need to buy a red book" developing from "You need to buy a book", but "You need to read my other book" coming from "You need to read my book". <S> You can break another apart as in " <S> I'm not a partner or a bit-on-the-side, I'm a significant other".
| Other is an adjective implying it is different than the object in discussion.
|
Why do many forms ask for initials instead of full names? I have seen a lot of forms that ask for the name (first name, middle name, last name) and then initials . Why does anyone want to ask for initials? Isn't initials the first letters of the name? For example, name = john doe => initials = J D . Isn't this always true? <Q> I'm not 100% certain what you're asking, but I can think of a few possibilities. <S> As Kosmonaut commented, on most forms, an initials field is asking for a middle initial. <S> If the form designer was sane, the field will appear between the first and last name fields, but you never know. <S> The field could be asking for degrees and other initialisms that people put after their names – "John Henry Doe, OD, FAAO", "Lucy Smith, CBE", etc. <S> If the field appears after the first & last names, and especially if there's a separate field already for a middle name or initial, then this would be the most logical explanation. <S> As a remote possibility, the field could be asking for a title - Mr., Mrs., Ms., etc. <S> Like the middle initial field, though, it would be bad design to have this after the name fields. <S> If it's a long form, there could be places where you need to "initial" (give a quick sign-off for) some important clauses. <S> I haven't encountered this with computerized forms, but it's standard practice with long contracts such as for buying a house. <A> The initials can be more complex. <S> My friend Patrick John O'Neill uses the initial "PJO'N", for example - when the software isn't so stupid as not to let him; then he uses "PJON". <S> Also, Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore might use the initials APWBD. <S> Also, some people do not have middle names (for example, me). <A> The reason of asking Initials might be being professional and responsive. <S> Like while creating the email IDs in organization for official ID, they use initials to make your ID. <S> Like John Keates might have email ID as JK@ abc.com. <S> like Sabir Ali got the ID SALI, which if pronounced in local language (Pakistan, India) will mean sister in law. <S> similarly another fellow Zulfiqar Alam got ID as ZALAM, whoch pronounce as a word in Urdu/ Hindi which means cruel. <S> I might be wrong but if the intention is to preempt the situations as stated above, would be great idea.
| They might be asking for desired initials, because in our organization I saw few people who randomly got initials in their IDs or User account for web based financial software, were funny and hilarious.
|
How to write a bulleted list? Possible Duplicates: Question about Capitalization for a Bullet List Periods for bullet point items Should each item be in uppercase or not? I've seen both forms: Yada, yada, yada, such as: standardized bananas Standardized bananas And if each bulleted item is a complete sentence, should it be punctuated? And even if it isn't, should it have a comma? <Q> It's quite common to end list items with semi-colons, and to end the last item with a full stop. <S> Commas are rarer. <S> The one rule is to ensure that each item in the list is grammatically equivalent. <S> Have them all complete sentences (ending them with full stops, question marks, or exclamation marks as appropriate in each case), or have them all sentence fragments which can be added to the same beginning. <S> Here is a bulleted list: <S> In this list, each item is a completesentence. <S> It does not matter whethersome items are questions, does it? <S> Each item begins, of course, with acapital letter. <S> And here's another list. <S> In this list, each item is a sentence-fragment; items end with semi-colons; items cannot be questions, because each has to be grammatically equivalent; items begin with lowercase letters; the last item ends with a full stop. <A> This depends on your style guide. <S> For formal writing, or when every item in a bulleted list is its own sentence, you should always capitalize the first letter. <S> For example, my first point is a sentence of its own. <S> My second point is, as well. <S> However, if you're listing things that aren't sentences of their own, you can use lower-case, as in: lists that begin in the middle of a sentence standalone items without a grammatical relationship between them <S> However, specific style guides might always want you to capitalize the first letter of bulleted lists. <A> For list of word, they should not be capitalized or punctuated.
| If you are writing a list of complete sentences, then use regular Capitalization and punctuation. It depends on the items in the list.
|
"Well" as an introduction to an argument Say a child says: I want some ice cream! The parent's response is: Well , you can't have ice cream right now, we need to have dinner first. Why is the word "well" used as a conversational introduction to an argument? Is it a shortened form of another phrase? <Q> In this situation, it is being used by one speaker to acknowledge what the other speaker said. <S> It can also be used to additionally indicate "I'm about to say something now, so wait a moment and don't say more until I've taken my turn. <S> " <S> We have many discourse markers, and in general they are used to assist turn-taking and comprehension in a conversation. <S> Every language (as far as I know) has them. <A> It may be a vestigial form of "that's well", "that's all well", "that's all well and good" and similar sentiments, which in the exchange you describe would indicate that it's perfectly all right that the child wants the ice cream, though it isn't going to be happening right now. <S> Other uses of "well" as an interjection don't fit this pattern, but the one you're asking about, a conversational introduction to an argument, does. <S> This is, in fact, how Wiktionary understands "well" as an interjection used to acknowledge a statement or situation to have derived: as short for "that is well". <A> The OED offers no etymology for this use, but only the following definition: Employed without construction to introduce a remark or statement, sometimes implying that the speaker or writer accepts a situation, etc., already expressed or indicated, or desires to qualify this in some way, but frequently used merely as a preliminary or resumptive word.
| Well might originally be a shortened form of a phrase, but I think it is safe to say that people who use it are generally treating it as a distinct entity (not short for something); it is a grammatical particle that is used to "facilitate discourse".
|
What does ‘Adjusts playbook with a pencil, not a sharpie’ mean? I was puzzled to find the headline – ‘ D’Antoni Adjusts Playbook with a Pencil, Not a Sharpie ’ in the sport article in today’s New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/sport/basketball ). Although I understand ‘a pencil, not sharpie’ is a figurative expression comparing metal cylinder sharpie to wood pencil, what does it exactly mean? Adjust his hard style to softer style? Is ‘Adjusts playbook with a pencil, not a sharpie’ a kind of cliché? The headline is followed by the following sentence: Mike D’Antoni is fighting against perceptions, resisting his impulses and wrestling with his playbook. For years, D’Antoni cultivated an image and an offense based on speed and small lineups, constant movement and contrarian thinking. In Phoenix, that offense produced 60-win seasons and deep playoff runs. In New York, it re-energized a moribund franchise. But circumstances have changed, drastically. <Q> I read it as an implicit comparison of the nature of the Sharpie (an unerasable marker, generally making a heavy line) to that of the pencil (a lighter writer which can easily be erased or modified); D'Antoni is approaching his new situation with an eye toward making smaller changes that can be easily undone or adjusted to match his players, as opposed to coming in with a bunch of big ideas about exactly how things are going to work and making his players adjust to them. <A> Think of solving a crossword puzzle with a pen vs. a pencil. <A> The chief comparison here is that pencil marks are erasable while "Sharpies" are also known as "permanent markers" (not erasable). <S> The basic idea is that the person in question, when they make a change, is prepared to change it again if need-be. <S> Note that the part of the article you quoted talks all about changes. <S> I'd also like to point out that in the USA we call it "sports", not "sport". <S> I generally let that one slide, but you linked an article in a USA paper, so you ought to at least know. <A> It means he is making very precise adjustments. <S> A pencil has a much finer point than does a Sharpie.
| I believe the analogy being drawn is between writing with a pencil — light colored, erasable, fine/hard to see; and writing with a Sharpie marker — bold, dark, permanent; with the point being that D'Antoni is less effective, or at least less revolutionary, in his new job than he has been in others.
|
What can't you describe without a picture? What do you call objects, or kinds of objects, that cannot be described without visual aids? <Q> A pretty word for things that cannot be expressed in words is ineffable , but if it's describable with a picture, it doesn't feel ineffable. <S> Unless you're talking about qualia . <S> An example would be helpful. <A> <A> There is a phrase "beyond words", but it is not usually used for objects, more for emotions or situations. <S> Oops, logic has just given me a good kick - if there was a word for such objects, then such objects would cease to fall into this category. <S> ;-) <S> Of course, there are words like "thing", "nondescript", "thingamajig", "visual", "spectacle", "sensory" and "picturesque", and phrases like "to be seen". <A> Anything related to the senses, that the person you are describing to has not experienced. <S> A good example would be explaining colour to someone who is blind or trying to describe a sunset. <S> Being able to explain physical feelings such as touch, to someone who has never been able to physically feel objects, imagine trying to explain something being smooth or abrasive. <S> If the person has no frame of reference then words are just words. <A> Highly technical descriptions of motion or construction are theoretically possible with words but it will end up feeling like you are using the wrong tool for the job. <S> For example: Blue-prints for a warehouse or instructions on how to put together a truck engine both benefit greatly from visual aids. <S> With regards to the logical trick mentioned by Lee, you can easily describe an idea of an object without referring directly to the object itself. <S> The concept of an indescribable thing is alive and well and we can freely talk about it without describing it.
| Well, I suppose I would call them indescribable .
|
Is the "really" in "I don't really know" necessary? I know that one can have a greater or lesser amount of surety (i.e. "I'm not really sure"), but don't you either know or not know something? Are there degrees of knowledge? I hear this phrase often from reporters and news correspondents: "We don't really know..." I think that this is a way to avoid saying "We don't know", which sounds more blunt, but is more precise. <Q> Frequently, it is simply a matter of preference. <S> However, the following variations could be interpreted slightly differently. <S> I don't know. <S> A simple declaration. <S> Unambiguous. <S> I don't really know. <S> This is often used to deflect a negative self-assessment. <S> It's common to not want to admit that we don't know something, so we occasionally de-emphasize the declaration. <S> I really don't know. <S> You didn't mention this variation, but this is often used to do the opposite, actually emphasizing the fact that we don't know. <S> This can be used to stress to someone who may not believe you, that you in fact, really don't know something. <S> These are really just minor nuances, and the phrases are often used interchangeably. <S> If someone wants to express a degree of knowledge, some other phrase is usually used in conjunction with the declaration. <S> For example, "I don't know enough about X to answer that." <A> I don't really know suggests that the speaker may know a little about the subject discussed but not really that much. <S> For example, I don't know Jimi probably means you have never heard of Jimi, while I don't really know Jimi means you may have heard of or even met Jimi <S> but you do not know much about him. <A> Different languages emphasize different things. <S> Japanese, for example, has a tendency to emphasize the speaker's belief in the probability of events and the certainty of knowledge. <S> The number of ways a Japanese speaker can say "I think it will rain tomorrow" is quite large. <S> English, in contrast, is very sensitive to order in which things occur or are likely to occur, as evidenced by such things as the future perfect tense (e.g., "by then I will have known the result). <S> But English also has a strong bias toward stress, so that degrees of knowledge are able to be pinpointed: I don't know. <S> I'm not sure. <S> I sort of know. <S> I guess. <S> Maybe. <S> It's possible <S> that... Etc. <A> The word really used in this context is an all-purpose intensifier: <S> I really don't understand. <S> You're really getting on my nerves. <S> She really had me going there for a while. <S> In each of those cases the really could be dropped without a change of meaning, but the level of intensity of the statement would not be the same. <S> The word fairly implores the listener to believe what is being said. <S> It anticipates and attempts to preempt objections to a statement. <S> In the normal course of a conversation, such an objection might be raised as the word itself. <S> John : I don't understand. <S> Joan <S> : Really? <S> John : <S> Yeah, really. <S> I just don't get it. <S> By adding the really John would be attempting to avoid having to repeat himself. <A> For example: Why did he leave? <S> I don't really know. <S> However, I suspect it had something to do with the waffles. <S> Rather than hedging on the side of not knowing something, it can be hedging in the other direction.
| To my mind, I'm not really sure, suggests that the speaker might not be certain of something, but they have some supporting evidence to think so.
|
What does "8/7c" mean? I just saw an update on Facebook saying: Watch Russell present LIVE at the 42nd Annual NAACP Image Awards. Tonight at 8/7c on FOX. What does "8/7c" mean? <Q> The reason Eastern Time is commonly omitted and "Central Time" / "c" is not is because most of the American population and much of American media apparatus is concentrated on the coasts of the country, mostly the East Coast actually, and thus Easterners are considered the "default"; that means shows first air for Eastern viewers, and they are also the demographic advertisers and television networks first accommodate for scheduling before other time zones. <S> (Show performance at 8 - 11 PM is a hugely important metric for advertisers and the continued viability of network television shows; that time block is commonly known in the United States as prime time ). <S> Eastern Time viewing and Central Time viewing are often scheduled together in network television programs, because simultaneity for them is not too unaccomodating. <S> Mountain Time and Pacific viewers can and often are scheduled for their own separate block. <A> 8/7c = eight-seven-central . <S> It's a convenient abbreviation of 8 p.m. Eastern Time; 7 p.m. Central Time . <S> This form is popular in broadcasting circles, where television networks serve viewers in both the Eastern and Central time zones in the United States. <A> It is incorrect to assume the "8" is any specific time zone. <S> It is 8 PM in every time zone in the broadcast range except "Central" where it is at 7pm. <S> If you are @ "Pacific", "Mountain", "Eastern", local viewing is @ 8 PM <S> If you are @ "Central" - local viewing is @ 7 PM
| "8/7c" or "8 - 7 Central" means that this show is occurring at 8 o'clock Eastern Time, or 7 o'clock Central time.
|
What's the difference between "client" and "customer"? I already asked a similar question ( customer vs. client vs. user vs. consumer of on-line service ) but, I believe, there may be some differences between technical and legal jargon and general usage of English. I'd like to find the distinct most appropriate and unambiguous terms to distinguish the users of on-line services: malicious bot vs. entity using programming tools to access online services; general public vs. registered for a free service user; registered for free service user vs. user who paid for a fee-based additional on-line service; Well, the terms under consideration, so far, are: user consumer client What is the difference between customer and client ? What are other possible pertinent terms? <Q> A customer (purchaser) is not necessarily a client, when product(s) rather than services are offered. <S> A consumer is the one who uses products or services, paid or not. <S> So, a consumer is not necessarily a customer. <S> Children at toy shops are usually consumers, their mothers being customers. <A> Client to me has an element of "ongoing relationship with the seller" in its meaning: if you go to the store to buy a box of matches, you're just a customer, but if you always go to that store because you know you'll get good service and good prices, you're a client. <S> (However, the dictionary does list "customer" as one of the meanings of "client", so they are very close in meaning if not identical.) <S> I would say that someone who pays a monthly fee in order to have continued access to an online service could be called a client. <S> Some suggestions for your terms: malicious bot = <S> Abuser entity using programming tools = <S> accessor non-using public = public registered but not paying = <S> user payer = client <A> Embrace the jargon Obviously, you might confuse the reader if you mix jargon from different disciplines in the same work. <S> So if you're a lawyer or paralegal <S> I could understand why you'd want to use words like "client" and "consumer" only in the sense that a lawyer would expect. <S> But in most discussions about the business and software around online services (you mentioned "free," "fee-based," "bots," and "programming tools") <S> you're not going to be able to escape the jargon that was invented for those subjects. <S> In that jargon: A service is something you offer that (you hope) has value to your customers. <S> A server is the hardware that provides that service. <S> The words "server" and "service" also used of the software running on that hardware, with "service" being more common in Microsoft shops and "server" more common elsewhere. <S> A user, consumer, subscriber, or customer is a person you're doing business with or providing a service to. <S> When the person paying for something isn't the same as the person you're delivering it to, reach for more specific terms to make the business distinction. <S> For example, Google provides a free service to the public and makes money on advertising; they'd use a word like "consumer" for people in one group and "advertiser" or "business partner" for the other. <S> A client is any software that interacts with the server. <S> The word is also used to describe anything on the user's side of the interaction, e.g. "client PC." <S> Bots specific to the web are also called spiders. <S> Bots are not necessarily malicious; for example Google has lots of unattended programs crawling the web and making an index entry for each word they see. <S> Instead of "malicious," consider a word that describes what you're opposed to, such as unauthorized or unacceptable, and define what constitutes authorized or acceptable use. <S> For your other examples I'd use user for a member of the general public, member or (free) subscriber for someone who registered, and paid or premium subscriber for people forking over money. <A> A client is generally someone purchasing a professional service, contrasted with a customer who might be buying a box of matches. <S> Perhaps a client is a bit more genteel, and possibly richer. <S> (Myself, I call them both customers because I call a spade a bloody shovel.) <S> (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/customer , http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/client .) <A> A client is someone who engages the services of a professional. <S> For example, lawyers, plumbers, freelance writers, accountants, and web designers often work for clients. <S> A customer buys goods or services from a business (rather than an individual or group of professionals). <S> Source
| A client is the one to be served, economically or not, the economical one being a customer. A bot is a client accessing a service for some reason other than immediately presenting something to a person.
|
What is the origin of "Color me confused"? I drowned in the search results of articles using "Color me confused" phrase. What is its meaning and origin? <Q> Meaning <S> These are the closest definitions : verb (used with object) 23. <S> to cause to appear different from the reality: <S> In order to influence the jury, he colored his account of what had happened. <S> 24. <S> to give a special character or distinguishing quality to: <S> His personal feelings color his writing. <S> Origin "Colour" as an verb goes back a long way, etymonline.com tells us: <S> The verb is from late 14c.; earliest use is figurative. <S> The more recent "colour me [adjective]" usage seems to have taken off around 1962, although I found one reference from 1925. <S> And from a 1964 Flying Magazine piece about colourful sectional charts: Earlier in the same article: What a shock I got when I spread the chart out; it looked like a child's coloring book. <S> "Colour me [a metaphoric colour] <S> " <S> Thomas W. Hanshew's 1910 <S> The man of the forty faces : <S> A 1962 Marketing/communications : <S> A 1962 <S> Newsweek : <S> A 1962 <S> The New York Times Book Review : <S> Literal use in children's colouring books <S> I didn't find any "color me [adjective]" variants in the 1950s, however this 1946 <S> Grade Teacher instructs children: Color me brown and green and red. <S> Misc "Color me" has some other meanings. <S> For example from 1925 : <S> From 1810 : <S> And a second from the same book: <S> Here's an unusual one from 1839 's Tortesa, the Usurer , a play by Nathaniel Parker Willis ( p.246 here ), that seems to mean "Pass me that water!" <S> : <S> The 1832 <S> A dictionary of the Welsh language, explained in English by William Owen Pughe <S> explains: <A> "Colour me (something)" means the same as "call me (something)", typically, "colour me stupid" or "colour me gone". <S> Green's Slang Dictionary has "color" (US) as "to see, present as", and the first citation is for an advertisement for a television series (I'm Dickens <S> He's Fenster) <S> in 1962 "Color her married". <A> Obviously, since there are no color associations for emotional states like confusion, the extension of that phrase is a bit tortured -- but it gains a bit of a comedic aspect from that torture. <A> I believe this expression was popularized by the singing group The Winstons, with their hit song "Color him Father". <S> Check it out on YouTube.
| "Color me confused" "Color me confused" can be found in a 1962 Newsweek article about colouring books: It's an extension of older common phrases like "color me pink" (that is to say, "I'm embarrassed -- imagine me blushing") or "color me green" ("I'm envious").
|
Are "zugzwang", "catch-22" and "catch-33" synonyms? Are these words synonyms? zugzwang — a situation where one player is put at a disadvantage because he has to make a move when he would prefer to pass and make no move catch-22 — a logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired by not being in that very situation catch-33 — the fifth full-length studio album by Swedish metal band Meshuggah <Q> No. <S> You know what Catch-22 means, as you demonstrate in your previous question. <S> And you asked about Catch-33 there as well. <S> Maybe you should wait until you are satisfied with an answer there and then compare those ideas to the chess term. <A> catch-22 is not a synonymous to zugzwang . <S> The first one means a dilemma, or a situation from which there is no escape. <S> Zugzwang , while it also pertains to difficult situations, is about being in a tight spot because of a specific rule of chess: you have to make a move at your turn. <S> PS: I don't know about catch-33 , but I am sure to be enlightened by the answers to your other question dealing with it. <A> Zugzwang , although it is usually defined otherwise, means that you are already losing and it will become obvious after your next move. <S> Catch-22 is about the paradoxes of military life, in particular the impossibility of benefiting from a provision to protect the insane described in the book, and is used for other cases in life where the preconditions for something make it impossible to obtain. <A> While zugzwang is predominantly a chess term, it is also occasionally used metaphorically for real-life situations where whoever makes the next move is left at a disadvantage. <S> This doesn't mean quite the same thing as a Catch-22, although it's similar. <A> Yes! <S> Well, sort of. <S> Zugzwang is reasonably synonymous with Catch-22: Both refer to having a dilemma that will not improve, no matter which choice you make. <S> The only difference is that zugzwang implies that you will be in a weaker position after you make a choice. <S> Whereas Catch-22 just implies that whatever you try to change, it will not improve your situation (i.e. it will not necessarily make it worse). <S> Catch-33 doesn't mean anything. <S> It's just the name of an album.
| Zugzwang is a chess term (as I suspect you may already know) meaning a state in the game when a player can't make a move without ruining his position: no alternative is acceptable. Catch-33 is simply a play on Catch-22 and means whatever its user wants it to mean; in Meshuggah's case it allowed them to nod towards Heller's book in their album title without attempting to cover it.
|
What does "country fellows" actually mean? I searched on Internet for country fellows , but I couldn't find definition. What is the origin and the real meaning of country fellows ? Edit: I didn't mean "fellow countrymen". does this phrase have a double meaning? Because I heard it in a bad context. If a guy did something unnatural they call him with pity. <Q> Even I've tried to find references and failed . <S> I can share my personal experience here, though, assuming the OP is a fellow Indian. <S> It is merely a direct translation of the words from south Indian languages (Malayalam, Tamil, etc.), for example, "naadan chekkan" in Malayalam. <S> It has nothing to do with the original meaning of fellow countrymen . <S> What it actually means is a person who is cultureless ; or someone <S> not trendy enough (among a group of friends, mostly). <S> Suppose three friends are discussing western music (say, a rap song by Eminem). <S> If one of them tells that he likes Indian carnatic music more, then the other two might say "Oh, grow up! <S> Don't be such a country fellow". <S> I hope my explanation is clear. <S> I couldn't find any reliable reference to add here. <S> Perhaps it's enough that searching "country fellows" on google will have results related to south Indian slang. <S> It can also mean "people from the countryside", but that doesn't usually apply when used among friends. <A> There appears to be a band by this name; in that context it probably means "fellows from the country", i.e. men or friends from the countryside. <S> This probably refers to Country music. <S> Other than that <S> , I think this word is only used by non-native speakers, as a variation of "fellow countrymen": I do not believe this to be an actual native English word or expression. <S> I have only found it on foreign websites whose English was of questionable quality. <A> As adjective, fellow means "being of the same kind, group, occupation, society, or locality". <S> They urged the troops not to fire on their fellow citizens. <S> [Example taken from the New Oxford American Dictionary .] <A> The most common meaning is people (friends) from the same country (nation) . <S> Due to the multiple meanings of both country and fellows , it could take other meanings in certain situations. <S> Fellows could mean friends, but also just a group of persons. <S> There is for example a Country and Western band called Country Fellows .
| Country could be a nation, it could be the countryside i.e. non-urban regions, or it could be the music style Country and Western. Fellows can be used as noun to mean "who is of the same kind, group, occupation, society or locality". "Country fellow" is a slightly offensive phrase in south India. Informally, fellow means also "man or boy".
|
Are "so" and "so that" interchangeable? A book suggests that we should not interchange "so" and "so that". "So" means "therefore", and "so that" means "in order that". However, it seems to me that in many cases they don't actually have a difference. For example: Alice got up at 5:00 A.M., so that she could drive her son to school. If I substitute "so that" with "so", this sentence presents the exact same causal relation to me: Alice got up at 5:00 A.M., so she could drive her son to school. I must have missed something here, since English is my second language. Could somebody explain the difference? <Q> If you are wondering about the difference between the two sentences, the first states Alice's reason for waking up early, while the second implies that she was successful in her intention. <S> This is not a distinction always observed by native speakers. <S> In this way "so" has two distinct but similar meanings. <S> Subjectively I would say that using "so" in place of "so that" sounds a little informal and maybe a tiny bit childish, but is fine in conversational contexts. <A> They aren't interchangeable. <S> "so" is ambiguous, meaning both therefore and in order that , but "so that" isn't. <S> Every occurrence of "so that" can be replaced with "so" without losing meanings, but not vice versa . <S> For instance, You are a bachelor, so you are a man. <S> "so" means therefore in this context. <S> It doesn't make sense replacing " <S> so" with " <S> so that", the latter of which means "in order that". <S> You are a bachelor in order to be a man? <S> Note: <S> If two words can only be replaced with each other in some cases, your example being one of them, but not all, are they really interchangeable? <A> According to AHD <S> so ... <S> conj. ... <S> With the purpose that: I stayed so I could see you . <S> the use of 'so' instead of 'so that' when used to mean 'with the purpose that' is acceptable. <S> They have a usage note: <S> Many critics and grammarians have insisted that <S> so must be followed by <S> that in formal writing when used to introduce a clause giving the reason for or purpose of an action: He stayed so that he could see the second feature. <S> But since many respected writers use <S> so <S> for <S> so that in formal writing, it seems best to consider the issue one of stylistic preference: <S> The store stays open late so (or so that) people who work all day can buy groceries. <S> Both <S> so <S> and so that are acceptably used to introduce clauses that state a result or consequence: <S> The Bay Bridge was still closed, so (or so that) the drive from San Francisco to the Berkeley campus took an hour and a half. <A> So that means "with the result that", "with the aim that", "in order that". <S> It was overgrown with brambles, so that she had difficulty making any progress. <S> They whisper to each other so that no one else can hear. <S> As conjunction, it means "and for this reason", "therefore", "and then"; it is also used to introduce a question, or a concluding statement. <S> She looked so pretty. <S> She likes it so. <S> She is not so foolish as to believe that. <S> It was still painful, so I went to see a specialist. <S> So, what is her name? <S> So that is the reason. <S> So you are free. <S> You cannot replace <S> so with so that without changing the meaning of the sentence, or without changing the rest of the sentence. <A> In my opinion <S> so is the same as therefore, and so that means in order to. <S> So <S> so is making a conclusion, it is like you know already, or that something "can happen," <S> according to your sentence; it is like the future predicted already. <S> And therefore is somewhat like going to be, <S> you are not sure if that thing can happen or it is like you cannot predict the future, <S> yet because of the words "in order to," it is like telling me to prevent things that you do not want to happen in a sentence. <S> Using so that is ignoring one thing, you did this because you do not want that to happen, not like the word <S> so, you are already knowing what is going to happen next <S> , that is why you did this, because you want that thing to happen. <A> In this context, 'So' and 'so that' both mean 'as a result' of the preceding clause. <S> The difference is 'SO THAT' refers to a condition that can take place as a result of planned action, while 'SO' implies a condition can take place because the situation allows it. <S> 'SO' - <S> The situation was that Alice happened to wake up early. <S> It was alright if she overslept. <S> She didn't plan to wake up early but she did. <S> Because she was already up, it now meant that she was in time to drive her son to school. <S> 'SO THAT' means Alice woke up early as planned. <S> She probably set an alarm clock for 5am or kept awake all night because she knew she should not oversleep. <S> The reason for her to wake up early was to be able to drive her son to school.
| It is confusing, because "so" (when used as a conjunction) can mean "therefore" or can be an abbreviated form of "so that" (meaning "in order that.") Well for me, so and so that are different. So means "to such a great extent", "extremely", "very much".
|
"On their back" or "on their backs"? After the therapy, eight children (43%) became able to crawl/move on their back. Or should I use "on their backs"? Singular because each child only has one back, or plural because we're dealing with eight backs? <Q> Plural, because we are, in fact, dealing with eight little backs. <S> And a back is a back, no matter how small. <S> A child has a back, but children have backs. <S> I'm sure others will back me on this. <A> The semantic, grammatical, and logical arguments clearly suggest it's 'correct' to use the plural, and that's what most people do. <S> However, despite the fact that I doubt if any style guide endorses the singular, it seems that about 10% of usages for back persist in using the singular. <S> For reasons which escape me, that 'incorrect' minority rises to nearly 25% when the body part in question is chest . <S> In both cases the evidence strongly suggests the incorrect usage is becoming more widespread. <S> Personally I believe it's a situation where grammarians backed the wrong horse, and their blind prescriptivism will eventually be defeated. <S> People quite naturally want to use the singular when the number of [body parts, whatever] is immaterial, and only the plurality of [babies, people] is relevant. <S> Increasingly, it seems, they're prepared to do this even at the risk of being considered illiterate. <A> It is decidedly the Singular Back . <S> This is because it is the therapy that is being evaluated but the results are singular. <S> The children are not grouped or lined up as in a race to see who can move. <S> Each child moves only on his or her own back, no other, Singular .
| The plural children is only used to describe the percentage of those who are able to move.
|
Terms to apply to something that leaves strong memory Do the following terms have positive, neutral or negative meaning? memorable impressive remarkable What are other similar terms that are used for positive, neutral and negative intention? <Q> Memorable is the most neutral of the bunch. <S> For equivalents to memorable that have a negative connotation, you may have to go a little further afield. <S> Traumatic , <S> notorious and infamous can all mean "memorable in a bad way." <A> Impressive has a clear positive meaning (“evoking admiration”, says the New Oxford American Dictionary ). <S> Memorable and remarkable are both supposedly neutral, and can be combined with negative events (e.g., “a memorable death”). <S> For some reasons, I myself find remarkable as having a slightly positive tone that memorable doesn't have; others might comment in other answers or comments. <A> There is always unforgettable , which is neutral, and momentous , which is usually positive. <S> Depending on the context you might also say lasting , noteworthy or historic . <A> Leaving a lasting mark/impression is more than a word, but also should be there <A> Most words here have slightly (or clearly) positive connotations. <S> For one with a clearly negative one, try devastating . <A> never-to-be-forgotten ineffaceable indelible, indissoluble <S> , un-removable, irrevocable, undying, imperishable prominent, striking, shocking, incredible, glaring long-standing, durable, life-long, live-long, relenting, lingering, evergreen
| All the terms mentioned so far (memorable, impressive, remarkable, unforgettable, etc.) tend to have positive connotations in the absence of any negative modifier.
|
What connotation do these words describing "someone who straightforwardly expresses their" opinion have? The adjective ones I have heard recently are forward straightforward forthcoming frank I was wondering if each of them has positive, negative or neutral meaning? What are other similar terms that are used for positive, neutral and negative intention? <Q> I will expound on the examples you provided and then give a few more of my own. <S> forward : Forwardness is not usually considered a positive attribute, as someone who is [too] forward unduly volunteers their opinion or views in a rather annoying manner. <S> straightforward : A straightfoward person does and says the right thing, regardless of the consequences. <S> Straightforward fellows are usually considered thoughtful (and simple-minded, perhaps), but not rash and stupid. <S> forthcoming : <S> The adjective, forthcoming is used to describe persons who willingly provide information. <S> It is not necessarily a positive attribute, and it is sometimes associated with disloyalty. <S> frank : A frank person calls a spade a spade . <S> If especially harsh, such a person could be described as brutally frank . <S> Of the four words above, I would say forthcoming does not quite belong in the group, as it more concerned with answers than opinions . <S> Similar adjectives that come to mind are: <S> candid : <S> A candid person speaks the truth in plain terms. <S> This a neutral-positive attribute. <S> outspoken : This is usually a positive attribute. <S> An outspoken person may speak out in defense of the voiceless or the oppressed and against evil. <S> Such a person may also be a devil's advocate or a rabble-rouser . <S> In these cases, outspokenness may be regarded as highly undesirable. <S> blunt : A blunt individual speaks the truth without fear or favor . <S> One usually hears the phrase, to put it bluntly . <S> Someone who is not as blunt may opt to put it mildly , instead. <S> Indeed, bluntly-expressed thoughts are usually unpleasant, but they tend to be spoken from the mouth of a disciplined, upright or oppressed individual. <S> forthright : <S> Forthrightness is a highly desirable quality. <S> It applies not only to expressed opinions but also to actions and attitudes. <S> vituperative : While a vituperative person may speak the truth, their ultimate goal is to spite or to scorn. <S> This is definitely a negative attribute. <S> There are many other related v-words , such as venomous , vicious , vindictive , etc, but these have broader meanings that go beyond the mere expression of opinion. <A> I think you'll find quite an interesting discussion of these and related words in the question “ Do you agree with these intermediate gradations between ‘frank’ and ‘evasive’? ” <S> and its answers. <A> I also heard people use upfront , as a positive attribute. <A> Another word would be "plainspoken", someone who expresses themselves in ordinary, easy-to-understand language rather than gussying up their elocutions with a plethora of hifalutin sesquipedalia. <S> (I should add that "plainspoken" is also largely synonymous with "blunt"; if a plainspoken person doesn't like something, he'll tend to say "I don't like it" rather than beating around the bush.) <A> There are also colloquial phrases describing such a person. <S> The person might be called "a straight-shooter" or someone who "tells it like it is".
| A forthright person is honest and straightforward in his or her dealings. Both these phrases can be used positively or negatively, depending on context.
|
What does "punch line" mean? I read this sentence and I don't understand what "punch line" means here: Most people recognize this Amazon: Jeff Bezos's hyperproficient Borders-killer; one of the few dot-com initial public offerings that didn't end up a punch line ; ...... I know the literal meaning of "punch line". So in this sentence, does it mean that most dot-com IPO companies failed like jokes, so they "end up a punch line"? This explanation sounds awkward to me. Could somebody please explain the usage of "punch line" here? <Q> Many dot-com businesses were so extremely uncommercial that looking back <S> it is funny that people believed they might be worth investing in. <S> Amazon was not one of those. <A> Darn puppy peed on the floor again, got anything to clean it up? <S> Sure, use these pets.com shares. <S> Not a very funny joke, but it is one where a dot-com era's IPO is literally a punchline. <S> If you publicly fail at something, you may become the subject of some cruel jokes. <S> In some of them, you or your project might be the punchline of the joke itself. <S> Of course, if you publicly succeed at something, you may be the subject of some cruel jokes too, but you're likely going to be better known for that success. <S> To say that something or someone has become a punchline, suggests that their only remaining relevance to anybody is as something you can end a joke with. <S> The humour value of your failure being the only reason people have left to talk about you, you have become a punchline. <S> It was probably quite a striking idea the first time someone said that someone had become a punchline, but it's a tired and overused cliché now, even when used in better sentences than that in the question. <A> Aside from the definition of ‘punch line’ in Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary - the last few word of a joke that make it funny, we used the word, ‘punch line’ very often in the sense of the clincher, most selling phrase in the ad or commercial message. <S> For nearly 40 years I spent in Tokyo operation of New York-based ad agency as a copy writer and later account executive, I kept being driven by severe clients (mostly American such as Procter Gamble and American Express) who had asked almost every day “What’s the punch line of the message you propose? <S> Does it sell? <S> , Are you sure?” <S> We overtaxed our brains out to come up with a decisive punch line of the ad for the clients. <S> I'm haunted by that word, 'Punch line' even today like a nightmare. <A> It's a figure of speech called synecdoche : part of something is used to refer to the whole thing. <S> In the above context, a punch line is a joke as a whole, not being the final part of it. <S> p.s <S> It's a bad usage of synecdoche. <A> A punchline is the line that knocks you flat. <S> Hearing the punchline is when the joke hits you. <S> Without a good punchline at the end, the joke won't work. <S> It won't have any impact. <S> Similarly with a business proposal. <S> It helps to end with an impactful punchline to make it memorable to the person that it's pitched at. <S> Hopefully it's a knockout and they're floored by your amazing expertise and prowess! <S> They sign you up to pitch for their team :)
| Punch line is the final part of the joke which makes you understand the meaning of the joke and that it is a joke.
|
"Wake up Joe" or "Wake Joe up"? Are they synonymous, or not? Looking at wake up as a phrasal verb it seems that the more correct way is "I will wake up Joe" rather than "I will wake Joe up", but the second rolls better off my tongue… I had a look around but could not find a rule. Interestingly enough, Kosmonaut points out it is suddenly very obvious when using a pronoun instead of a name: "Wake up him" vs. "Wake him up". Update: I assume I am really looking at two situations: Using the known phrasal verb vs NOT using the phrasal verb. <Q> Either can be used in many situations, but Verb Noun Adverb is the common order for all of these. <S> Put the jacket on. / <S> Put on the jacket. <S> Pull up your pants. <S> / Pull your pants up. <S> But sometimes the reversal doesn't work because the preposition seems to apply to the noun rather than the verb. <S> Get your clothes on. / <S> Get on your clothes. <S> Work the lotion in. <S> / Work in the lotion. <S> In the second versions here, you might be telling someone to stand on top of their clothing or work while covered in lotion. <S> Certainly it is fine to say "Put on your clothes." <S> Other times it would sound odd to reverse the order because the preposition means something else depending on the order: <S> Get the lead out! / <S> Get out the lead! <S> The first means get moving more quickly; the second means to furnish forth some quantity of lead you may have. <A> "Wake up Joe" and "Wake Joe up" are both OK, and as you say the second flows better. <S> But if a pronoun is used then the second form is not only better, it is compulsory: " <S> Wake him up" works, but " <S> *Wake up him" is ungrammatical. <S> This is almost always the case when the preposition in a phrasal verb is used as an adverb rather than strictly as a preposition... <S> e.g. here "up" is an adverb because it specifies the "direction" of the waking, rather than applying to Joe specifically... <A> As an alternative to this 'either/or' scenario, I would suggest eliminating the word "up" from the phrase entirely. <S> The result is perhaps more traditional, but I don't believe the word "up" is necessary in the example phrase, nor is it needed in most cases. <S> "Go and wake Joe." <S> "The drunk woke upon hearing the door slam." <S> "I must wake at dawn in order to arrive on time." <S> Whether we are performing the waking action (transitive, Ex 1&3) or simply describing the waking (intransitive, Ex 2) <S> the word "up" is not necessary. <S> My understanding is that "up" came to be used because of the associated phrase "get up", as in "I got up in the morning". <S> One would not use "up" alongside other synonyms for most "waking" situations: "Joe rose from his drunken stupor." <S> vs. <S> "Joe rose up from his drunken stupor." <S> "I must rise at dawn. <S> " vs. "I must rise up at dawn." <S> In these cases, the former sounds clean and proper, whereas the latter sounds a bit like <S> the subject is rising from the dead or preparing for battle. <S> I'd like to see more discussion on this topic, as I have also done searching outside of this forum and have had a hard time locating other opinions. <A> Since wake up is separable phrasal verb and not all separable phrasal verbs doesn't change the meaning ' wake up Joe ' means that the speaker is waking Joe up. <S> For example: Wake up Joe, it's time! <S> Tony, wake Joe up, it's time! <A> I would suggest the difference is one of emphasis. <S> In the case of "wake up Joe", the implication would be " wake up Joe", rather than, say, put a mouse in his bed. <S> In the other, "wake Joe up", it would mean "wake <S> Joe up", rather than any of the other drunks lying around on the floor. <A> wake + object, omit “up”. <S> I wake Joe. <S> He wakes his friends. <S> Only use wake up when it’s intransitive. <S> I wake up. <S> Joe wakes up. <S> (Now the word ‘wake’ sounds alien to me after typing it several times.)
| On the other hand, ' wake him up ' means that the speaker is asking someone to wake Joe up. It all depends on the verb being used.
|
Correct usage of "parallel" versus "in parallel" versus "parallelly" I wish to know if any of the following sentences are incorrect: Using A and B parallel. Using A and B in parallel. Using A and B parallelly. Now I suspect most people are going to simply recommend that I use "in parallel" since it is the most common. However, this is a question formulated to understand the underlying English theory. Apart from that, I'm mostly interested in using that theory to determine the use of parallelly and whether or not it is correct. Now some research on my end. I've found the use of parallelly in several dictionaries: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) Century Dictionary Along with that, Wiktionary is quite clear on the use of the word. Along with some rules on how to use -ly which do not mention that the use of a word such as parallelly may be incorrect. I don't know how Wiktionary is fact checked, so I have come here instead asking the question to professionals. Being a non-native speaker and having no background in human language apart from high school (computer languages all the way) this question and the following debate interests me greatly. The answer I am looking for probably makes a distinction between variants of English. I'll flag the post which provides the most comprehensive answer as the accepted answer. <Q> It is a question of grammar. <S> You're looking for a word to qualify the way A and B are used, in the construct “to verb A and B qualifier ”. <S> This qualifier has to be an adverb (“a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word-group”). <S> Now, you want to express parallelism. <S> “Parallel” itself is an adjective, as well as a noun and a verb. <S> It is not an adverb, and as such, cannot be used in “using A and B parallel”. <S> The natural adverb that derives from parallel is parallelly ; though it's not exactly very common in general usage, it does exist and is attested in multiple (though not all) dictionaries. <S> So, “using A and B parallelly” works. <S> Regarding in parallel , it so happens that it is a common phrase meaning “occurring at the same time and having some connection”. <S> It may be more commonly used than parallelly, which is why it would feel very natural in your sentence, but both are correct. <A> Your three examples are not sentences, so I will extend them with "They will be ...": <S> "They will be using A and B parallel" <S> is wrong ( <S> unless there is something called "B parallel") as parallel is an adjective or noun but probably needs to be an adverb in this position. <S> The other two are strictly correct as adverbs, though care is needed to avoid using parallelly when an adjective is needed. <S> The much more common phrase in parallel , usually following what it describes, can be used either as a adjectival phrase or as an adverbial phrase. <S> My guess is that in parallel is more popular in part simply because it is less likely to be used wrongly. <A> "Using A and B parallel" is not correct; it should be "using A and B in parallel". "Using A and B parallely" would have the same meaning of "using A and B in parallel".
| "They will be using A and B parallel to each other" looks slightly better.
|
Should a colon be used in this case? X was interested in one of the most important challenges: the lack of reliability in bananas' drawings. I think I read somewhere that, although possible, a colon should be avoided in these situations (in an academic context). How could I rewrite this? <Q> X was interested in one of the most important challenges , namely, the lack of reliability in bananas' drawings <S> You could also use any of these in place of namely : that is, that is to say, to be specific, specifically. <A> Some style books advise against using a colon between two phrases that are not each an independent sentence. <S> The same applies to semicolons. <S> The exception is when what follows begins on a new line or is a true enumeration: then the part before the colon should still be an independent sentence, but what follows is free. <S> I agree that it is somewhat more elegant to stick to this rule in ordinary circumstances. <S> However, I don't think there is consensus about this, and you may very well find style guides that disagree; at any rate, the practice of joining non-independent sentences by a colon will most probably be acceptable to the majority of readers. <A> I think this is very much the right place to use a colon. <S> However, if you weren't comfortable with it, a dash would work well. <S> The dash seems to be becoming a fairly generic use everywhere punctuation mark.
| That is why some recommend that your colon should be replaced with a comma: the lack of reliability in bananas' drawings is not an independent sentence, but rather an apposition, which could easily be attached by a comma.
|
What is the difference between metonymy and synecdoche? What is the difference between metonymy and synecdoche? <Q> In practice, there isn't much difference: you could arguably pick just one of the terms and use it to describe both types of rhetorical substitution. <S> (I like metonymy <S> : it's easier to spell, more spelling checkers know it, and the meaning is more apparent to me: meta+name.) <S> The difference, to the extent that it exists at all, is whether the attribute that is substituting for the whole is part of the whole ( synecdoche ), or merely associated with it ( metonymy ). <S> So "suits" instead of "officials" is metonymy (officials wear suits, but last I checked, the clothing is not permanently attached to their skin), while "hands" for "workmen" is synecdoche. <S> You could also make a case for using metonymy for any example where a smaller part or attribute substitutes for a larger part or attribute, and reserving synecdoche for examples where the larger stands for the smaller, or the container for the contents. <S> Under this interpretation, both "suits" and "hands" could be considered metonyms, and synecdoche would be something like "General Motors announced cutbacks" — it was presumably a spokesperson who issued such a statement on behalf of the CEO or board of directors, since General Motors is not a single entity and does not possess speech capabilities. <A> Maybe now the suits in Washington will listen. <S> [metonymy] <S> I liked to watch the track. <S> [metonymy] <S> Cleveland won by six runs. <S> [synecdoche] <A> The Grammarphobia Blog 's May 7th, 2009 article may assist: “Synecdoche” and “metonymy” <S> are figures of speech in which one thing is used to represent another. <S> In both of these rhetorical figures, the original term and the substitute are closely identified or associated with each other. <S> In this respect, “synecdoche” and “metonymy” are different from “metaphor,” in which the terms are unrelated yet imaginatively similar (as when you call your ’67 Pontiac “a boat”). <S> With, “synecdoche,” a part is used to represent the whole or vice versa. <S> Examples commonly cited are the use of “hand” to mean a sailor and “the cavalry” to mean a single trooper. <S> It’s pronounced sin-EK-duh-kee and <S> [♦] comes from a Greek word meaning “to take with something else.” <S> (“Schenectady,” the ninth-largest city in New York State, is pronounced <S> skuh-NEK-tuh-dee.) <S> With “metonymy,” the substituted word is not a part (or an extension) of the original but something associated with it. <S> Classic examples are “the crown” to represent the monarchy and “the sword” to represent military power. <S> It’s pronounced met-ON-uh-mee and comes from a Greek word meaning “change of name.” <S> Here’s a simple illustration of the difference. <S> A new guy at the office might be described as “a new face” (synecdoche) or as “a new suit” (metonymy). <S> ♦ <S> If my following conjecture of the etymology of 'synecdoche' is false, then please correct me: <S> [Etymonline] [...] <S> from synekdekhesthai "supply a thought or word; take with something else, join in receiving," from syn- "with" (see syn- ) <S> + ek <S> "out" (see ex- ) <S> + dekhesthai "to receive," related to dokein "seem good" (see decent ). <S> [...] <S> dekhesthai combines with syn- <S> to mean: 'receive with'. <S> If interpreted metaphorically beyond "out", then ek means not just 'out', but 'something else' because 'something else' must necessarily be 'out' of the scope of whatever 'something' is. <S> In toto, dekhesthai + syn- <S> + ek <S> = 'receive' + <S> 'with' + 'something else'.
| Metonymy is the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant; synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.
|
Use of "-en" suffix "Woollen" is an Old English word that uses the suffix "-en" to turn a noun into a verb. As I understand it, the use of this suffix died out in Middle English. Do any more modern words use this suffix? Have people mixed and matched, for example taken a Latin word and added on OE suffix? "En-" as a prefix seems to be (Old?) French in origin, so "enlighten" seems to mix it up a bit. <Q> You're quite right. <S> -en <S> as a suffix is of Saxon/German origin. <S> Made of . <S> In German it is may be a bit oldish but still possible to encounter "wollen" as made of wool ("aus Wolle gemacht"), and quite common to hear "golden" (von Gold gemacht). <S> That's for adjectives. <S> Plural . <S> For noon, you would have <S> *-en <S> " as a Saxon plural oxen (German Ochsen) or children (Kindern, old-german and dutch Kinderen), bretheren <S> (German: "Brudern", old G. "Bruderen"). <S> In dialectal english you can still find "Hosen" (German "Hosen" = <S> > <S> kind of trousers) <S> , "Shoon" (G: Shuen), "Housen" (Häusen), "Treen". <S> Diminutive . <S> Vixen <S> also (German Füchsin : <S> little female of the Fuchs/Fox) is of Saxon origin <S> but this time the "-en" is not the mark of plural. <S> en- <S> as a prefix this time, is of Latin origin (via French). <S> in- <S> would be directly Latin (sometimes both forms survive : enquiry-inquiry, incase-encase). <S> Strangely enough it also conveys a meaning of "make" as in "turn into" : enslave, enlarge (élargir) enrich (enrichir), enable, endear, endanger. <S> Some other en- prefixes can be traced back to Greek, enthusiasm, endemic, energy. <S> However, I don't think there has been a lot of inbreeding between latin "en-" prefix and words of saxon origin. <S> And surely no <S> (legitimate) -en suffix to non saxon words. <S> VAX (meaning Virtual Address eXtension because it was an evolution from 16bits VA space to 32bits VA space) can probably not apply to a Saxon origin <S> ;-). <S> Many sources: Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology - 1966 <S> Ed. <A> ( widen , deepen , loosen , <S> strengthen , <S> embolden , enliven ). <S> The prefix is also used to form feminine nouns like vixen , which has origin from the Middle English word fixen . <A> There is only one truly modern word <S> I know that uses the -en ending: Embiggen . <S> Of course this word was made up for the TV show 'The Simpsons', where the motto of the town is: "A noble spirit <S> embiggens the smallest man. <S> " <S> In the show, a newcomer to the town scoffs at the word and the stupidity of the town's natives, but is rebuked with the response, "It's a perfectly cromulent word." <S> It is notable for its consistent implementation of the -en suffix. <S> In the '70s and '80s, it was quite common for computer people to use the -en suffix to pluralize computer nouns, such as VAX or box . <S> These would simply become VAXen or boxen , respectively. <S> This practice borrowed the Germanic -en suffix to denote plurals. <A> The OED gives a few more instances of the -en suffix in this context , such as golden , wooden , earthen . <S> The origin is Germanic / Old Saxon. <S> However, as you pointed out, modern usage of the word is fairly restricted to the few examples quoted.
| The suffix -en is used to form adjectives from nouns ( earthen , woolen , golden ), but also verbs from adjectives or nouns
|
Which is correct: "special thanks go to" or "special thanks goes to"? what is grammatically correct: Special thanks go to Tom... Special thanks goes to Tom... IMHO I'd say thanks is one of those plural nouns which implies it requires go but I'm not sure. It's for the acknowledgements section of my thesis; it should be formal English. <Q> While neither version sounds incorrect, I would agree that "go" sounds better when no article is used: "special thanks go to Tom." <S> If an indefinite article were used, "goes" would be correct: "a special 'thanks' goes to Tom." <A> I recommend sidestepping the issue by avoiding the "go" entirely: Special thanks to Tom ... With special thanks to Tom ... <S> I'd like to give special thanks to Tom ... <A> The phrase I would expect is thanks go to , but looking at the Corpus of Contemporary American , I notice that thanks goes is also used. <A> Actually, either of those examples could be considered grammatical, and neither sounds wrong to my ear. <S> If in doubt, just use thanks go and don't worry about it. <S> However, because thanks is so often used as a fixed expression, more and more people treat it as grammatically singular despite its plural form. <S> For that reason, it's not uncommon to hear thanks goes , and this usage sounds natural to me. <S> Interestingly Google shows 1.9 million results for "thanks go" and 3.5 million results for "thanks goes" , suggesting that the latter is actually more common. <S> (But the first result for each page is actually a link to this very question in a different forum.) <S> Salt this result liberally with the standard caveats about Google result counts being inaccurate, though. <A> "A special thank you goes to..." "Special thanks go to..." <S> "Thanks" is plural. <S> "Special thanks goes to" sounds plain wrong to me. <S> Perhaps it's because I'm Australian.
| Formally speaking, it should be thanks go , since thanks is a plural noun.
|
What is the origin and meaning of "coyote ugly"? I overheard two scoundrels discussing one of their dates as being "coyote ugly". <Q> This comes from the term "coyote date," in which an inebriated person awakens the following morning with a person of the opposite sex in bed. <S> The protagonist's arm is pinned beneath the ugly person's body. <S> You can do the math from here. <A> Other than the popularization of the term from the movie of the same name, I believe it derives from the behavior of coyotes, which (among other canines), when caught in a trap will gnaw off a leg in order to escape death. <S> It describes a person (usually a woman) who is so undesirable that her partner (usually a guy) is willing to gnaw off the limb she is sleeping on in order to escape rather than waking her. <S> The guy will usually find himself in this situation when, after a night of heavy drinking, he wakes up the next morning in the bed of a woman he does not remember meeting and has no desire of getting to know better. <A> Along with the correct explanations of 'Coyote Ugly', as already provided by The Raven and morganpdx , the whole picture is not complete without giving the three rating levels of the unfortunate date: <S> 'One-bagger', 'Two-bagger', and 'Coyote Ugly'. <S> One-bagger describes someone so uncomely that they are made to wear a bag over their head so that you don't have to look at their face while copulating. <S> Two-bagger describes a person who is so much more distasteful that not only do you require them to wear a bag over their head, but you don one yourself in case the bag over their head falls off. <S> Coyote Ugly, the worst of the three levels, has already been explained.
| Allegedly, a coyote, when caught in a steel-jawed trap, will gnaw off its own leg to escape.
|
Is it 'Close to the chest' or 'Close to the vest'? Apologies if this is a duplicate, I am just curious.Are they both valid? Which originated first? <Q> Either one is fine. <S> Close to the vest has a more British feel to me, but I've heard both in the U.S. <S> EDIT <S> OK, since this apparently bothers someone, I did some research and it appears that the "vest" usage is more American. <S> Note that my original statement of "British feel" was admittedly idiosyncratic. <S> Note also that either one is still fine, despite any individual's peevish disapproval. <S> Here are some NGram searches and their results: British English: <S> American English: <S> Combined British/American: <S> Apparently the "vest" version came into British English in the late 1950s, but didn't gain widespread acceptance until the 1990s. <S> Currently it looks poised to gain equivalence with the "chest" version, although such things are hard to predict. <S> Disclaimer <S> I am not a fan of Google NGrams, because they can be used without regard for proper statistical practices. <S> It can be hard to "clean" queries enough to be useful. <S> The phrase "close to the chest" may, in fact, be over-represented here due to medical and other bodily associations, so I would expect some blue-line inflation in the above graphs. <S> Similarly, "close to the vest" almost certainly appears in some references to garment making and wearing. <S> Those things aside, I believe the "close to the chest/vest" idiom undoubtedly furnishes the majority of usage instances in each case. <A> I have always heard/used "close to the vest", but apparently both are indeed common. <S> The Corpus of Contemporary American English gives 89 hits for "close to (...) vest" and 36 for "close to (...) chest" when used synonymously. <S> (There's 123 hits overall for chest, but the majority are for "she held the baby close to her chest" and other similar literal uses.) <S> Dictionary.com lists the origin of the phrase as mid-1900's (card-playing-based) slang, but RandomHouse's Word Maven lists uses from as far back as 1922. <A> another Englishman here - one who has been obsessively reading novels for a bit less than 60 years. " <S> Close to his vest" is certainly not GB English. <S> The first-ever time I came across "vest" was when I recently started grappling with David Baldacci's contemporary prose. <S> It seems to be a 'word-jerk' (like knees but with words) with him and all sorts of characters quip this expression out, telling me more about the author than about the character in the book. <S> Transferring this across the Atlantic and allowing for transliteration it's natural to suppose that as vest = <S> waistcoat then holding your cards close to your waistcoat (as already suggested) would have led to a natural morphing of the expression. <A> "Close to the chest" or "close to the heart" would certainly be in line with the Mideval notion of the "Book of the Heart" that contains all a person's experiences, good points and sins and which is secret, only to be read on Judgment Day. <A> "Close to the vest" is the original phrase and originated from poker players keeping their cards low on the table and close to their vests. <S> I'm looking for a source to back this up <S> so you don't have to take my word for it, but you'll note that this is also a very American origin, as poker was invented in America around 1864 ( <S> stud poker – with earlier precedents in a game played in New Orleans). <A> The fact that Americans intuitively understand what the phrase means when "vest" is used and the British seem to only guess what it means, does support the idea that it comes from American card players. <S> It was spoken by an American born around 1930. <S> He'd been in marketing and had a super vocabulary. <S> He explained that keeping it close to your chest came from... drum roll American card players, whose advice to keep your cards close to your vest was applied to other situations where not giving your hand away was good advice. <A> As an American, my understanding of the phrase is indeed related to poker, and holding your cards so they can't easily be seen. <S> It's used to describe a situation where a person isn't talking much about their methodology or their plans. <S> "How's he planning to do it?" <S> "I don't know, he's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest." <A> http://esnpc.blogspot.com/2014/05/close-to-vest-and-pulitzer-prize.html?m=0 <S> The original idiom is, "to play one's cards close to the vest buttons," but that version only appeared in print a few times. <S> The buttons were quickly dropped. <S> The version with 'chest' appeared a few years later. <S> The problem with the ngram search is that the searcher omitted the word 'cards' at the beginning. <S> When researching my blog post, I encountered many, literal, non-idiomatic "close to the chest"s before the card/vest idiom was coined, but no earlier idiomatic use with cards. <S> The earlier literal use included golf and gymnastics manuals, as well as anatomy texts, and numerous examples where hands or something were literally held close to the chest.
| In every context I've ever come across it means 'secretive' - the analogy being card players who hold their cards close to their body to prevent being them being overlooked. I first heard the expression, using "vest," a few years back.
|
Is "coachee" even a word? If I am Rita's coach, is Rita my *coachee? (yikes) Is that even a word?Would it be correct instead to say she is my ward? What about terms for people at the other end of a mentor, sponsor relationship? <Q> Coachee is indeed a valid word, but often not widely used. <S> I would suggest pupil or trainee instead. <A> You need to qualify the terms to find suitable counterparts. <S> If you are Rita's coach (sports) then Rita might be a member of your team . <S> If you are Rita's mentor <S> then Rita might be your trainee (in education) or disciple (spiritual). <S> Update: <S> @Malvolio suggests protégé, which I think is the best answer so far. <A> Alternately, you could use student . <A> 'Protégé' is the word you are looking for. <A> In a sports context, Rita is your athlete . <S> The possessive should make it clear enough what the relationship is. <A> When the word "coach" is used to mean "guide" (as in a business environment), the person being guided is a "follower," but the follower is really an employee. <S> So, as someone who is always willing to push the envelope with language, I propose a new word for the employee who is being coached/guided: emplayee. <S> Now I know this will not catch on, but I just had a little bit of fun. <S> Think about it: when you are an emplOyee, you are going round and round in that "O" doing your job and maybe spinning it a little off-track every now and then. <S> When you are an emplAyee, you are on your way to a lesson from your boss/manager/coach and you want to get an A, <S> like you used to do in school in the classes you loved. <S> Thank you!
| Coachee indeed is a valid word. If you are Rita's guardian (parental) then Rita might be your ward .
|
"I have never said" versus "I never said" I have never said this. I never said this. Is the usage of have in the first sentence justified or grammatically correct? What is the difference in meaning? When should I use one form over the other? <Q> You might say this in response to an accusation that's shocking to some degree: "You told some of my friends that you hated me!", "No, you're wrong, I have never said that ". <S> "I never said this" is in the simple past and implies that in one particular instance that is understood by the context you did not say what you're being accused of saying. <S> "Did you tell Dale that you were going to wait for me on Tuesday?", "No, I never said that". <S> Note that in both constructions, it's probably more usual to use the demonstrative adjective "that" rather than "this" <S> -- why? <S> Because it seems to me that these phrases would most likely get used in response to a particular point by someone else said previously, and so you want to refer to that particular point. <S> If someone had a written phrase on paper, pushed it across the table to you, and then said "we believe that you made this statement", then you might look at it and say "No, I never said this" where "this" indicates "what's written on this paper". <A> Sentence 1, while not strictly incorrect, sounds strange because it's normally the way you'd say that you have no experience with something. <S> "I have never gone fishing," for example, is the only way you can say it as " <S> I never go fishing <S> " doesn't mean you have <S> never once gone fishing but rather that it's extremely rare that you go fishing. <A> Your first example sounds a little odd. <S> You are referring to one specific instance, so it would be more natural to say "I never said this. <S> " If you were referring to a number of cases, it would be natural to say "I have never said anything like this," or "I have never said anything of the sort." <A> The first sentence ('I have never said this') is a little unusual, but might be said to have the connotation "but I might say it at some time in the future". <S> The second ('I never said this') is more usual and doesn't admit that possibility <S> (though it doesn't deny it either -- that would require 'I would never say this'). <A> Yes. <S> Consider that: I have said this. <S> I said this. <S> are both perfectly valid sentences. <S> The first is in the perfect tense, the second in the simple past. <S> Adding never doesn't change the validity of the tense forms. <S> As others have pointed out, choosing the perfect tense is a little unusual and has some connotations you might not want. <A> In my opinion about I have said and I said it's about the situation when we say it. <S> For the first is present perfect, the tenses means that you have done/haven't done something, but it is possible to do again. <S> And for the second option is a simple past. <S> Based on the meaning of past is something that we did, already happened and there's no impact which the first option has the impact.
| "I have never said this" is in the present perfect tense and implies that at no time in the past have you ever made the utterance that "this" refers to.
|
How/From where did the term "paradigm shift" originate? Paradigm Shift + Thinking outside of the box = Death of a Salesman <Q> This term became current with Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962): if you Google "paradigm shift was first used" , all results confirm that it was first used in that work. <S> He described the same concept in his earlier work The Copernican Revolution (1957), but apparently he didn't use the term paradigm shift there. <S> It may have existed before Kuhn, but all sources seem to suggest that it did not. <A> See below what Google ngrams finds. <S> The roughness near the turn of the century seems to be the result of a bug or incorrect data, though. <A> Yes, Kuhn's writings first mention the idea of paradigm shifts. <S> Somewhere in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions <S> he thanks one of his colleagues at UCal Berkley for introducing him to Wittgenstein. <S> He also talks explicitly about Wittgenstein in the beginning of the book--that is, later Wittgenstein. <S> It is clear that Wittgenstein's On Certainty is going in the direction of paradigm shifts--i.e. assumptions that are treated as facts. <S> But I'd also check out Koyré's From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe --I'm <S> pretty sure Kuhn mentions Koyré in the preface to SSR. <S> --Hope <S> this helps. <S> I'd definitely recommend reading some of these books esp. <S> later Wittgenstein. <A> "Paradigm" is a Latin transliteration of the Greek "παράδειγμα", which in current Greek means example, but, in ancient and pre-modern Greek can also mean "general template" or "framework". <S> Plato used the word "παράδειγμα" among many other words, including "ιδέα" (idea) and "μορφή" (form) to describe his General Theory Of The Forms, which used to be called General Theory Of Ideas in past usage of English. <S> It makes perfect sense for Thomas Samuel Kuhn, a scholar and thinker very much at home in physics as well as Greek philosophy, to have picked up "παράδειγμα" from Plato.
| Although the term paradigm shift wasn't used before Kuhn, the general idea isn't new (I'm thinking of Hume, Kant to an extent, even Protagoras--at least as presented in Plato's Theaetetus ).
|
How should wireless technology names be hyphenated and capitalized? How should wireless technology names be hyphenated and capitalized? "a wireless g network"? "a wireless-g network"? "a wireless-G network"? "a wireless G network"? none of the above? Does a formal rule even exist for this? <Q> There's no "formal rule" for how to refer to any sort of technology other than to defer to however it was named by its creators. <S> The standard you're referring to is officially known as 802.11g and is defined by the IEEE. <S> Doing a search across their site, it appears that they use multiple variations, however: <S> The G is almost always capitalized <S> The hyphen is normally included <S> Edit: <S> Here 's a link showing IEEE using the Wireless-G format (see near the bottom of the article for an example that's not in the title) <A> What matters is that some of these terms are trademarked, and so, must be written in the way the trademark holders require. <S> Some examples: <S> Wi <S> -Fi ® - owned by the <S> Wi-Fi Alliance <S> Bluetooth ® - owned by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group <S> WiMAX ™ - owned by the WiMAX Forum <S> Wi <S> -Fi <S> Protected Access ® - owned by the Wi-Fi Alliance; also known as WPA <S> ZigBee ® - owned by the ZigBee Alliance AirPort <S> ® - owned by <S> Apple Inc. IPoAC - an IETF ® RFC <A> What you call a “g network” is a shortcut for an “802.11g network”. <S> “Wireless” should not be capitalized, because it's a standard adjective in English, so the normal name would be: wireless 802.11g network or simply IEEE <S> 802.11g network because “wireless” is implied by the IEEE 802.11 standards. <S> Now, if you want to drop the 802.11 from the name, logic would dictate to keep the g lowercase (and there's still no reason to hyphenate): wireless g network <S> Of course, if you feel this is not very readable, you can favour readability over logic, and go for: <S> wireless G network because the G stands out more if capitalised. <S> I see no reason to add hyphens to that, however. <S> Regarding my personal preferences, I would not omit the 802.11 in writing, so I'd keep “wireless 802.11g network”. <S> Orally, I would drop the 802.11, but then capitalisation is not a question anymore!
| The W is usually capitalized So in general, I would recommend a Wireless-G network.
|
What are differences between an "opposite" and "antonym" to a word? What are the differences between an "opposite" and "antonym"? <Q> For all practical purposes, the two are equivalent when used to describe words <S> *. <S> Etymologically, "opposite" came to us from Latin, via French, while "antonym" came from Greek, also via French. <S> Latin: oppositus , or "set against" Greek: <S> ant- <S> + onuma , or "against a name" <S> *as mentioned in my comment below, if the context is not limited to the description of words, then an antonym is a very specific type of opposite -- an opposite of another word. <A> As of now Wikipedia is considering both the same. <S> That is, if you search there for Antonym <S> you will reach at a page titled Opposite(Semantics) <S> But then again, at the top of the article, Wikipedia notes that This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. <S> See the talk page for details. <S> WikiProject Linguistics or the Linguistics Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. <S> (November 2008) <S> And if you go to the talk page, you will get plenty of reasons why Antonym should never have been moved to Opposite (semantics) And that article argues that Antonym is different from Opposite with very valid points. <S> A good excerpt will be " <S> Antonym" is very much a definitive linguistic term unlike the imprecise "Opposite" which is not saved by the pretentious "(semantics)" tag. <S> "Opposite" can be anything, "antonym" can be only one thing. <A> North is the opposite, but not the antonym, of south. <S> Antonym means word with opposite meaning ". <S> Opposite and antonym are not synonymous. <A> In what context? <S> Opposing is to be against something. <S> The anti-thesis, an enemy of something. <S> Rust is opposite of steel.
| Antonym is just a word that is opposite of another.
|
Why use 'step down' instead of 'resign'? Is there any difference? Ozzie announced his plans to step down from his role at Microsoft on October 18, 2010 <Q> Compared to "resign", "step down" has a connotation of an amicable parting with the possibility of a continuing relationship. <S> The word "resign" is often used when employee parts employer over some disagreement or other negative cause. <S> If I recall correctly, Bill Gates' active role at Microsoft changed several times without him severing all activity at the company. <S> Saying he resigned might not give an accurate impression unless carefully qualified by the particular role he was relinquishing. <S> Bill Gates stepped down as chief executive officer of Microsoft in January 2000. <S> He remained as chairman and created the position of chief software architect. <S> In June 2006, Gates announced that he would be transitioning from full-time work at Microsoft to part-time work. <S> Wikipedia <A> Step down is just a euphemism for resign . <S> It could indicate, as Tragicomic said, that the position being left was one of importance, but that need not be the case to make use of the euphemism. <A> Ray Ozzie held the position of chief software architect at Microsoft. <A> To resign is to "quit. <S> " To step down is to "climb down" from a high position. <S> It is possible to "step down all the way," as Ray Ozzie did at Microsoft. <S> In this regard, the two are synonymous. <S> On the other hand, Bill Gates initially "stepped down" from CEO to Chief Software Officer, thereby taking a lesser post, without actually quitting or "resigning." <S> (He finally fully "resigned" several years later.) <S> It's also possible to resign as janitor or low level person without "stepping down," because there is no lower level to step down to.
| While both step down and resign mean the same thing, step down is used as a phrasal verb to speak of someone resigning from an important position.
|
What's the name of this kind of act? What's the name of this kind of act? It is commonly seen between friends. (I mean the act between two people, not necessarily 4 people like this one.) Or can you describe it with a few words? <Q> For example:Mike put his arm around Tracey's shoulder while they were watching the football game. <A> It would not be an "act". <S> "Act" implies a performance of some kind, like in front of an audience. <S> "Action" would be all right. <S> Though it generally implies movements during speech, it can also simply mean "posture" but carries a social connotation, too. <S> A person can have a particular posture while alone, but a gesture would require at least one other person to observe it or to be the recipient of it for it to have meaning. <S> Example: He put his arm around my shoulder as a reassuring gesture. <A> A more succinct phrase would be shoulder embrace .
| This is normally described rather literally as "putting an arm around someone's shoulder". "Gesture" would be a good choice.
|
What's the difference between these sentences? He walked out, Rachel's words indelibly etched into his memory. vs He walked out, Rachel's words being indelibly etched into his memory. <Q> Not to put too fine a point on it, but they're both rather awkward. <S> I'd recast them this way: He walked out, leaving his books on the table. <S> EDIT <S> Given your new information, I think you are introducing unnecessary ambiguity with the two meanings of left . <S> It's not clear who is doing the leaving of books, or if nobody is, as left can be used with or without an object. <S> After your edits I would recast the sentence a different way: He walked out; Rachel's books remained on the table. <S> or He walked out; Rachel's books stayed on the table. <A> They are still awkward after your edit, and Robusto's adjustment would be to <S> He walked out, leaving Rachel's books on the table. <S> Other possibilities include <S> He walked out; Rachel's books were left on the table. <S> or perhaps He walked out, with Rachel's books (being) left on the table. <A> Suppose we pick some slightly less awkward examples: <S> He walked out, Rachel's words indelibly etched into his memory. <S> vs. <S> He walked out, Rachel's words being indelibly etched into his memory. <S> Still awkward, but I think both are grammatical. <S> Grammatically, I can't tell you anything certain, as my copy of CGEL is in my other pants. <S> So I will speculate. <S> In both sentences, everything after the comma is a dependent clause that's a variation of “Rachel's words were indelibly etched into his memory”. <S> The first sentence is similar to “He walked out, his face red ” or “ his grey eyes flashing ” or “ the spell broken at last ” or “ the severed limbs of his enemies scattered behind him ”. <S> This sort of dependent clause is definitely grammatical, but I don't know what it's called. <S> The second sentence is just a slightly different variation of the same clause, but again, I don't know what kind. <S> The first sentence only says that he walked out with Rachel's words etched into his memory. <S> The second suggests that he walked out because her words were etched into his memory. <S> Update – Yep, they're clauses. <S> Here, according to CGEL , they're being used as supplements. <S> That means they're not grammatically required or tightly grammatically integrated into the sentence like a subject or object. <S> They're tacked on at the end. <S> Example 1 contains a verbless clause. <S> A plain old subject + predicate clause with no verb can be the object of the preposition with (“His pants (were) around his ankles” <S> → “He was caught with his pants around his ankles .”) <S> or, sometimes, a supplement (“He stormed out, his pants around his ankles .”) <S> Example 2 contains an -ing clause ( <S> what CGEL calls a gerund-participial clause). <S> These are most often used in places where noun phrases could be used (“ His death was not part of the plan” <S> → “ John being dead was not part of the plan.”), and the subject of the -ing clause is usually omitted (“ Being dead was not part of the plan.”), so your example is unusual. <S> Still grammatical, though. <A> Why make it so complicated? <S> Write: <S> He left Rachel's books on the table and walked out. <A> Both examples are absolute constructions . <S> They are perfectly correct, but in most cases rather literary and old fashioned. <S> I think Jason's explanation of what difference <S> being makes is right, though I find it hard to explain why being makes a difference here. <S> The absolute construction is like a regular, attributive participial phrase, except that the agent/subject of the participle is not a noun or pronoun from the main clause but is itself a part of the construction: <S> Provided that she receive no visitors , she will be allowed to stay at home. <S> (absolute construction with past participle) Her mother dead , there was nothing keeping her here. <S> (w. adjective) <S> Her father dying , she felt she could not leave the island. <S> (w. present participle) <S> In attributive phrases , the participle or adjective is an attribute to a head noun or pronoun outside the participial phrase ( attribute in bold, head in italics): <S> Roughly measured , the height of the table seemed about right. <S> Hit hard by the earthquake , Japan will need time to mourn its dead. <S> Still wet behind the ears , <S> he assumed she would indeed show him around her bedroom. <S> Giving her the ring , he spoke: et nunc moriere! <S> Both attributive participial phrases and absolute constructions can be anywhere within a sentence: <S> There was nothing she could do, her husband being such a jerk . <S> (abs.) <S> The King, his crown (having been) destroyed by the assassin , had lost his last shred of dignity. <S> (abs.) <S> Nurse Ursula , suffering from a terrible disease , still managed to cure all patients with her magic touch. <S> (attributive) <S> Nurse Ursula cured all patients suffering from pneumonia with her magic touch. <S> (attributive) <S> Usually the head of an attributive participle is the subject of the main clause; but not always, as you can see in my second Nurse Ursula sentence. <A> The second sentence is a participial phrase, but the subject of the first clause is different from the subject of the second clause (which seems to me what my grammar book describes as dangling participial ). <S> Taking the ferry across the harbor, the Statue of Liberty came into view. <S> [dangling participial] Taking the ferry across the harbor <S> , I saw the Statue of Liberty come into view. <S> The correct sentence is the one already reported by others. <S> He walked out, leaving Rachel's books on the table. <S> He walked out, forgetting Rachel's books on the table. <S> The first sentence is similar to a comma splice. <S> To correct it, you could write it as one of the following sentences. <S> He walked out; Rachel's books were left on the table. <S> He walked out; Rachel's books were forgot on the table.
| Semantically, there is just a slight difference.
|
Can "deprived of" be used in this way? I looked up the synonym dictionary, and it told me that "deprived of" can be the alternative of "without". So I'm wondering if this usage is right: Deprived of his partner, he couldn't win by himself. Life would be miserable deprived of you. He would never be able to speak deprived of this technology being discovered. <Q> Deprived of his partner, he couldn't win by himself. <S> - fine Life would be miserable deprived of you. <S> - without is much better <S> He would never be able to speak deprived of this technology being discovered. <S> He would never be able to speak, had this technology never been discovered <A> For example: Deprived of his partner, he couldn't win by himself. <S> This is a correct usage. <S> It implies that he originally had a partner, but lost him and can no longer win. <S> The latter two examples do not work so well. <S> When someone says "Life would be miserable without you," they could be implying that life would be miserable if you left, or if they had never met you. <S> "Life would be miserable deprived of you" only means that life would be miserable if you left, and sounds somewhat foreign as well. <A> The examples given work better with "without" than "deprived". <S> Without his partner, he couldn't winon his effort alone. <S> Life would be miserable without you. <S> He would never be able to speakwithout this technology. <S> (Note: for the 3rd example, it is the technology [perhaps a voice prosthesis after a laryngectomy?] <S> that allows the person to speak, not the act of discovery of the technology) "Deprive" means to take something away from. <S> Also, it is commonly used to refer to the removal of a basic or essential need. <S> Hence, it is often used in the following context: <S> Deprived of sleep, he was unable toperform well at work. <S> The dictator imposed unreasonablerestrictions on his politicalopponents, and deprived them of the rightof free speech as well. <S> Deprived of food, the child was unableto reach his full growth potential. <S> "Without" is usually more generic in its usage, it may not always refer to the removal of a basic/ essential need: <S> Without the fitness he once had, hewas unable to complete the marathon. <S> He got wet because he was caught inthe rain without an umbrella.
| "Deprived of" generally implies that something has been taken away, whereas "without" can simply mean that something was missing in the first place.
|
Is "actioned" a valid word? I've just, without much fore thought, used the word "actioned" in the following (example) context, and am now wondering if it's valid (upon a re-read I've decided I don't like the way it sounds, hence the question). 1000 emails needed some kind of action, 800 of which were actioned by the team while the remaining 200 were escalated. I can think of (what I feel is) a better word to replace "actioned" in this case - either "processed" and "completed" should do it - and my spell checker doesn't like "actioned", so I'm wondering if the word is valid? If it is, is my above example a valid usage? <Q> This use of "action" as a verb is very common in business contexts, so it's very hard to argue it's invalid , but as both your reaction and Robusto's indicate, many people find it awkward, jarring or just plain ugly; for this reason you may wish to avoid using it <S> (although in an internal report in the sort of company where people talk like that, it would be entirely appropriate to do so...). <S> Other possible replacements: taken care of dealt with carried out acted on performed processed <A> English has a long history of turning nouns into verbs, but this one feels just awkward. <S> I'd suggest "acted on" instead of "actioned" here, or some other word or construction. <S> You could say something like: <S> 1,000 emails needed some kind of action, 800 of which were tackled by the team while the remaining 200 were escalated. <S> Tackle in this case means to make determined efforts to deal with (a problem or difficult task) : <S> police have launched an initiative to tackle rising crime. <S> Speaking of that, you could use "dealt with" in place of "actioned" there as well. <A> Since escalating a problem is also an action, I'd hunt fora word or phrase that describes what the team did with or aboutthose messages that were NOT escalated. <S> In the absence of a betterchoice, I'd use "resolved", or "handled". <A> I would guess that "action" as a verb is a back-formation from " actionable ", which is a word a long history. <S> The formation would arise from this perfectly reasonable thought: if something is "actionable", that means you must be able to "action" it, right? <S> However, action as a verb is not listed in any of the major published dictionaries I looked in, nor are there any examples of actioned in the Corpus of Contemporary American English . <S> Interestingly, in the Google ngram for 'actioned' , there was a large surge of usage in the mid-19th century that dropped to a trickle until a new surge starting in the early 1980s. <S> Most of the 19th-century examples seem to be related to horses ("Before dismissing the horse stock, we must not omit to notice a fine- actioned grey colt, bred by Lord Hastings") and guns ("Patent double- actioned high-pressure sky-blue revolvers"). <A> Business jargon is often awkward in everyday speech. <S> This is certainly a prime example. <S> The best commonplace verb to replace actioned in this sense would probably be the good ol' utilitarian handled . <S> It may not sound as exciting as tackled , but it's simply the fact rather than the embellishment. <S> I also wouldn't recommend processed , although at first glance that seems a good substitute, because processed could simply mean filed or otherwise not really handled. <S> One can process a form without taking a single action requested on the form. <A> To action is also legal term - if you actioned someone, you took them to court <S> But I did find actioned here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/actioned to put into effect; take action concerning matters decided at the meeting cannot be actioned until the following week <A> I believe that this term might be a North American term, hence why it seems to be rejected by my spell checker. <S> I have used this term on one or two occasions, but I might have heard it used in some U.S programs over the years. <A> The difficulty with answering this question is that there are two different strands to it. <S> Actionable is a word with a respectable history, in both British and American English: unfortunately, in this sense it is a technical legal term, meaning "an action at law will lie". <S> This is not the same as illegal , but is similar to tortious ; e.g. "Firing people because of their age is actionable". <S> [IANAL] <S> There is another sense, 'able to be acted upon'. <S> This is much more American than British, but is in the OED with citations from 1913 (as opposed to 1601 for the legal sense). <S> It is not much used formally because of the potential for confusion, but certainly can be taken as a basis for the back-formation of 'to action'. <S> The word is, however, ugly and probably redundant: <S> I have never seen a use that could not be better handled by act ; "800 of them were acted on by the team." <S> So you can reasonably defend yourself if accused of employing a non-existent word, but in practice it's probably better to find an alternative. <A> Consider the following sentences. <S> 1000 emails needed action , 800 of which got action from the team. . <S> 1000 emails needed processing , 800 of which were processed by the team. . <S> 1000 emails needed tackling , 800 of which were tackled by the team. . <S> 1000 emails needed completion , 800 of which were completed by the team. <S> I hope you see the pattern here <S> , actioned would be said in the following case: <S> 1000 emails needed actioning , 800 of which were actioned by the team. <S> that either proves actioned is not a valid word or raises another question, is actioning a valid word?
| I don't think actioned should be considered as a valid word, atleast that's my conclusion from the example you gave us.
|
To gain insight into or on? Should I write: To gain insight on this obstacle, she will begin to analyse . . . or To gain insight into this obstacle, she will begin to analyse . . . Google shows (much) more results for "into" than for "on". <Q> Into is correct here. <S> All of the Google results I see for insight of have it as part of a larger phrase, such as: <S> What is your biggest insight (into whatever) of this year? <A> "Insight on" 4M5 hits in google"Insight in" 1.5M"Insight to" 3M"Insight for", 2M hits but is mainly used by a web site called "insight" "insight into" 24M hits, so significantly more. <S> It is true that linguists consider other words than "into" as "wrong'. <S> If linguists consider it as an important fact, they should publish clear lists what it should be for all these cases. <S> However, none of the other words results in a misunderstanding of the meaning. <S> If one considers the language as a communication means, there is no problem with none of them. <S> One gets to the more fundamental problem if a language is rather a communication means, or an assembly of written and non written rules. <S> The same problem arises with:I like to get insight on/in/into that matter. <A> <A> I would use "insight into ", As a minor point, I feel that using insight with obstacle is like a mixed metaphor because, in order to climb over an obstacle I don't usually need to look inside it. <S> I would prefer to pair some other word such as understanding with obstacle ".
| Into is the correct preposition to use, but I think about can work also: “during his study, he gained a lot of insight about the inner workings of the administration”. I don't think there's any other preposition that works, except perhaps to , though that's much less common.
|
Is "more mainstream" a valid thing to write? I'm writing a report talking about how a certain technique in my field has become 'more mainstream', but that phrase looks rather wrong. Is it a valid thing to say? Can something become "more mainstream" or are things either mainstream, or not? If it isn't a valid thing to say, how else should I phrase it? <Q> The imagery that "mainstream" brings to mind is that of a river with a gradation of currents - the main/fastest one in the middle, and then slowing down as you move toward either side. <S> The closer you are to the middle, the more you're in the main stream. <S> The point is that whether something is mainstream is not a binary (either/or) question. <S> Thus, it is entirely correct to use modifiers like more and less with mainstream . <S> (Personally, I find nothing wrong with "more perfect" or "most unique" or "very pregnant", all of which I've seen denounced as redundant and/or contradictory.) <A> Yes, it’s perfectly acceptable ! <S> …and widely used by good writers, in professionally edited contexts. <S> Searching the NYT , for instance, gives 18 hits for ‘more mainstream’ in the last month alone: <S> Writing for a more mainstream publication with a larger circulation might have given Mr. Barrett's work more exposure… — New York Times, 25 Feb 2011 Digressing a little: despite the ‘principled’ arguments some make against “more perfect”, “more unique”, etc., <S> all of these can make perfect sense in the right contexts. <S> Very few qualities (if any) are so absolute that there aren’t situations where it makes sense to talk about things possessing more or less of them. <S> I defy anyone to read the beginning of the US constitution, <S> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, … and argue that it’s bad writing! <A> Other choices might include: technique X has become mainstream. <S> technique <S> X has become close to mainstream. <S> technique <S> X is now widely used/accepted.
| Though perhaps not strictly correct, "more mainstream" is more acceptable than, for example, "more perfect".
|
Meaning of 'confer upon' The only objects which can constitute [the space-time framework essential to interpersonal communication] are those which confer upon it their own fundamental characteristics. <Q> The construction X confers <S> Y <S> upon Z means that X causes object or person Z to have attribute Y. <S> So your example sentence means that objects cause "the space-time framework essential to interpersonal communication" to share in "their own fundamental characteristics". <A> "To exchange one's opinion, thoughts, views etc." or "to give or grant a thought of yours to others". <A> Confer means "to grant or bestow a title, degree, benefit, or right"; upon is a preposition that has the same meaning of on , but it is more formal. <S> Moves were made to confer an honorary degree on her. <S> [Reference: the New Oxford American Dictionary , third edition.]
| You can also use it to mean "to give a characteristic, feature, or quality".
|
Why do we say "last night" and not "yesterday night"? As from object, is there a rational reason for saying "last night" rather than "yesterday night", though you would say "yesterday morning" and "yesterday afternoon"? <Q> Night is the time that spans over the change of days. <S> I can refer to events that happened after midnight - indeed last night, but not yesterday. <S> Thus, "yesterday night" would lead to ambiguity. <A> Here's one possible explanation. <S> Many years ago (before Shakespeare), people didn't either say yesterday night or last night because they said yesternight instead. <S> Shakespeare uses both last night and yesternight . <S> When yesternight was still in use, yesterday night would have sounded strange, even though last night wouldn't. <S> And when yesternight went out of use completely, last night was already too firmly established for yesterday night to be used. <A> [Edited:] You couldn't say last morning in most cases, because you might be referring to this morning <S> if the hour of speaking is late (today's morning is the "last" morning then): it would be confusing if last morning could be either today or yesterday. <S> The same applies to the afternoon. <S> But you can't go later than "night": the last night that has passed (you would not use "last" for a period that is not over yet) is necessarily that of the day before today. <S> This could be the reason why we use "last" only with "night". <S> But there might be some entirely different historical reason instead; it is impossible to say without textual research. <S> We could theoretically use yesterday night as an alternative to last night ; but it would be longer, which might be why it is never used. <S> Or it could be some other reason. <A> "Yesterday night" is standard usage in British English. <S> Example from BBC News: <S> BONFIRE NIGHT DEMO 0820: <S> Eleven people have been arrested after scuffles broke out after protests by the Anonymous movement at Buckingham Palace and Parliament yesterday night. <S> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24831851 <S> From The Guardian: <S> City officials had been told the storm could make landfall yesterday night and in preparation the Texas National Guard called 600 troops to active duty yesterday morning. <S> http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/aug/23/2 <A> “Yesterday night” is less common than “last night”, but it does occur. <S> The Oxford English dictionary has a quotation from 1654–5: in C. H. Firth Clarke Papers (1899) III. <S> 26, “Yesterday night came letters from Collonell (sic) Hacker”. <A> Morning, afternoon and evening are the different phases or <S> 'time frames' of the day , <S> so <S> yesterday morning , yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening are quite but natural. <S> However, when night arrives, the day is gone or when the day is gone, we call it night . <S> Hence, YESTERDAY NIGHT is not logical. <S> This is my reason, but I may be wrong. :)
| It means "the evening of yesterday".
|
Signs in states which say "Only Trash Litters" In many states I can see signs posted which state"Only Trash Litters" which I certainly have no problem understandingand which appear to be correct usage to me. "Trash" can be singular or plural soI have no problem about this. If the s is dropped on "litters" would both be correct? Or is one use correct? <Q> "Trash" in this instance, besides being a play on words, in one of its meanings may be construed as a collective noun. <S> Collective nouns may use singular or plural verbs. <S> Without the use of the singular here, the double meaning wouldn't work. <S> It would be reduced to a single-entendre. <A> As others have stated, most people have no problem whatsoever understanding that a sign that reads "Only trash litters" is correct and refers to a person that would litter is trash or trashy. <S> Litters is the singular form to use. <S> The gist is easy. <A> If it were plural then "Only they litters" wouldn't be. <S> Presumably anybody who cared about this level of grammatical detail wouldn't litter <S> so it's not really a problem.
| If trash were singular then "Only trash litters" would be "Only he/she litters" which is correct.
|
Is it correct to say "I feel painful" to mean "I feel pain"? Is it correct to say "I feel painful" to mean "I feel pain"? Please note that I mean only those cases, in which the phrase is a complete sentence. There should be no words after the last word in each quote (like in "I feel painful pulses in my head", "I feel painful burning sensations in my stomach", etc.) If it's correct, what is the slight difference in meaning there? <Q> No, it is not correct English to say "I feel painful." <S> so you would need to use it qualify something else <S> (as in your "I feel painful sensations" example). <A> If you feel pain you hurt . <S> When, say, getting over a case of the flu one might say "I hurt all over." <S> If you sprain your ankle you'd say "my ankle hurts". <A> I apologize in advance for AAT is right; Grammatically, the phrase "I feel painful" is incorrect. <S> You cannot use an adjective as a modifier for feel . <S> However, it is perfectly acceptable to, instead of using the qualifier AAT suggested ( "I feel painful sensations " ), you may also opt to use an object: <S> I feel pain . <S> So your options are as follows (using I feel <S> __ as the template) <S> : use a noun to qualify the adjective painful <S> ( I feelpainful bites ) <S> use a noun as a direct object to enhance the verb <S> feel ( I feel <S> pain ) <S> use an adverb to enhance the verb <S> feel ( I feel painfully sick ) <S> Editorial note: When a sentence gets cloudy like this (it's bound to happen, ESPECIALLY in English), your best bet is to try to find a suitable synonym, preferably one that is interchangeable and not cluttered with subtle connotations. <S> (instead of uncomfortable to express pain, perhaps excruciating will do instead) <S> Worst case scenario, you're better off rebuilding the whole sentence. <S> It happens. <S> Hope this helps
| You can say "I feel pain", or "I am in pain", because 'pain' is a noun, but "painful" is an adjective
|
What is the difference between "gender" and "sex"? What is the difference between gender and sex ? Wiktionary says that gender is The mental analog of sex but that's too high English for me. Basically, I'm developing a web-application that stores people's profile along with a field for gender/sex. Which name would be more appropriate? __ [UPDATE] After getting these good answers, I can figure out that, Sex - Biological characteristics Gender - Social characteristics And, well, for my web-application, I went with the term sex , as it sounds more scientific and less political . P.S. Values for sex are clearly defined and can be easily validated (only two values AFAIK * + an optional blank value). * plus some anomalies. <Q> According to APA style , "gender" refers to culture and should be used when referring to men and women as social groups, while "sex" refers to biology and should be used when biological distinctions are emphasized. <A> There's a lot of foofarah coming from people in the GLBT communities trying to establish a difference of meaning between these two words that are, in ordinary usage, completely synonymous. <S> Wiktionary's definition is trying to reinforce that distinction by saying, essentially, that "sex" is what physical parts you have, while "gender" is what sexual category <S> you think you should belong to; thus allowing for males who wish they were females to claim that their sex is male but their gender is female. <S> For your web application, you can use whichever one you feel is more appropriate. <S> Personally I recommend "sex" because it's only 3 letters long, saving you some keystrokes if you reference the field a lot. :-) <A> The NOAD defines gender as "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)." <S> A further note in the dictionary reports that: The word gender has been used since the 14th century primarily as a grammatical term, referring to the classes of noun in Latin, Greek, German, and other languages designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter. <S> It has also been used since the 14th century in the sense "the state of being male or female," but this did not become a common standard use until the mid 20th century. <S> Although the words gender and sex both have the sense "the state of being male or female," they are typically used in slightly different ways: sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender tends to refer to cultural or social ones. <A> In this context, I prefer to see the word gender as the label with the two choices offered as alternatives, which makes the meaning quite clear. <S> Although both have an equivalent meaning in this context, I find gender to be more polite as it cannot be confused with intercourse which is an alternative meaning for sex . <S> i.e. Two people would not have gender with each other, but they might have sex . <A> Male and female are sexes, while masculine and feminine are genders. <S> Sexes are nouns -- "I am a male, my wife is a female". <S> Genders are adjectives -- "She has a masculine voice". <S> You can, of course, say "She has a male voice", but it means something subtly different. <S> "She has a masculine voice" means her voice shares some of the characteristics we associate with being a man. <S> "She has a male voice" means that her voice is in fact a man's voice. <S> (Though it would certainly be interpreted metaphorically.) <A> Sex and gender are two words used interchangeably. <A> Sex refers to the physical sexual organ parts that a human being has. <S> Gender on the other hand refers to the sexuality that a person identifies themselves with. <S> The choice of term used probably would not matter to a majority of the users, but it is a big deal for certain people. <S> For instance , deviantART used to offer three choices on their user profile field - male, female, and 'unspecified'. <S> They removed the last option in 2010 and it caused widespread outrage among a subset of users, with vocal calls for boycotting deviantART too. <S> Since listing a range of choices under 'gender' itself can be topic of contention (e.g., what if you 'miss out' a certain gender identity in the list?), one way some web application developers get out of this is by offering an "I do not prefer to say" or "Unspecified" option under a sex field. <A> Well, if your app is going to be used worldwide, then the choice that you make could potentially have a huge impact. <S> Have you heard of the third gender ? <S> Some countries such as Pakistan have officially recognised a third gender amogst their people. <S> The idea may sound bizarre to some western ears, but that's the world for you. <S> If you are interested in recording biological characteristics, use "sex". <S> If you are interested in social ones, use "gender". <S> Everything else is silly political correctness or plain misinformation. <A> Isn't "gender" referring to two separate ideas: 1. <S> the biological one (=sex) 2. <S> the technical term in sociology, so you can of course use it synonymously with sex? <A> There are lots of answers, but I'd like to add mine in here, because I strongly disagree with most of the others. <S> The current usage for the younger generations is precisely the reverse of that of our grandparents. <S> @yc01 sums it up well, by putting it exactly backwards to how it used to be just a little while ago. <S> It used to be (and I would go still with this) that sex is a social term, and way of referring to people, whereas gender is the scientific word, the sort of thing used to describe lab rats or people <S> you're dissecting, or a taxonomy on some government paperwork. <S> I avoid referring to someone's gender; it can be a slightly horrid, impersonal word.
| Sex refers to the the biological distinction between females and males, which is closely related to reproduction, while gender refers to the social attributes and opportunity associated with being female and male.
|
Is "princessship" a real word? Are there any other words which have the same letter 3 times consecutively? One of my friends argues that princessship is the only word which has 3 identical letter comes together ( s ) ,but I think there is no word such as princessship . Can anyone tell me whether this is a real word, and if there are any more English words which have 3 letters consecutively? <Q> There is no word with three consecutive letters under the most narrow definition of "real word", but there are several words of the following types: <S> There are place names, like Kaaawa , a place in Hawaii. <S> Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch , a place in Wales. <S> There are names of people with all sorts of unconventional spellings, like Minnnie , Annnora , or Diannne . <S> There are interjections like mmm , hmmm , zzz , etc. <S> There are archaic/poetic words with elided letters, like whenceeer (really, <S> whencee'er from whenceever ), wheree'er , etc. <S> Finally, there are words which would probably be written with a hyphen whenever used, like frillless (mentioned by Dusty) which is really frill-less , similarly bulllike , gulllike , wallless , many words ending in -ss-ship like your princessship , bossship , goddessship , headmistressship , patronessship . <A> I'm not a native speaker, but I'm under the impression that words with the same letter repeated three times are either elided so that they contain two, or are spelled with a hyphen. <S> For instance cross-section (hyphenated) or chaffinch <S> (where the 3rd 'f' is omitted) <A> I believe princessship is typically spelled with a hyphen princess-ship , although I do remember references to it without. <S> However, if your friend is willing to allow princessship as a word, certainly words like dutchessship , governessship , countessship , etc. <S> would also qualify. <S> So one way or another, you can prove your friend wrong =D <S> Edit: A quick search also brings up frillless which has an entry in OED <A> Discounting acronyms, for words without hyphens that have three consecutive letters, the OED lists these: brrr, countessship, duchessship, frillless, governessship, grrr, grrrl, hostessship, postmistressship <S> For words that have a letter, a hyphen, then that same letter twice repeated, it lists these: eve-eel, paste-eel, salpingo-oöphorectomy, salpingo-oöphoritis, slime-eel, snipe-eel, spine-eel <S> For words where you have the same letter twice, then the hyphen, then that same letter again, it has all these: ass-ship, ball-less, ball-lightning, ball-like, bee-eater, bell-less, boss-ship, boss-shot, boss-stone, brass-smith, burgess-ship, call-letter, call-loan, carcass-shell, cell-layer, cell-less, cell-like, cell-lineage, cell-lined, chaff-flower, class-subject, compass-saw, compass-signal, compass-stock, cross-saddle, cross-sea, cross-section, cross-sectional, cross-sectioning, cross-seizing, cross-sell, cross-shed, cross-shoot, cross-shot, cross-sleeper, cross-spall, cross-spider, cross-springer, cross-staff, cross-stitch, cross-stone, cross-street, cuckoo-orchis, cypress-spurge, demigoddess-ship, distress-sale, doll-land, dress-shield, egg-glass, fall-leaf, fall-less, fee-estate, fee-expectant, frill-lizard, fusee-engine, gall-leaf, gall-less, gill-lamella, gill-less, gill-lid, glass-sand, glass-shaped, glass-shell, glass-shrimp, glass-slag, glass-snail, glass-snake, glass-soap, glass-sponge, goddess-ship, grass-seeder, <S> grass-siding, grass-snake, grass-snipe, grass-sparrow, grass-spirit, grass-sponge, grass-spring, head-mistress-ship, ill-less, ill-lived, ill-looking, ill-lookingness, isinglass-stone, Jaycee-ette, joss-stick, kill-lamb, kiss-sky, knee-elbow position, mastiff-fox, mill-lands, mill-leat, mill-lodge, miss-stays, mistress-ship, moss-seat, moss-starch, no-see-em, off-faller, off-falling <S> , off-farm, off-field, pass-shooting, patroness-ship, poss-stick, press-shy, press-stone, press-stud, princess-ship, process-server, puff-fish, quill-less, seamstress-ship, see-er, see-everything, shell-less, shell-lettuce, shell-lime, skull-less, small-leaved, smell-less, stall-literature, still-liquor, stress-strain, three-edged, three-eight, till-land, toll-lodge, troll-line, wall-less, wall-lining, wall-lizard <S> , well-laboured, well-labouring, well-laced, well-laden, well-laid, well-languaged, well-learned, well-leaved, well-led, well-legged <S> , well-lettered, well-lighted, well-liked, well-liking, well-limbed, well-limned, well-lined, well-lit, well-liveried, well-living <S> , well-loaded, well-lodged, well-looked, well-looking <S> , well-loved, well-lunged, will-less, will-lessly, witness-stand, zoo-organic <S> Alas, there appear to be no instances of four letters in a row , even if separated by a hyphen or an apostrophe, such as * Kwanzaa-aardvark , * frisbee-eel , * tatoo-ooze , * install-llama , or * chimpanzee-eerie . <S> I see a product opportunity here. :)
| There are many acronyms/initialisms that contain triple letters, like AAA , AIEEE , KKK , WWW , or Roman numerals like xviii .
|
Should the past perfect be eschewed? The past perfect serves a purpose: When describing things that happened in the past, it allows us to discuss things that happened before (i.e., in the past’s past). However, a procession of had , had , had makes writing sound clumsy and labored, especially in a narrative. I treat past perfect similar to constructions using that : Unless it changes the meaning of a sentence, toss it out. A : She had called me weeks earlier, and now I remembered what she had told me. B : She called me weeks earlier, and now I remembered what she told me. A is strictly correct grammar, but weeks earlier already implies that the phone call happened before my remembering it, so I would favor simple past tense ( B ). Am I correct, or did I go overboard in my attempt to avoid the past perfect? <Q> I don't think there is anything wrong with using the past perfect when it is needed. <S> The first sentence is correct while the second one is confusing. <S> It has two moments in time-- weeks earlier <S> and now --mixed up because the same tense is being used for both of them. <S> You can cut the extra <S> had out of sentences like this: They had climbed the mountain, had planted their flag, and had sent a message by the time I got there. <A> I think it is normal for informal conversation. <S> But epistolary genre likes classic grammar. <A> However, used in fiction, it is easy to overuse or misuse. <S> Three uses are common; introduce new past events, flash back, and referring to past events already discussed in the story, Introduce new past events <S> I had met him last June, and was eager to catch up again. <S> The problem with this is that a single statement does not give a detailed description. <S> You are summarizing a whole meeting in a single sentence (referred to as telling) instead of describing in detail (showing). <S> In fiction showing is usually preferred to telling, because of the greater reader engagement (but not always, as showing reduces the pace of the story). <S> To summarize the reader may be left with insufficient detail about the past event and feels "had". <S> Flash back <S> Had may be used a "flash back" about a past event. <S> The shark came towards me. <S> I could see the razor sharp teeth and new that I was about to die. <S> The whiteness of the teeth reminded me of a visit to the supermarket I had made last Tuesday. <S> Bla bla bla about shopping. <S> But I would never know how good the next sale was, as the shark bit me cleanly in half. <S> This kind of flash back breaks the flow of the story. <S> The reader also does not know when the flash back will end. <S> Placing the flash back in its own scene may be a better idea. <S> To summarize, the reader can easily become confused by your flash back and feel "had". <S> Referring to past events <S> If you are simply referring to past events that you have already covered previously in the story, then the use of "had" is usually fine. <S> Using "had" forces the reader to refer backwards in time which is always going to slow the pace of the story. <S> Overuse of "had" can lead your writing an archaic, or even a slightly false feel. <S> As for all words, the word "had" and the use of the perfect past has to be justified by the benefits it brings to your story. <S> Use wisely.
| There is nothing essentially wrong with using the perfect past, where it is needed.
|
What does "if nothing else" mean? I understand the meaning of "if nothing else" in sentence A, but couldn't understand the meaning in sentence B. A. "I will go to library this afternoon if nothing else to do." B. "Google argues that e-mail recipients have the right to view e-mail messages using the service of their choosing and that on the Internet senders are not required to consent to automated scanning, which every e-mail provider does, for security purposes if nothing else ." <Q> This usage of "if nothing else" is idiomatic, as D_Bye pointed out. <S> In your example "... automated scanning, which every e-mail provider does, for security purposes if nothing else. <S> " , you could replace it with "if for no other purpose". <S> It means that e-mail providers feel that security purposes are enough reason for scanning e-mails: they would scan e-mails for that reason alone anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether scanning could be justified based on other reasons. <S> A <S> : Should I take some money from thecompany's cash box? <S> Any reason not to? <S> B <S> : Huh? <S> What!? <S> You might consider thepossibility of getting caught, ifnothing else [ = if you will consider nothing else]. <S> B means that if A won't consider other reasons, such as the moral obligation not to steal, at least she should consider that she may get caught. <A> <A> With the example you have given therefore, Google writes that which is ultimately used for security purposes, is only for security purposes. <S> However, it makes way for the possibility that it is also used for something else. <S> What that might be, I'm afraid I don't know!
| In sentence B, you can take "if nothing else" as meaning "if for no other reason".
|
Meaning of "brave my fire" As in these Rome - To Die Among Strangers lyrics: the whores of rome and the kings of france have tried to brave my fire now the snakes curl up, the curtains part will you try to brave my fire? and keep your treason brittle as glass you could have been the first could have been the last to brave my fire Full text I checked all the different meanings of brave in dictionary.com, but this sentence still hardly makes any sense to me... I can only guess. Thanks in advance! <Q> I would interpret "fire" here in the sense of projectiles and "brave" in meaning 7 from dictionary.com : "to meet or face courageously". <S> A soldier who charges at an enemy who is shooting at him is braving the enemy's fire. <A> "Brave" has a very long story. <S> The original root is from Greek "βάρβαρος" (barbaros). <S> Βάρβαροι were the people whose language was unintelligible (Βάρβαροs is a well known example of Greek word of onomatopoeic origin) since all you could apparently grab was "bar-bar". <S> Although it obviously had a pejorative connotation, the main meaning however was simply "foreigner" (as in "non-Greek" of course). <S> Imported in Latin, the noun barbarus retained this meaning of "foreigner" (although remarkably for the Romans the Greeks were the only "non barbaric" foreigners <S> ;-). <S> In Late Latin <S> however, the adjective, now contracted to "brabus", had the meanings of "savage", "courageous", "indomitable". <S> Studies about phonetic evolution from Late Latin to Medieval Italian have well documented 1 how the plosive 'b' in intervocalic position nearly always evolved into a labiodental fricative 'v', caballum => cavallo (horse) and how the final "us" evolved into "o" (marius => mario, marcus = <S> > marco...). <S> Following these rules "brabus" evolved into "bravo". <S> In 14th century Italian, it then came to mean "flamboyant", "well dressed" or even "arrogant" as an adjective as well as "mercenary" <S> 2 as a noun. <S> However in modern Italian the meaning is "good at things" (Questo ragazzo è molto bravo in informatica). <S> During the Renaissance, French kings were obsessed with the conquest of Italy and their armies met the Italian armies on many occasions. <S> When Italian soldiers were showing off in front of the enemy they companions would cheer "Bravo !!!" and congratulate each other. <S> So that the French interpreted the "Bravo" interjection in many ways: "noble", "courageous", "handsome", "arrogant". <S> Eventually, only the main meaning of "fearless on the battlefield" remained 3 . <S> Hence the French "bravoure". <S> One way soldiers would demonstrate "bravoure" in front of their fellow countrymen would be to expose their bare chest to the enemy line, daring them to fire. <S> Which in my view explains the metaphor "brave my fire" as Peter Taylor has rightly pointed out in his answer. <S> Sources: 1 : <S> József Herman, Le Latin Vulgaire , 1967 - English Translation Roger Wright, Vulgar Latin , 1997. <S> 2 : <S> Dictionnaire Historique de la Langue Française <S> (Robert, 1993). <S> 3 : Of course we also interject "Bravo !" to express our admiration, even to female artists to the great surprise of Italians who would rather expect "Brava !". <A> Fire is being used as a metaphor for wrath or anger I think. <S> To put it in more colloquial terms he's saying "Come on if you think you are hard enough" do you dare to face my wrath. <S> I guess it could also mean passion so intense that it will burn you. <S> It's all poetic imagery really. <S> If you think about it one has to be pretty brave to stick their hand (for example) in an open flame, the flame here however is not an actual flame but it represents something else, probably some form of retribution. <A> It means, more or less, to "face my intensity". <A> It's just to bravely withstand when they pour their fire. <S> And to keep standing without backing off or taking it personally. <S> To keep along all good and bad of their enormous passion. <S> Many are not capable to hang on. <S> And the one tempting us to brave their fire is well aware of many not being capable. <S> Which does not make them wrathfull at all. <S> Just sad. <S> Cause they have been disappointed many a times by those who promised they will stand but when the fire came they fleed. <S> Such is the mankind.
| Brave my fire in this context means tempt my anger.
|
What is better, 'double connected domain' or 'doubly connected domain'? 'Doubly connected domain' returns more in google search, but it looks more strange for my ear. Which is the correct form according to rules so far? <Q> Two general tips, here. <S> Firstly, when using Google as a test for something like this, search with the whole phrase in quotes , i.e. search for "doubly connected domain" , not just doubly connected domain . <S> With the quotes, google will search for the phrase as a whole — in this, it correctly shows doubly connected domain as much more common than double. <S> Without the quotes, it just searches for pages in which the individual words all appear, not necessarily together — so it could give the wrong answer here, just because in most contexts, double is more common than doubly . <S> Secondly, this is a technical term. <S> For technical terms, use a technical reference — check a good textbook, or a couple of academic papers, that talk about these domains, and see what they use. <S> It could be that, for instance, in mathematics people talk about doubly-connected , but that engineers have a completely different thing called double-connected . <S> Then, Google wouldn’t know which one you’re after, and nor would I. Using a technical reference from your field <S> makes sure that you’ve got the right term for the things you’re talking about. <S> Edit: <S> Oh, and a third point, a grammatical one. <S> Doubly here is modying <S> connected <S> — it’s telling you what kind of connectedness property the domain satisfies. <S> Since it’s modifying an adjective, it has to be an adverb — <S> i.e. doubly is the right form, not double . <S> Contrast a phrase like compact connected domain , in which both compact and connected are modifying the noun domain , so are both adjectives. <S> This point is subsidiary to my second one, though — sometimes technical terms bend the usual conventions of grammar a bit, and in those cases, the technical usage is the one to follow. <A> This is somewhat technical mathematically, but I've tried to keep it simple - I hope the mathematicians will overlook the imprecision, and non-mathematicians will bear with the detail... <S> A simply-connected domain is a shape in which, if you take any two points, there will be just one path taking you from one to the other (where you consider two paths being as the same if one can be smoothly deformed into the other). <S> A doubly-connected domain is a shape in which there are two paths between any two points, and those paths are distinct and can't be smoothly deformed into each other. <S> So this latter domain is, in some sense, "twice as connected" as the former, and so it is called doubly-connected . <S> Calling it a "double connected domain" would instead imply that you had two simply-connected domains, or a simply-connected domain that was in some way doubled, which is not the sense that is desired. <A> Doubly connected domain is the right answer.
| Doubly connected domain (or doubly-connected , with a hyphen) is the right phrase.
|
Hit 'in' or hit 'on' (one's head) Do you hit someone (or get hit) in the head (leg, arm, etc) or on the head? Did you hit yourself in the head? Did you hit yourself on the head? Would other expressions be more appropriate, when the poor kid bumps his head against something? <Q> I would always use "on" for a blow to a body part, unless the body part I was literally referring to was an internal organ, or otherwise regarded as interior. <S> So "on the head", "on the arm", "on the back", but "in the kidneys", "in the belly", and "in the crotch". <S> If I heard "hit in the head" I would think first of a gunshot wound rather than a blow. <A> I agree with Robusto. <S> You ask for other ways to ask that question. <S> I would naturally say: Ohhh, did you hit your head? <S> Without prepositions, "Hit your head" means roughly the same as "Hit in the head". <S> The difference is that "Hit in the head" means it came from external sources, like someone throwing a ball at you. " <S> Hit your head" just means your head was hit, with no implication of the source / fault. <A> This implies that you hit him on the top of the head, or skull. <S> I hit him in the head. <S> This implies that you hit him somewhere in the head, but not necessarily on top. <S> Look at the headline here which uses "hit in the head": http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/offbeat/justin-bieber-hit-in-the-head-with-water-bottle-20100809 <A> It is not used literally to mean "inside of" or within. <S> Both "Did the ball hit you on the head?" <S> and "Did the ball hit you in the head" are equally valid. <S> IN is normally used when you need to indicate a position for spaces with limitations OR to convey either something that is contained within or inside something else. <S> "In the head", in this case indicates a limitation of geography [physiology] rather than containment inside something else - a ball inside the person's skull, although it could be used in this sense "Have you got a ball in your head?!". <S> Alternatively, ON is normally used to denote a position in relation to a surface or a position just above or outside an area.
| You can say either: I hit him on the head. Both are common usage in the UK: 'in' is often used in the sense of "in the region of" or "in the area (location)" of the head.
|
What does "I pissed the wall" mean? What is the meaning of a sentence like "I pissed the wall"? Is there any difference with "I pissed my pants"? <Q> I can see four possibilities: <S> It’s an idiomatic figurative usage, analogous to something like <S> I was shitting bricks . <S> This seems very unlikely: none of us here seem to have heard any such usage, and Google doesn’t find anything. <S> It’s a literal usage, meaning “I pissed on the wall” (which is how most English-speakers would say it), but is correct in this speaker’s dialect/idiolect. <S> This seems fairly unlikely, for the same reasons as before. <S> It’s not idiomatic, and is deliberate wordplay. <S> There are a few idioms that this is analogous to, like “to piss the bed” or “to piss one’s pants”, and the speaker might have been jokingly adapting one of these. <S> It’s not idiomatic, and is a speech error, intended as “I pissed on the wall”, or similar. <S> This seems the most likely to me — especially since if the speaker had actually just ? <S> pissed the wall <S> then he may well have been somewhat inebriated at the time… <A> Do you mean "I pissed it up [against] the wall"? <S> It's an idiom that roughly means to squander or waste, as in money, an opportunity, etc. <A> I think that it means you urinated on the wall. <A> It comes from the Bible (King James Edition): <S> Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, <A> In biblical usage, it means that you are male. <S> (See 1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8) <A> It means to waste one's money. <S> As in, "I wasted all my paycheque on beer and now I've got nothing. <S> I pissed it up the wall!" <A> As stated above - "He pissed it up a wall" means he wasted his money - ie <S> , he spent it on beer which went through his system and he pissed it all away. <S> "The wall" was/is a feature of pub gents' toilets in England. <A> <A> "I've pissed it up the wall. <S> " It means I have no money <S> or I'm worth nothing if I die. <S> I've drank my money away in the pub and there is nothing left. <S> Direct quote of an unknown SAS officer: "You were supposed to have written a will <S> but I didn't... <S> I paid lip service to that <S> , I didn't have a fuckin will. <S> There wasn't anything left to fuckin have anyways, I just pissed it up the wall."
| As a foreign English speaker, I think the verb 'piss' can be used as a transitive verb (at least in my native language), it means piss and make something dirty.
|
Is 'Safari' really an English word, and what are its origins? We are all used to this word safari . I think most people will agree that its usage is ubiquitous when referring to going for holiday (esp. overland travel in Africa). So is this word a true English word? What are the origins? <Q> Whether or not it is a true English word and where it came from are two completely different questions. <S> We borrow words from many languages, but they are still real English words. <S> It has been attested in dictionaries as part of the English language since c. 1890. <A> The FreeOnlineDictionary reports it as having an Arabic origin . <S> Etymonline says: 1890 <S> (attested from 1860 as a foreign word), from Swahili, lit. <S> "journey, expedition," from Arabic, lit. " <S> referring to a journey," from safar "journey" (which itself is attested in English as a foreign word from 1858). <A> The NOAD reports that the origin of the word is late 19th century from Kiswahili, from Arabic safara ( to travel ).
| It is borrowed from Swahili [safari], which was in turn borrowed from Arabic [سفاري].
|
Should the number "0" be pronounced "zero" or "oh"? I have often heard people say 101, as one-zero-one, and also as one- oh -one. Which is correct, and why? Does the difference between British English and American English have to do something with it? <Q> American speakers use zero in both conversation and writing. <S> But when reciting a string that mixes characters and numbers, it becomes necessary to differentiate between "oh" and zero. <S> In British English, zero is normally used only in scientific writing. <S> In conversation, British speakers usually say "nought", or to a lesser degree, "oh". <S> Edit: Please review the excellent discussion below for further insight. <A> Both are correct. <S> But, zero is more formal than <S> oh . <S> Native speakers, both Americans and Brits, tend to use either of the forms. <S> Limit the use of oh colloquially. <S> The Oxford English Dictionary says: O n. (also oh ) zero (in a sequence of numerals, especially when spoken). <A> Zero is a little bit longer to pronounce, hence the "oh". <S> As an American speaker, I've always heard it pronounced one 'oh' one, though that doesn't make it anymore correct than one zero one or one-hundred and one even. <S> It also tends to be a little more trendy and/or less formal to use ' <S> oh' <S> (Hawaii Five-Oh for example). <A> I also use 'zero' as if I use 'oh' in a string for numbers (i.e. nine-oh-three) <S> it can be mistaken from an eight (nine-eight-three), as there is the tendency to soften or drop the 't' from eight if it is followed by another word, especially if the following word starts with a t sound (or th, d or to a lesser case d or p) <S> This may be simply due to my Australian accent, but I don't feel this is the case.
| When reciting a string of numbers only, it is acceptable and common for an American to pronounce zero as "oh".
|
Is this use of present participle grammatically correct? We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school looking for native English speakers from the US and Canada . If you are interested in this position. Please send your CV and photo to [email address]. For more info, pls check: [URL] It seems like a sentence element; what does it act as? Why not two sentences? <Q> This participial construction is 100% correct and natural. <S> The participle is used as an attribute to the subject of the main clause, "we" (or "a Zhongguancun-based English training school", but that doesn't matter because it results in the same meaning). <S> It gives extra information about "we", just as an adjective would. <A> A participial phrase function as adjective. <S> In the sentence you wrote, "looking for native English speakers from the US and Canada" has a similar function of "lying on the kitchen floor" in "she was annoyed by the crumpled newspapers lying on the kitchen floor. <S> " <S> In your sentence, "looking for native English speakers from the US and Canada" is referring to the subject of the sentence, we . <S> Using a participial phrase is a matter of style; you could write the sentence differently. <S> (I am reporting different ways to write the sentence, without giving any suggestions about which one is better; the sentence using the participial phrase is correct.) <S> We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school, and we are looking for native English speakers from the US and Canada. <S> We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school interested in native English speakers from the US and Canada. <S> We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school; we are looking for native English speakers from the US and Canada. <A> Yes. <S> The only error in the sentence is the punctuation: <S> If you are interested in this position. <S> is a fragment. <A> From Refs [1]-[2], your original sentence is in case no. <S> 1 (The participle without comma). <S> Case 1: <S> Main Clause + Ø + Participle Phrase <S> We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school looking for native English speakers from the US and Canada. <S> Note: <S> A participle phrase of " looking for... " will modify the nearest word that should be Noun in the main clause (English training school). <S> The full meaning of this sentence is as follows: <S> We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school that looks for n ative English speakers from the US and Canada. <S> We can split into 2 separate sentences. <S> We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school . <S> And Then, a Zhongguancun-based English training school looks for native English speakers from the US and Canada. <S> Case 2: <S> Main Clause <S> + , + Participle Phrase (with comma) We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school, looking for native English speakers from the US and Canada. <S> A participle phrase of " looking for... " will modify the Subject in the main clause to describe the conclusion (or result) of the main clause. <S> This sentence means: <S> We are a Zhongguancun-based English training school. <S> And We look for native English speakers from the US and Canada. <S> More samples in [2]: <S> The lake shimmered in the noonday sun, giving me peace. <S> The meaning of sentence is as follows. <S> When the lake shimmered in the noonday sun, the lake also give me the peace. <S> More samples in [6] <S> : It looks like the clause-effect. <S> My sister finally quit her job, discouraged by the long hours and low pay. <S> It means: <S> My sister finally quit her job, because she was discouraged by the long hours and low pay. <S> My Recommendations <S> However, I would prefer to delete "We are ...". <S> This is because we are human. <S> We are a school ...!? <S> It should be like this. <S> Zhongguancun-based English training school is looking for native English speakers from ... <S> Or We are the members of Zhongguancun-based English training school, looking for native English speakers from ... References for Participle Phrase <S> [1] http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/participlephrase.htm [2] https://writerschoices.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/webpartphr.pdf <S> [3] https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/gerunds_participles_and_infinitives/participles.html <S> [4] http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/participle_phrases.htm <S> [5] http://www.sjsu.edu/writingcenter/handouts/Participle%20Phrases.pdf [6] https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-participial-phrase-1691588
| This attribute is placed after its "head" (the noun or pronoun it modifies) because it is a sort of apposition.
|
"Stick it in the boot." "Er, don't you mean the trunk?" Does anyone know the etymological history or the reason behind the different names that British and American speakers use to refer to the automobile's largest storage receptacle, or more plainly, the boot or the trunk ? Perhaps a prominent company's advertising or a prior related usage on either side of the Atlantic influenced this divergence? <Q> The vocabulary applied to today's cars draws a lot from the vocabulary applicable to horse-powered vehicles. <S> See for instance "Limousine", "Berline" in French and other languages or "Cruscotto" in Italian. <S> In the case of the English "boot", the origin is that in the 18th and 19th centuries, the coachman used to sit on a locker where he could store, among other things, his boots. <S> For this reason, this was termed the "boot locker" and after a while an additional compartment situated at the rear of the coach was used, also called for the same reason the "boot" (for short). <S> Boots of course were mandatory in those times given the state of the roads. <S> Jane Austen alludes in several of her novels to the fact that speaking about the state of the roads was as common place in England as speaking about the weather. <S> For one thing, the roads have improved since Jane Austen ;-). <S> As for the weather... <S> As for the American "trunk", well it should suffice to look at all the classic cars designed in the post WWI era, for which trunks were mounted at the rear end. <S> In this affluent era, cars from manufacturers like Duisenberg, Cord, Buick, Lincoln were all competing for high end customers and these trunks featured many compartments for plates, whiskey flasks and all the paraphernalia needed to go for a picnic. <S> Some cars (mainly coupés, or "roadsters") had special compartments for golf clubs. <S> In France a similar process lead to people saying "La malle arrière" (as in Louis Vuitton's piece of luggage) and now "le coffre" (the trunk), or in Spanish "el Baul" which is a large piece of luggage as well (and now a more simple "la maleta"). <S> Same for Italian "La baule" which is both the boot or a chest (la baule da marinaio). <S> The fact that a trunk is a word for a large wooden chest suggests that some of them were carved out from tree-trunks as it is still sometimes found to be the case in some Asian countries were these items, lavishly decorated, are regarded as luxury items (and priced accordingly). <A> Alain has given an excellent response on the etymologies of boot and trunk . <S> As to why different terms are used, it is simply due to the fact that the cultures of Britain and American having a low level of interchange in the 1780-1950 period (while each was highly interconnected within themselves). <S> During this period, developments called for expanded vocabularies, and the new word uses developed separately in the separate cultures. <S> One place this process is mentioned is in this Wikipedia article , where it says: The rise of capitalism, the development of industry and material innovations throughout the 19th and 20th centuries were the source of a massive stock of distinctive new words, phrases and idioms. <S> Typical examples are the vocabulary of railroading and transportation terminology, ranging from names of roads (from dirt roads and back roads to freeways and parkways) to road infrastructure (parking lot, overpass, rest area), and from automotive terminology to public transit (for example, in the sentence "riding the subway downtown"); such American introductions as commuter (from commutation ticket), concourse, to board (a vehicle), to park, double-park and parallel park (a car), double decker or the noun terminal have long been used in all dialects of English. <A> I always had the opinion that the reason the US version is "trunk", is because dating back to horse drawn carriages, they often would just strap a trunk on the back. <S> This carried over to early automobiles as well. <S> Just do a google image search for cars from 1900. <A> The "bote" or "boot" of an old horsedrawn coach was originally an extra seat or place to stand on the side or back of the coach for a footman or someone else riding on the outside. <S> It was built like a box. <S> By the time autos came around, this word had already been transferred to the storage compartment for luggage on a coach (which was also built like a box) because no one had footman riding on the outside of their coaches anymore. <S> It wasn't any step at all to use it for the similar box on early autos. <S> Now, why is it called a "turtle" in some parts of the south? <S> :) <S> Or a "dickey" in some other parts of the English-speaking world? <S> Both were nicknames for the rumble seat, a concealed folding seat at the rear of the auto. <S> Rumble seats were often used for storage so the transfer was easy. <S> It was called a turtle because it folded into the car like a turtle's body parts. <S> It was called a dickey because when unfolded it stuck out like a bad dickey shirt front on a tuxedo or formal black-tie suit. <S> Dickey itself is from London street slang for shirt.
| Look a little deeper: boot in the sense of the storage compartment of a car comes from an older word sometimes spelled "bote", meaning "box". Further back in time "trunk" comes from Latin truncus , or "cut off" → truncated, as the trunk does to the end of a car.
|
"Everybody is not" vs "Not everybody is" Everybody's got a water buffalo, yours is fast but mine is slow. You can't say everybody's got a water buffalo! Everyone does not have a water buffalo! This construction: Everyone does not have a water buffalo! really irks me, because there are people who do have a water buffalo, and the sentence seems to imply the opposite. I would much prefer the sentence: Not everybody has a water buffalo! Is the first construction somehow grammatically defensible, or is it just used because it better parallels as a negation of the sentence, "Everybody's got a water buffalo"? <Q> Natural languages are not formal mathematical logic. <S> In formal logic, you’re absolutely right: “Everybody does not have a water buffalo <S> ” would mean that everybody is sadly buffalo-less; it would not be the same as the negation of the statement <S> “everybody has a water buffalo”, which would be “not everbody has a water buffalo”, or “somebody does not have a water buffalo”. <S> However, with natural language, the litmus test of grammaticality is something like: if, within some speech community, a construction gets used, consistently, and understood, then it’s grammatically correct, within that community. <S> And by that test, this usage is grammatically correct <S> — I’ve come across it pretty widely, in speech and in writing, in the UK and US and Canada, in popular culture and academia. …and for all that, it irks me a little too — this is a case where what’s idiomatic seems to clash particularly badly with what’s logical. <S> As Robusto and chaos show, one can make arguments for how it is in fact logical, but I don’t think those are what this usage comes from; I strongly suspect it’s just that one normally negates a clause by negating its main verb, and so that pattern gets used here too, even though that also slips the negation past a quantifier, which (as any fule kno) is Not Kosher. <S> It’s this disparity between grammar and logic that makes much legal and technical prose a minefield — but on the other hand, the plasticity of language that gives rise to this is something extremely important and valuable in itself, which one would hardly want to give up. <S> You can’t have your cake and eat it, I guess… <A> Well, it's somewhat defensible because "everyone does not have a water buffalo" is not necessarily the same as "no one has a water buffalo". <S> Since we seem to be dealing with some sort of poetry or lyrics anyway, I'd say that puts the expression well within the bounds of artistic license. <A> Is the first construction somehow grammatically defensible, or is it just used because it better parallels as a negation of the sentence, "Everybody's got a water buffalo"? <S> The latter, more or less. <S> Think of it as though quotes were placed around "everyone" in the second sentence, so that it becomes a collective entity: in mathematical terms, a set. <S> It is a true statement (or at least the assertion to be proved) that "everyone" (the set of all people who might own a water buffalo) is not identical to the set that includes all owners of water buffalo. <A> Logically, and I would argue, grammatically, "Not everyone has a water buffalo" means the same as "Someone does not have a water buffalo." <S> For most people, "Everyone does not have a water buffalo" means the same as "No one has a water buffalo." <S> For some people--in the context cited--"Everyone does not have a water buffalo" means the same as "Not everyone has a water buffalo" and "Someone does not have a buffalo." <S> This is confusing, though, and blurs a useful distinction. <S> While it may be found in the wild, I think it should be discouraged.
| It can be considered as the negation of the case "everyone has a water buffalo"; negating that requires only that one person exist who does not have a water buffalo.
|
Is there a word for a person who gives out too many extraneous details? I'm looking for a single-word term that describes a personality that wants to give out too many unnecessary details in a conversation. [EDIT] Let me give you guys an example.Suppose you ask your friend, at what time will he reach your place?Instead of saying it directly, he wanders off track by regurgitating unnecessary detailslike "I'd be catching the bus at 10, then I'll reach place X by this time, then I'll take another bus to your place, and maybe I'll arrive by 12".Is it circumlocution? <Q> There's always the classic loudmouth or blabbermouth . <S> You might describe such a blowhard as having loose lips , because he's always yapping . <S> Chatterboxes and gossip mongers never know when to keep things discreet. <S> And, if such a person goes a million miles a second while he's regurgitating all the sensitive information you've ever told him, he probably deserves to be called a motormouth . <S> If you want the emphasis to be on the unnecessary aspect, instead of all the details he's giving out, one might say that gasbag is prattling on and on, instead of getting straight to the point. <A> Overparticular is an apt term for this. <A> Loquacious is a nice way of saying that someone talks perhaps a bit too much. <S> Blabbermouth is an insulting way of saying the same thing. <A> Such a person might be called garrulous or prolix , or said to be suffering from logorrhea (a personal favorite), though these are more about verbal profusity in general than excessive detail in specific. <S> One of the meanings of "to niggle" is "to spend too much time and effort on inconsequential details", but you're taking your life in your hands calling anyone a niggler . <S> If these unnecessary details tend to shade into the inappropriately personal, then the fairly recent coinage oversharer may be called for. <A> I once knew a fellow who was prone to this specific fault. <S> He wasn't a "circumlocutor," as that would mean a person who "talks around" a topic without coming to the point. <S> Rather, this person would trail off into arabesques of detail that were unneeded (and unwanted). <S> Let me give you an example: <S> "I had a teacher who wore shoes like that - he was from Amherst, you know, the school in Massachusetts, and I got a speeding ticket there from a cop who had a radar gun that looked like the things you'd see in an RKO serial, like Flash Gordon , <S> and y'know I think we ought to have those again in theaters except that theaters today just show trailers, and do you know why those things are called "trailers" anyway? <S> They don't "trail" anything, they lead it off <S> so maybe they should be called "headers" except that a header is maybe something you'd see in soccer, which is called "football" in most countries where it's played and isn't that weird?" <S> And in this, I believe that English suffers from a fault in that we do not have a precise word for a person who talks this way. <A> I like garrulous . <S> Though I'm not. <A> Most people have proposed nouns, so I'll go with adjectives: <S> verbose and voluble . <S> Less formal: mouthy , gabby , chatty . <A> Oversharer http://www.oversharers.com/ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=overshare <A> Rambler, someone who rambles on and on <A> <A> A <S> TMIer ? <S> The Pathological <S> TMIer has the tendency to blurt out far too much personal information that would have been better left unsaid. <S> Similar to a Pathological Liar, they can't seem to keep the information inside, no matter <S> how ridiculous or embarrassing it may sound to others. <S> They have no shame regarding their blatant use of TMI (Too Much Information). <S> quote from Urban Dictionary <A> In rhetorics, there is perissologia : <S> In general, the fault of wordiness . <S> More specifically, periphrasis, circumlocution, synonymia, accumulatio, or amplification carried to a fault by length or overelaborateness. <S> Circumlocution is "talking around" something, and your example actually states what is meant directly, although with extra details (though it is contextual: if the example you give is an answer to question " <S> Are you sure you will come? <S> " then I would call it circumlocution as it does not answer it directly). <S> You might also consider macrologia , which is Longwindedness . <S> Using more words than are necessary in an attempt to appear eloquent. <S> But, the question is if the person is trying to appear eloquent, or is simply long-winded. <S> So, from these definitions two English words strike me as interesting long-windedness <S> The use of more words than are necessary for clarity or precision; verbosity, prolixity. <S> wordiness <S> The excessive, often unnecessary, use of words in a sentence. <A> <A> Not a single-word, I'm afraid, but <S> several... Someone who doesn't get to the point can be said to go round in circles . <S> One word, I have it! <S> [ bla , bla , bla <S> ad infinitum (see edit history) <S> etc. ...] <S> Perhaps, it would be more appropriate to say that talkative people tend to pad out their chit-chats or chinwags , if they're frivolous in nature. <S> But simple and direct, that's how I like people to be. <S> Anyway, moving on, my word has not been said, and fits the OP's request. <S> Meandering moving slowly in no particular direction or with no clear purpose: a long meandering speech <A> longiloquist longiloquence, n. 1. <S> Long-windedness. <S> (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913) <S> It's a rare word, but it exists. <A> Noun: windbag - one who talks too much, yet usually contributes nothing of importance. <S> Adjectives: gabby, <S> garrulous - tending to talk excessively, inclined to chatter; talkative. <A> Perhaps glib , though that doesn't have any negative connotation of "too many details." <A> Allow me to suggest babbler or rambler.
| Wordy, roundabout person/manner of speaking. Circumlocutious is the first thing that comes to mind. We could coin "digressor," perhaps. I call upon my nerd powers of endless exposition and summon: pedantic, didactic .
|
What is the meaning of the business jargon "big hitter"? I want the meaning of the business jargon that says "big hitter". <Q> A "Big Hitter" is a very experienced or talented person, this is metaphor drawn from baseball. <S> In a difficult game, or a difficult part of a game a team will put in their big hitters, to try secure a win. <S> Similarly in business, if there is a risky situation the company will bring in their most talented staff to maximize the possibility of success. <A> <A> This is what the Urban Dictionary says: Big Hitter (1): one who carries a lot of weight and influence in the work that he/she does. <S> A big hitter is noted for his respect among clients and the industry that he serves. <S> This term is often used in investment banking and sales when referring to a top money-maker or deal-closer. <S> Eg: <S> When the year-end numbers came in at Goldman, it was obvious that the big hitters in the healthcare M&A group would be well compensated. <S> Big Hitter (2): <S> The man, one who is a straight up "playa- playa". <S> One who cannot be touched. <S> One who laughs inside at those who are unequal in the intellectual thought process. <S> One who has a fat knot of cash in his pocket, or a fat accounts receivable with an extremely low day sales outstanding. <S> One who can snap his fingers and have the world at his feet. <S> One who can wine, dine, and 69. <S> One who makes music that sounds like money. <S> One who always have a big ole' stash of the best headies. <S> Eg: <S> Damn, Adam is really a big hitter.
| I guess "big hitter" is "a best selling product or service".
|
How to write units? In a scientific article, should I write "3m", "3 m", "3 meters", or "3 [meters]"? <Q> This guide at the NIST site is a good place to start. <A> The abbreviation for meter is m ; it is not written between brackets, and you need to add a space between the value and the measuring unit. <S> The absence of brackets, and the presence of a space to separate the measuring unit from the numeric value is not limited to meter , but it is common for all the measuring units. <A> Quoting from Wikipedia : <S> The value of a quantity is written as a number followed by a space (representing a multiplication sign) and a unit symbol; e.g., "2.21 kg", "7.3×102 <S> m 2 ", "22 K". <S> This rule explicitly includes the percent sign (%). <S> Exceptions are the symbols for plane angular degrees, minutes and seconds (°, ′ and ″), which are placed immediately after the number with no intervening space. <S> So three meters should be written as 3 m .
| In particular, you should write "3 m" as in "The bar is 3 m long."
|
Do the verb "muse" and the noun "Muse" have a common etymology? I was wondering about that: the New Oxford American Dictionary says to muse comes from the French muser , which comes from the Latin musum . The Muse comes form the Latin musa , which comes from the Greek mousa . Those sound close, but my Latin is too weak (and my Greek inexistent) to tell if they were related back in the antique days. <Q> Etymonline says this about that : muse "to be absorbed in thought," mid-14c., from O.Fr. muser (12c.) "to ponder, loiter, waste time," lit. "to stand with one's nose in the air" (or, possibly, "to sniff about" like a dog who has lost the scent), from muse "muzzle," from Gallo-Romance *musa "snout," of unknown origin. <S> Probably influenced in sense by muse (n.). <S> Related: <S> Mused <S> ; musing. <A> [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin Mūsa, from Greek Mousa; see men-1 in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.] <S> Word History: Ever since Chaucer first mentions the Muses in a work from around 1390, English poets have invoked these goddesses like so many other versifiers since the days of Homer, who begins both The Iliad and The Odyssey with an invocation of his Muse. <S> The word Muse comes from Latin Mūsa, which in turn is from Greek Mousa. <S> In Greek dialects, this word is found in the variant forms mōsa and moisa, and together these indicate that the Greek word comes from an original *montwa. <S> As to the further origins of this form, a clue is provided by the name of Mnemosyne, the goddess of memory and mother of the Muses. <S> Her name is simply the Greek noun mnēmosunē, "memory"—the faculty of memory was indeed the mother of invention for the ancient Greek professional poets and bards whose job it was to compose new poems in traditional styles on festive occasions, to recite the verses of Homer, and to improvise material whenever they had a memory lapse. <S> Greek mnēmosunē is derived from the root *mnā-, an extended form of the Greek and Indo-European root *men-, "to think. <S> " This is the root from which English also gets the words amnesia (from Greek), mental (from Latin), and mind (from Germanic). <S> The reconstructed form *montwa, the ancestor of Greek Mousa, also comes from this root and probably originally referred to "mental power" that enables poets to craft verses—the Muses were the Greek poets' divinized conceptions of the faculties that help them to create and recite poetry. <S> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright <S> ©2019 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. <S> All rights reserved. <A> It seems to be thought unlikely. <S> The etymology of the verb muse seems to be too obscure to trace it back clearly to a Latin etymology. <S> As you mentioned, the English verb certainly seems to come from the French verb muser. <S> The ending <S> -er <S> is just a termination for the infinitive of verbs in the 1st group (the largest conjugational class for French verbs). <S> *mus <S> that meant something like "face"; the TLFi indicates that *mus would also have been the base of the attested French word museau. <S> The TLFi entry for museau (which originally had the form musel, with a diminutive suffix -el ) indicates that it is akin to Italian muso, and says that both come from a Latin word musus, -us of obscure origin. <S> French musel is the source of English muzzle ; the OED entry for that word also mentions Old French <S> *mus and says that "Postclassical Latin musus or musum is of uncertain origin". <S> The English and French noun muse, from Latin Musa, from Greek Μοῦσα, is not described by either of these sources as being related to the verb muse(r), from Old French <S> *mus, from Latin musus/musum.
| The OED and the French TLFi (© 2012 - CNRTL) say that French muser is probably derived from an unattested Old French noun
|
What is the difference between "abduct" and "kidnap"? What is the difference between abduct and kidnap ? <Q> Abduct is more general, and may include situations where the victims may be the targets themselves, without a third party being involved. <S> Sadly, this useful distinction is often lost. <A> In addition to that, abduct also has a meaning in physiology (as in abductor muscle ): move a body part away from its rest position. <A> Abduct and kidnap are synonyms. <S> There may be legal definitions that vary, but essentially these are the same meanings and can be applied in the same way. <A> I agree largely with my colleagues that adbuct and kidnap are synonyms of each other. <S> However, I'd like to add that abduct is strongly associated with alien encounters (alien abductions). <S> I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the phrase "alien kidnapping," and it sounds so odd that it makes me think of someone kidnapping an alien rather than the other way around.
| Kidnap does have some slight suggestion of holding for ransom or for some other advantage over a targeted third party (originally of children to get money from their parents), and after this is delivered the victim will be released. In the main meaning, abduct and kidnap are rigorously synonymous.
|
What is the lexical class of the word 'worth' when used in a sentence like "Is this apple worth $3?" The question "Not worth the paper it's printed on" - wrong meaning? got me thinking about what part of speech, or lexical class, the word 'worth' takes? A comment in Which is correct: "is it worth it?" or "does it worth it?" advises to treat 'worth' as an adjective, but I'm not sure that's right. 'Worthy' is an adjective, but that's not the same as 'worth'. In the title question you could replace 'worth' with the phrase 'of comparable value to'; what part of speech would that phrase be considered? Are the word and the phrase in the same lexical class? Edit: Just to throw another option out, after a stimulating discourse under the answer provided by @Henry: Wiktionary mentions that used in the context of this question, 'worth' is considered an adjective, but it also notes that The modern adjectival senses of worth compare two noun phrases, prompting some sources to classify the word as a preposition. Most, however, list it an adjective, some with notes like "governing a noun with prepositional force." It also notes that Joan Maling (1983) shows that worth is best analyzed as a preposition rather than an adjective. If viewed as a preposition, then it is easy to replace 'worth' with another preposition of somewhat equal meaning, such as "Is this apple about $3", "Is this apple under $3", or "Is this apple over $3". Adjective, infinitive, or preposition? ...or is this a rare case of an old language usage that straddles multiple lexical classes in modern language? <Q> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language ( CGEL ) has a lot to say about worth . <S> It is a little like an adjective and a little like a preposition. <S> I will argue both sides, for your entertainment. <S> Worth is clearly a preposition, because: It requires a noun phrase after it. <S> This is what prepositions are known for. <S> Many adjectives take preposition phrases ( afraid of bees , tantamount to surrender ) or clauses ( mad that you didn’t tell her ). <S> Almost none take noun phrases. <S> The vast majority of adjectives can be used attributively—that is, in front of a noun they modify. <S> That is what adjectives are known for. <S> But a worth $5 vanilla shake is wrong. <S> Consulting my adversary’s points below, I see nothing but desperate gibbering really. <S> “Set off by a comma”? <S> “Fronting”? <S> How about basic syntactic properties? <S> Worth is clearly an adjective, because: There is a simple test that distinguishes adjectives from prepositions extremely well. <S> Adjective phrases set off by a comma at the beginning of a sentence always modify the subject. <S> Preposition phrases sometimes don’t. <S> From the beginning, I liked the book. <S> (ok - preposition phrase) <S> Consistently excellent, I liked the book. <S> (wrong - adjective phrase must modify subject) <S> Worth every penny, I liked the book. <S> (wrong!!) <S> Prepositions are often “fronted” in questions and certain other clauses. <S> Worth isn’t. <S> From what country did the U.S. purchase the Louisiana Territory in 1803? <S> (ok) <S> Worth <S> what was the Louisiana Territory at that time? <S> (wrong) <S> They will want the amount for which they could have sold it <S> last May. <S> (ok) <S> They will want the amount worth which it was <S> last May. <S> (wrong) <S> Consulting my adversary’s points above, I see a disappointing failure to go any deeper than the surface—and a few dirty rhetorical tricks. <S> He knows very well that <S> a worth $5 vanilla shake <S> is wrong for the same reason an afraid of bees child and a willing to chip in uncle <S> are wrong <S> : you just can’t put phrases with post-head dependents in that position. <S> And plenty of adjectives can’t be used attributively at all: an afraid child is wrong too. <S> CGEL calls worth <S> an adjective, but ultimately I think Cerberus is right. <S> The patterns grammarians detect in language are not inviolable laws. <S> Not every word fits cleanly into the categories. <A> In Is this apple worth $3? <S> worth is an adjective, while in Please give me $3 worth of apples. <S> worth is a noun. <S> There is an archaic verb, but it is no longer in use. <A> There's another possibility. <S> I think the words <S> loath, worth, <S> fraught, behave like past participles which have lost their verbs. <S> Worth can take the modifier well, which goes with many verbs. <S> The voyage was well worth it. <S> The race was well run. <S> Well doesn't go with adjectives. <S> The apple was well big. <S> Well does go with prepositions <S> The shot was well in bounds. <S> but there are other arguments against worth being a preposition. <S> Prepositions can modify verbs: He gambled over half his fortune. <S> Past participles and worth <S> cannot: He gambled worth half his fortune. <S> Fraught originally had a verb; I don't know whether worth ever did. <A> This isn't entirely an answer <S> but I couldn't express all of this in a comment. <S> Messing around with the word and phrase seems to show a handful of similar sentences: <S> Is this apple worth $3? <S> Is this apple worth an orange? <S> Is this $3 worth $4 <S> Is this apple worth an orange? <S> Is this apple [the same as] an orange? <S> Is this apple [prettier than] an orange? <S> Is this apple [tastier than] an orange? <S> Is this $3 worth $4? <S> Is this $3 [more than] <S> $4? <S> Is this $3 [at least] $4? <S> Is this $3 [exactly] $4? <S> I am not a terminology expert, but it seems that whatever you call the phrase "more than" would be what you are looking for. <S> Namely, "worth" is short for "worth at least" and can quickly be replaced by any other comparator. <S> Most of them seem to have "than" included. <S> Is this worth that? <S> Is this more than that? <S> Is this larger than that? <S> Other words that provide similar functions without a "than": Is this over that? <S> Is this too that? <S> Is this barely that? <S> Food for thought. <S> Hopefully this triggers a better answer from someone more versed in the terminology. <A> Worth and like are a special class of word which don't behave as adjectives on their own, but form adjectival clauses. <S> Or, to put it another way, they are adjectives that require a complement. <S> E.g. in the following sentences the highlighted clauses act like adjectives: <S> You look like a million bucks ! <S> A picture is worth a thousand words . <S> EDIT <S> After reading Edwin Ashworth's comment, I agree that my answer was wrong. <S> I'll leave it up here, though, because I'm not the only person who had this misapprehension <S> -- I actually read this in a grammar textbook somewhere. <A> We are used to nouns doing double duty as adjectives when used as a noun modifier ("day tripper"), so adjective sounds like the right answer here. <S> However, I would call it a preposition, based on the fact that it cannot stand alone as an adjective. <S> That is, I cannot think of a way to say something is "worth", without the word being followed by some object: He is worth. <S> The worth boy was rewarded. <S> "Worthy" is the right word in both of the above examples. <S> Does anyone have a counterexample of "worth" working without an object and/or other adjectives that cannot stand alone?
| "Worth" acts as a placeholder for "equal in value to", which is the start of a prepositional phrase.
|
When was "antimatter" first used? When was antimatter first used? Who was the person that used it? <Q> 1898, Arthur Schuster <S> Schuster is credited with coining the concept of "antimatter" in two letters to Nature in 1898. <S> He hypothesized antiatoms, and whole antimatter solar systems, which would yield energy if the atoms combined with atoms of normal matter. <S> His hypothesis was given a mathematical foundation by the work of Paul Dirac in 1928, which predicted antiparticles and later led to their discovery. <S> Here's a scan of his letter, headed Potential Matter.—A Holiday Dream , which was published and referred to in several other 1898 publications . <S> Here's a couple of pertinent snippets from his letter: <S> The atom and the anti-atom may enter into chemical com- bination, because at small distances molecular forces would overpower gravitational repulsions. <S> Large tracts of space might thus be filled unknown to us with a substance in which gravity is practically non-existent, until by some accidental cause, such as a meteorite flying through it, unstable equilibrium is established, the matter collecting on one side, the anti-matter on the other until two worlds are formed, separating from each other, never to unite again. <S> Matter and anti-matter may further coexist in bodies of small mass. <S> Such compound mixtures flying hither and thither though space, coming during their journey into the sphere of influence of our sun, would exhibit a curious phenomenon. <S> The matter circulating in a comet's orbit, the anti-matter re- pelled and thrown back into space, forming an appendage which is always directed away from the sun. <S> Has any one yet given ... <S> Astronomy, the oldest and yet most juvenile of sciences, may still have some surprises in store. <S> May anti-matter be commended to its care! <S> But I must stop -- the holidays are nearing their end -- the British Association is looming in the distance; we must return to sober science, and dreams must go to sleep till next year. <S> Do dreams ever come true? <S> Arthur Schuster. <A> Doing a little research in Google books, Dirac in 1931 wrote "We may call such a particle an anti-electron," in his paper "Quantized singularities in the electromagnetic field." <S> However once the anti-electron was actually discovered in 1932, naming rights went to Carl Anderson, the experimentalist who first observed them, and so Dirac started calling it a positron. <S> The prefix "anti-" used in this context seems to have disappeared for awhile, but reappeared in the years 1937-1939 when we see references to anti-neutrinos and anti-particles (hyphenated at first), and the terminology seems relatively common in the scientific literature by the early 1940's. <S> The other type of matter might be called the "anti matter." <S> In collision the two types of matter would annihilate each other and give rise to intense radiation. <S> The context suggests that this may actually be the first use for this meaning. <A> The history of antimatter begins in 1928 with a young physicist named Paul Dirac and a strange mathematical equation… <S> The equation, in some way, predicted the existence of an antiworld identical to ours but made out of antimatter. <S> Was this possible? <S> if so, where and how could we search for antimatter? <S> — <S> http://www.google.com/search?q=antimatter+etymology+history <A> Looks like it really started to be used in the middle of 1950s. http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=antimatter&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
| The first time I can actually find the word anti-matter used in this context is in the 1948 book Cosmic rays and nuclear physics by the physicist Lajos Jánossy, where Google books gives me the snippet view
|
What would a cult member call a non-believer? I'm looking for a term that a crazy cult member would apply to an outsider, a term that implies that such a "non-believer" is ignorant and of lesser worth -- ideally, something that is humorous because it is slightly ridiculous. For example, an Islamic radical might use "filthy infidel" or an over-the-top Catholic may say "hell-bound heathen," but I'm looking for something that may be uttered by a member of a run-of-the-mill Kool-Aid cult. <Q> Heathens Unbelievers Those who choose to live in the dark <S> The unwashed The blind Worshipers of Mammon <S> The unchosen <S> The prodigals Strangers Outsiders <S> The apostates <S> The unworthy Servants of Baal God's rebellious children Lovers of darkness Children of 'The World' <S> (I really need to stop joining all these secret groups!) <A> Mundane is fairly likely to see usage this way, referencing someone being concerned with "matters of this world" as opposed to whatever the cult is into. <S> A cult less into traditional dualistic slurs and more into cutesy neologisms might use sheeple . <S> And, of course, from A Scanner Darkly , we get the immortal phrase albino shape-shifting lizard bitches , which really cannot be applied frequently enough to describe anybody the speaker wishes to categorize as "other". <A> How about a nullifidian ? <S> Could be a word the cult leader decided to revive. <A> I propose heretic , apostate or paynim . <A> Philistine has that appropriate apocalyptic tenor characteristic of cult members: <S> Just as hath the Lord promised when He delivered those woeful people unto David and his mighty men, so shalt you and your heathen ilk burn in the fiery furnaces of Hell for all eternity! <A> In Iain Banks' novel Whit, or, Isis among the Unsaved, they are called (you get one guess) "the unsaved." <A> Some suggestions: Unenlightened <S> Unwashed/Unclean <A> Heathen is a derogatory word; maybe it is the genre of words that a "crazy cult member" would use. <A> If it's a Christian-based cult, then dogs might be appropriate. <S> It's a Biblical image, which turns up more than once. <S> Outside are the dogs , etc. <S> It's used in both Revelation and the Gospels, and I think in other places. <A> I don't think the answer is simple. <S> The reason being a cult is a specific instance of a radical belief system. <S> If you want something humorous then the audience would need to be introduced to a basic understanding of their ideals. <S> It seems to me that many belief systems/ideologies are the result of a perceived problem. <S> For this reason although their own tenants are good, the oppositions faults are viewed vehemently. <S> Consider the major political parties of your country, and insults each may have for the other. <S> Consider the fear differing economic systems invoke in some people. <S> The fear of different races, by racial pride groups. <S> There are also many examples in science fiction too where one group has departed from another by some social, technological, evolutionary... <S> well it's science fiction could be anything... <S> the point is without understanding the differentiating factors between the two groups, insults have little meaning. <S> Edit : <S> Oh, I did think of something! <S> If it's a run of the mill "Kool-Aid cult" then PEPSI DRINKERS! <S> Or maybe "Those who do not partake of the anti-freeze. <S> " I think the later would be said solemnly, like you would "Poor misguided people."
| Uneducated Pigs/piggies ( This was actually used by Charles Manson's cult) Cults that are about awakening the higher perceptions or psychic powers of their members may derogate non-members as headblind . I can think of infidel , heathen , agnostic , apostate .
|
How do you interpret 'up to'? Consider the sentence:"The boxes must be filled up to the last box". Does this mean 'including' the last box or all 'but' the last box? If I ask you to start with 1 and count up to 8, you'll likely say "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8". But, if I lay a Black, Blue, Red and Yellow marker in front of you and ask you to start with the Black marker and take the caps off up to the Yellow marker. Do you take the cap off the Yellow marker? <Q> Usually "up to" means "up to and including", if not further clarified. <S> So yes, you fill in the last box and take the cap off the yellow marker. <A> In the case of the markers, I would be more inclined to take the caps off the black, blue, and red, leaving the yellow cap on, simply because it would have been more natural for you to say "take the caps off" or "take all the caps off" and I would be inclined to interpret the "up to the yellow marker" in a way that makes sense for you to have felt it necessary to specify it that way. <S> (Assuming I'm not allowed to ask for clarification, like "What, you mean <S> all of them?") <S> In the case of the boxes, "up to the last box" can be more readily taken as an intensifier: <S> So I would fill all the boxes, even though the "up to" phrase is rather redundant. <A> The use of "up to and including" implies that "to" on its own does not include the end. <S> To include the end, use the long form, or simply " through " as this answer suggests: You should say Aug 2005 through Sep 2007: through 4. —used as a function word to indicate a period of time: such as a : during the entire period of [all through her life] b : from the beginning to the end of [the tower stood through the earthquake] c : to and including [Monday through Friday]
| "Fill them, (all the way) up to the last box."
|
Once a super computer, but now no longer? Is there a word that specifically means or makes reference to a computer that was once considered a super computer in its time, but due to rapid technological advancements, is no longer considered one? Edit: aparrently not. I say we make one. <Q> However, when describing something old and "of another time," I often fall back on the following noun and adjective... <S> Relic - the ENIAC is a relic of supercomputers from days of vacuum-tubes and mercury-delay line memory. <S> I supercomputer, which at one time was the world's fastest. <A> You could simply call such a computer obsolete . <S> obsolete <S> no longer produced or used; out of date : the disposal of old and obsolete machinery [NOAD] <A> You could refer to "legacy" equipment (or code, for that matter; although legacy code most often runs on legacy equipment): a system that was generally big, powerful and impressive when purchased, which is now old and expensive to maintain, but is running some critical software or performing some critical function that for a variety of reasons the company is unwilling to move away from. <A> You might use "antique" (in the noun usage). <S> The implication of great age might be seen as slightly ironic, but it makes it clear that we are not talking about something current. <A> Perhaps just "computer"? <S> Often these devices are referred to by their brand or manufacturer names, that positions their once advanced nature but also allows reference to the fact that other technologies have now superseded them. <S> For example, the "Cray 1" will always be the "Cray 1", despite IBM's "Blue gene" computing platform being many orders of magnitude more powerful. <S> the same fate will ultimately befall "Blue Gene" but it will still be referred to as Blue Gene". <A> You could use the term (see here ) <S> mainframe computer instead, which does suggest that the computer is big, but not necessarily super in terms of speed and memory by current standards.
| Antiquated - at my university there sits an antiquated Cray I am unaware of a specific word or phrase that indicates the aged item is specifically a now-dated computer.
|
Is "below par" good or bad? I realize a lot of English expressions derive from sports: "his presentation was a slam-dunk," "she really fumbled through that," or "that's pretty much par for the course." I don't play golf, but I believe "below par" means really good. But doesn't describing something as "below par" mean really not good? <Q> I don't believe the general use of this expression comes from the golf use - which would explain the discrepancy - though the two are closely related. <S> The word par has many definitions , including average or normal amount and usual/accepted standard . <S> In golf a hole's par is the number of strokes considered average or standard to complete it, and being under par means using fewer strokes than average - which happens to be a good thing, because of how the game works. <A> You have identified a discrepancy, but once again this is a case where the context is all important. <S> Given that par means average, the goal in golf is to finish using the least number of strokes, so in this case below par is a good result. <S> If we were talking about soccer, and par was the average number of goals that a team has scored in each of their games, then below par would be a poor result and above par would be a good result. <S> If we are to generalise and assume that most people would use an ascending scoring system of measurement such as percentages where 100% represents full marks, then below par would be considered a poor result. <S> However as discussed above golf uses an inverse scoring system where lower scores represent better performance, and therefore in this case below par is a good result. <A> There are already several good, correct answers here, but I would like to point out one subtle distinction in my observations of idiomatic use of par, other than in golf: <S> I find that par usually has a connotation closer to "sufficient" rather than "expected" or "average". <S> Thus, when someone describes something (such as a hotel room or meal) as above par , they usually mean "more than what was strictly required, but not necessarily outstanding". <S> In contrast, when someone describes something as below par , it very often means "that was so bad it didn't even meet the minimum requirements". <S> The phrases are asymmetrical in intensity. <A> Actually, I'm more familiar with people using "sub par" rather than "below par" to describe something as less than expected, etc. <S> As a golfer though, being "below par" is definitely a good thing, although here too the more conventional term, might be "under par". <S> "I am under par for the round". " <S> Tiger Woods is at 3 under" (meaning 3 under par). <S> But I suppose "below" is used as well <S> , I just don't hear it as much. <A> The key to this is surely the etymology: <S> the meaning of 'par' in golf derives from the meaning of 'par' as 'normal or expected quality, condition, or standard of something', not the other way around . <S> The relevant OED entry gives as the earliest examples of these respective uses: 1776 <S> H. Newdigate Let . <S> in A. E. Newdigate-Newdegate Cheverels (1898) i. 11 : <S> As to my Spirits they are rather above than below par . <S> 1887 <S> W. Simpson Art of Golf 8 <S> : He easily recalls how often he has done each hole in par figures. <A> Note the common expression: "Par for the course." <S> That means "average," or what you would normally expect. <S> So "below par" means less than what is expected, or poor, failing, disappointing. <A> The NOAD reports that below the par (or under the par ) means "worse than is usual or expected", while above the par means "better than is usual or expected". <S> Par for the course means "what is normal or expected in any given circumstances", which is the meaning of up to par too ("at an expected or usual level or quality"). <S> Above the par doesn't mean really good ; it could mean "above the average".
| Therefore something below par is below average, or below the acceptable standard - hence the usual, negative, meaning of the phrase.
|
What's the most appropriate name for non-italicized text: "roman" or "upright"? Let's say I am reviewing galley proofs, and the author has written some text in italics which shouldn't be. Would I write: “please typeset this word in roman ” or “please typeset this word upright ”? If both are clear and understandable, what are the differences? <Q> Once again I turn to The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition , which states 2.83 : [...] <S> To change words typeset in an italic typeface, underline or circle the words and write "rom" or "roman" in the margin. <S> For longer underlined passages that are to be set in roman type (not italicized), circle the text involved and write a note to the typesetter in the margin: (set roman) <S> [parentheses here indicates that text is circled] Speaking as someone who has done a little bit of proofreading work, using the word "roman" (in lowercase) in this context will not be confusing to anyone on the receiving end of the proofing notes. <A> I don't work as an editor, so there may be standard terminology for this, but as an English speaker, I would say that the clearest thing to write is "please don't italicize this". <S> The technical name for non-italic fonts is roman or romanized , so this is probably your best choice from the options you've given. <S> I would avoid calling it upright . <A> In typography terminology, roman (or normal ) is the antonym of italic , while upright is the antonym of oblique (aka slanted ). <S> Oblique type and italic type are not the same, as the Wikepedia article 'Oblique type' explains and illustrates. <S> Some typefaces have separate italic and oblique fonts. <S> So if the author has inappropriately used an italic font rather than a slanted font, 'please typeset in roman' would strictly be more appropriate than 'please typeset upright'. <S> But the typesetter will set the same type whichever you use.
| No typeface (AFAIK) has separate roman and upright fonts, so the choice between these words depends on which of italic or upright you wish to draw a contrast with.
|
"Get to do something" What's the meaning of "get to do something"? I get to spend a lot of time with you and the kids. <Q> Example 1 - A circumstance or choice enables you to do something: <S> Why do you work at home? <S> I get to spend a lot of time with you and the kids. <S> Example <S> 2 - Being given an opportunity: Has anything good come out of this week-long snowstorm? <S> I get to spend a lot of time with you and the kids. <S> Sometimes this phrase is used sarcastically to mean "I am being forced to do something that I don't want to do". <S> For example: I get to grade 40 tests this weekend! <S> should be interpreted as something along the lines of <S> I'd rather be doing something else, but I must grade 40 tests this weekend. <A> In this context it means have the opportunity to : I have the opportunity to spend a lot of time with you and the kids. <A> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/get 21: to succeed, become enabled, or be permitted: You get to meet a lot of interesting people. <A> That would simply mean that,You are now able to do it. <A> To ' get to do something ' means that you are given a chance/opportunity to do that thing. <S> There are bunch of replacements for it such as to be given a green light , be enabled to , be opened doors to doing .
| To "get to do" something means that you are enabled or given the opportunity to do something.
|
"Begs the question" or "Raises the question"? From Super User : I just installed Win7 on my non-PC (ahem) and was struck by how many times the Windows installer reboots during installation. It even tells you on the screen during installation that the computer will reboot multiple times. I know MS must have a good reason for this, but I'm completely baffled why this is necessary? Installation simply writes to the disk, and because the system has booted off the DVD, it already has full write access to the target hard drive partition. Is Windows in fact installing a preliminary disk image and then booting off of that instead of the DVD in order to speed up installation? ( Though that then begs the question, why 2 reboots? ) Edit: Changed "3+ reboots" to "2 reboots". It probably seemed like more than that because I had to do an extra reboot initially (back to my host OS) to fix the format of my partition, and then there were the subsequent reboots for windows updates. ( Emphasis added by me ) It seems to me like "raises the question" would fit better than "begs the question" in this case. What is correct? <Q> "raises the question" is correct. " <S> begs the question" is a logical fallacy of circular reasoning. <S> "prompts the question" might be even better. <A> From the context of that sentence, I would think that "beg the question" is used with the second meaning I reported. <S> The NOAD reports the following notes about the meaning of "beg the question": <S> The original meaning of the phrase beg the question belongs to the field of logic and is a translation of the Latin term petitio principii , literally meaning "laying claim to a principle" (that is, assuming something that ought to be proved first), as in the following sentence: "by devoting such a large part of the anti-drug budget to education, we are begging the question of its significance in the battle against drugs. <S> " <S> To some traditionalists, this is still the only correct meaning. <S> However, over the last 100 years or so, another, more general use has arisen: "invite an obvious question," as in "some definitions of mental illness beg the question of what constitutes normal behavior. <S> " This is by far the more common use today in modern standard English. <A> The phrase "begs the question" is abused in this fashion so often that it is becoming an accepted usage. <S> If you're a prescriptivist, it's absolutely incorrect; if you're a descriptivist, it's almost standard.
| "To beg the question" means "to raise the question," or "to invite an obvious question."
|
Is lolspeak bad English, or just a different English? Is lolspeak / internet speak (such as "plz send teh codez") bad English, or a different English? I can't really describe what'd be "bad", but a lack of consistency would be an indicator it's bad. <Q> Is it bad English ? <S> Yes, I'd say so. <S> Is it a bad language? <S> No, not really. <S> No more than, say, pig latin . <A> Like Leet and txt , Lolspeak is an almost exclusively textual form of communication that arose to fulfill a specific need. <S> While Leet appeared as an obfuscated hacker shibboleth and txt to circumvent the content length restrictions on SMS messages, Lolspeak appeared to serve the needs of Lolcats . <S> I'm sure there are other examples of written-only forms of communication such as these, which are obviously closely related to English, but I would argue that they are not English proper, simply because they're not always immediately intelligible to the uninitiate—and sometimes that's the point. <S> In that regard, they count as dialects, but of a sort that till now simply never had the opportunity to appear. <S> People make verbal use of expressions derived from these dialects fairly often, but it's usually restricted to a highly specific context and is often facetious. <S> Gamers in certain circles have long used expressions derived from Leet, most notably own ; people of all sorts have been caught saying brb , lol , and, in one of very few non-joking uses, B T dubs ( btw ) as verbal shorthand for by the way . <S> I'm at RIT, so I definitely hear lolspeak expressions with greater regularity than most, but I believe lolspeak is an active and important part of the culture of people who live both online and irl . <A> To extend on Jon Purdy's answer above, three points should be kept in mind: <S> Many similar examples exist of coded language that members of a group use to reinforce community bonds. <S> The primary purpose of Lolspeak is to caption photos of cats (and, rarely, rabbits, dogs and other animals). <S> It is intended to represent the speech of animals, not humans. <S> It is, functionally, a "joke. <S> " <S> A running gag. <S> Humor. <S> It is not a variant of English, a Creole, a patois, a pastiche, or a dialect. <S> I would continue, but I sense that Ceiling Cat is watching me. <A> To the Keepers Of The Faith (whatever faith that might be) anything new is "Bad". <S> However, it clearly came into being to serve a need, just as English or any other language evolves to better meet the needs of those it serves. <S> I think the real question is Is it English, Is It a dialect of English, or is it something different enough to be considered in its own right? <S> Other than noting that it is obviously based on English, I personally don't have the expertise to make this judgment. <S> Also note that it exists for communication within a specific environment <S> - you don't hear it on the street in face to face spoken conversation - only when the conversation is electronic. <S> I'm not a linguist. <S> Are there other living, natural, languages that exist only in written form?
| Lolspeak ( as described here ) is used as an insider marker for a subset of Internet users.
|
One who creates is a creator. What is one who updates? One who creates is a creator. What is one who updates? An updater? An updator? The last one seems more logical, but also wrong. <Q> According to Dr. Goodword's Language Blog , Generally, -or is a Latin suffix and -er is the Germanic equivalent meaning, roughly, “one who Vs”, where V represents any verb. <S> Words borrowed directly from Latin, then, tend to end with -or: governor, calculator, arbitrator, legislator, alternator. <S> Words of Germanic origin (English is a Germanic language) generally take -er: runner, thinker, worker, joker. <S> However, two factors muddy the water. <S> English borrowed many words from French in the Middle Ages and the French equivalent of -or and -er, is -eur. <S> English generally reduced that suffix to -er, keeping it only in a few words borrowed late: amateur, restaurateur, raconteur [...] <S> [...] you need to know the etymologies of many of the verbs that -er <S> and -or are added to, in order to know how to distribute them. <S> You can be sure that verbs ending with -ize and -ify will take the suffix -er and that verbs ending on the suffix -ate will be suffixed with -or. <S> You may note that "update" ends with "-ate"; however, it is not a suffix , as it is in words like asphyxiate and elongate . <S> According to dictionary.com , "update" is "up-" + "date", and "date" came to English via French, and therefore according to the information above should take "-er" as its suffix. <S> (Indeed, dictionary.com lists "updater" in its set of related forms.) <A> <A> -er <S> and -or <S> are suffixes used to form nouns denoting a person, animal, or thing that performs a specified action or activity. <S> In the dictionaries I have, I don't find updater , nor updator . <S> If I were to choose, I would choose updater .
| I would use creator for the person who creates a document/post/record and editor for someone who makes subsequent changes.
|
Is the "wit" in "to wit" the root of any other English words? ...and if not, where'd it go? One obvious venture is that the noun "wit", in the sense of cleverness and general know-how, has an etymological affinity with the Old English witen , "to know", and which Merriam-Webster informs me the "wit" in to wit is a conjugation of. I can kinda-sorta see it, but the connection isn't very transparent to me. However, I can certainly appeal to the learnèd scholars here! Are there any other surviving words witen bears etymological affinities to? <Q> "witness" is one. <S> I can see some link with the German "wissen" (also to know), Dutch "weten" and (I'm told) <S> Danish "Vide" . <S> As in many languages "to see" and "to know" <S> are interrelated concepts. <S> So that "to wit" is not only about knowledge but witnessing. <S> On the knowledge side, it is also easy to see the link with wise and witty and wittingly. <S> The "Witan" being the Anglo Saxon assembly of wise men - knowing enough to have their word in the destiny of the community. <S> "wittingly": knowingly. <S> update Following mplungjan's comment <S> , I read that the common root would be the Sanskrit "veda" (knowledge), which also yielded Latin "videre" (again "see" and "know"). <S> All of these forms (including the Sanskrit) come from the Proto-Indo-European word *weid- (credits to Kosmonaut) <A> Witless http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/witless <A> In addition to ones already mentioned: inwit - mind, reason, intellect, understanding witcraft - logic, reasoning witful — wise; sensible witling - a person with little wit witter - knowing, certain, sure, wis; to make sure, inform, or declare. <S> witticism - a witty remark wittiness <S> wittol - an acquiescent cuckold. <S> There are more in Middle English that I don't think are to be found in Modern English. <A> The word wit is from Old English. <S> According to Etymonline : "know," O.E. witan "to know," from P.Gmc. <S> *witanan "to have seen," hence "to know" (cf. <S> O.S. witan, O.N. vita, O.Fris. <S> wita, M.Du., Du. <S> weten, O.H.G. wizzan, Ger. <S> wissen, <S> Goth. witan "to know"); see wit (n.). <S> The phrase to wit , almost the only surviving use of the verb, is first recorded 1570s, from earlier that is to wit (mid-14c.) <S> , probably a loan-translation of Anglo-Fr. cestasavoir, used to render L. videlicet (see viz.). <A> The NOAD reports that witan (another term for witenagemot ) derives from the Old English plural of wita ( wise man ). <S> In that case, you can say there is another word that is related to the Old English wit . <A> Dimwit is a relatively new (1920's) American construction. <S> 1920-25, Americanism; <S> dim + wit <A> "Wit" in late ME also referred to any of the five senses. <S> Probably related - "to have one's wits about one"
| As you already mentioned "to wit" is from an old Saxon root.
|
Use of subjunctive with "in order that" Is it correct to use "that+subjunctive" after the phrase "in order"? For example: Nutritionist recommend that people at risk for anemia consume iron supplements in order that blood counts remain stable. <Q> I would just get rid of "in order" (see this question for instance) and say: Nutritionists recommend that people at risk for anemia consume iron supplements for their blood counts to remain stable. <S> or Nutritionists recommend that people at risk for anemia consume iron supplements so that their blood counts remain stable. <S> Anyway, I never heard "in order that" only "in order to". <S> However, I am not a native speaker <S> so I may be wrong on that. <A> I would re-write <S> the sentence as "nutritionist recommend that people at risk for anemia consume iron supplements in order that blood counts might remain stable." <S> In the sentence, in order that means "with the intention; so that." <S> The present of the subjunctive mood is used to express commands or requests; the past of the subjunctive mood is used to express what is imagined or wished or possible. <S> The NOAD has the following notes about the usage of the subjunctive in English: <S> The subjunctive is used to express situations that are hypothetical or not yet realized and is typically used for what is imagined, hoped for, demanded, or expected. <S> In English, the subjunctive mood is fairly uncommon (especially in comparison with other languages, such as Spanish), mainly because most of the functions of the subjunctive are covered by modal verbs such as might , could , and should . <S> In fact, in English, the subjunctive is often indistinguishable from the ordinary indicative mood since its form in most contexts is identical. <S> It is distinctive only in the third person singular, where the normal indicative -s <S> ending is absent ( he face rather than he faces ), and in the verb to be <S> ( I were rather than I was , and they be rather than they are ). <A> People do use "in order that..." with an infinitive/modal in English, but it feels a bit like a translationism. <A> Yes, it is correct. <S> Examples of exactly this construction are provided on the Wikipedia page for the English subjunctive . <S> Commentary that is maybe more authoritative is provided in the 2015 edition of Fowler's , which comments on the construction as follows. <S> Historically, “in order that” has been rather more restricted in the grammatical construction that follows than has the less formal alternative so that . <S> Fowler, writing in 1926, regarded the use of (i) the subjunctive ( in order that nothing be forgotten ) as archaic ... <S> The guide later comments that with electronic language data available to check our intuitions about language, the facts are: (i) that the subjunctive is increasingly used and is therefore by no means archaic and includes three examples of exactly this construction. <S> In summary, Fowler originally wrote that it was correct, but archaic, whereas today it is hard to argue even that this construction is archaic. <S> If you want a different reference, Steven Pinker in The Sense of Style includes in his notes on the subjunctive this example: <S> “We must cooperate in order that the system operate efficiently.”
| I think it would be more natural English to say "in order for their blood counts to remain stable", or better in this case, just "in order to stabalise their blood counts".
|
What's the difference between 'ignorant' and 'silly'? while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty <Q> Ignorance is lack of knowledge. <S> lack of knowledge or information : <S> he acted in ignorance of basic procedures. <S> Silly is behaving in a foolish manner, or showing poor judgment. <S> having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish : another of his silly jokes | <S> “Don't be silly!” <S> she said <S> [Both definitions from NOAD] <A> "Ignorant" is (at least on the surface) factual, while "silly" is purely an expression of opinion. <S> For example, my manager makes decisions I consider silly (and sometimes downright stupid), while he thinks them wise (if not brilliant). <S> But we agree they aren't ignorant decisions: he has all the necessary information before deciding, including my sage advice. <A> A possible approach to shed some light on the difference between ignorant and silly is to adopt an etymological point of view. <S> Whereas the origin of ignorant is pretty straightforward ("deprived of knowledge" in Latin), that of silly is more complex. <S> The word <S> silly has its root in Old English and probably beyond in Proto Indo European. <S> It comes from Old Germanic sâlîg and the associated meanings shifted gradually from... " happy, blissful " (OE) to " blessed " (c.1200) to " pious, innocent " (late 13c) to " simple-minded, lacking in reason " (late 16c) <S> and today even " foolish ".
| So that as others have already mentioned, ignorance is a lack of knowledge and silliness a lack of common sense .
|
Using contracted forms ("don't", "let's") in a formal text How compelled should I feel to use non-contracted forms ( do not rather than don't and so on) when writing in a rather formal text, say an academic paper? In one case I am afraid to seem too stilted, in the other, too casual. Are there good guidelines? And are there differences in this regard between British and American English? (In this previous question there was not much more than "Contractions are more frequent in informal than formal contexts".) <Q> Contractions generally sound a little more informal than their non-contracted equivalents. <S> However, they also sound more natural, as non-contracted forms are practically never used in speech (except e.g. for emphasis or in cases where contractions are not grammatical). <S> Whether a particular piece of writing is "formal" enough to warrant avoiding contractions is really quite subjective. <S> If you look at many scholarly books and even journal articles, you will find that many (native speaking) authors actually do use contractions and their respective editors have decided that they're happy with them. <S> I would argue that contractions are almost always possible in e-mails: if the context was that formal, you probably wouldn't be communicating by e-mail in the first place. <S> But as I say, it is a subjective decision. <S> On the other hand, if you are writing in a formal context such as a journal article or a formal letter to a company and can't decide whether or not to use contractions, then I think that avoiding contractions will always be a "safe" decision in such formal contexts. <A> The APA style guide prefers that contractions, including Latin abbreviations, not be used in scholarly papers, and recommends that the equivalent phrase in English be written out. <S> source <A> It is frowned upon to use contractions in formal writing. <S> However, these "rules" or "standards" are quickly becoming guidelines. <S> For instance, it's often advised to avoid negations in formal writing. <S> So, "do not" shouldn't be used at all. <S> But there are times when the negated construction doesn't have the same meaning as the positive construction, and meaning is sometimes compromised for form. <S> The author Cormac McCarthy even uses "dont" in his works. <S> A good piece of writing should be clear and natural. <S> If you find that "don't" is more natural than "do not," use "don't. <S> " <S> Don't fall prey to traditionalists. <A> As with all writing it is important to consider your audience's expectations. <S> You could do a brief analysis of others' writings in the same field and publication type. <S> If they use lots of contractions then it is safe for you to do so too. <S> If they don't and you do, then you may draw attention away from the content of your writing to the style in which it is written. <S> If this is an aim, then fine, but you may undermine your credibility with some readers. <S> It's also worth pointing out that some contractions (such as the ones in this post: don't, it's) are far more common and therefore more likely to be accepted than others. <S> I would be very wary of using less common contractions such as "they're", "he'll", "mustn't", "would've", etc. <A> Contracted forms should not be used in formal reports or letters, only to be used in emails, informal writing and the spoken word.
| Try to avoid using the contracted form in formal texts: Contractions are used sparingly in formal written English.
|
Heavy usage of synonyms in English or not? I am a native German speaker and in German it is considered very bad style to use a word more than once in a sentence or even in close proximity. So you usually have a big list of synonyms in your head and you always cycle though these words while writing or even change complete sentences so you will not have to use the same words. I always automatically assumed that this is also the case in English. Now someone told me that this is actually nothing you have to be concerned about. (This sentence is actually a good example for this. I could have written: "Now someone told me that this is actually not the case in English." but I already used "the case in English" in the sentence before that and such repetitions are considered to be extremely clumsy writing in German.) Could someone please comment on this? <Q> That means varying sentence length, mixing active and passive voice — in short, avoiding repetition and, with it, monotony. <S> Obviously that applies to word choice as well. <S> I am constantly on the hunt for synonyms. <S> Mostly those come naturally, because I have a sizable vocabulary and English affords a writer so many ways to express the same idea. <S> But at times it does become difficult to find suitable alternates. <S> Even then I consider it well worth my time and effort to do so. <S> The only exception I make is when I want to use repetition to add rhetorical emphasis: to make a point, to make a meaning clear, to make the reader stop and pay close attention. <S> I would say that what has served you in German will serve you in English. <S> And I already see evidence in your writing of the traits I describe above, which I perceive as virtues. <S> Whoever has advised you otherwise is not doing you any favors. <S> That is, unless that person is someone who will be reviewing your dissertation and has an obsessive fondness for needless repetition. <A> I think it depends on the style of writing: <S> In technical and scientific writing, on the other hand, words often have precise technical meanings and it can be confusing or even misleading to use different words to convey precisely the same meaning. <S> Confusing as the reader may be left puzzling over whether the different words are intended to convey slightly different meanings, and misleading if the reader understands them to have slightly different meanings when the author intended the same meaning. <S> So in scientific and technical writing such as journal articles and instruction manuals, I'd highly recommend using the same word to convey the same meaning, even if it means repeating it within a sentence. <A> You should probably avoid careless repetition when there is an equally clear and terse alternative; however, don't let monologophobia keep you up at night. <S> There are plenty of examples of writing where repetition is used to positive effect, usually for emphasis, if not solely for art. <S> Stating the same thing different ways probably provides a broader appeal for a larger audience (driving the point home for some while making the meaning clear for others), but a scientific audience (for one) might prefer precise terminology, even if you have to repeat it. <S> A rosa kordesii is a rosa kordesii is a rosa kordesii. <A> Synonyms are always a difficult topic to tackle. <S> That is, certain words are to be used in the contexts that require them. <S> For example, if you look up "ironic" in a thesaurus you get "sardonic," sarcastic," "wry," and so on. <S> None of these words can be used interchangeably. <S> However, the meaning of the sentence or phrase would likely be unaltered. <S> The trick is to minimize using adverbs and adjectives. <S> It is easier to find synonyms for nouns and verbs that have similar meanings--though they're often not a perfect match.
| I agree that for most non-technical writing it's often considered poor style to repeat a word in the same sentence (other than articles, conjunctions & prepositions such as 'the', 'a', 'and', 'in', 'to', 'of' ...). I consider it a matter of good style in English to vary all aspects of composition to keep the presentation of the material fresh and interesting.
|
What does "a man among men" mean? The phrase: "A man among men." We have been having a debate about whether this means: unexceptional, common, like all others, ordinary a superior example of one in a class We have found examples of both uses. Does anyone know where this term originated and what it meant when first used? <Q> It means "an exemplar. <S> " One who should be emulated. <A> While I can't provide any answers as to the origin of the phrase, the meaning is closer to the latter than the former. <S> For example, if the only differentiation between a Gentleman and a regular man was physical beauty (such that all gentlemen were handsomer than non-gentleman) to say someone was "a man among men" would imply that out of a group of handsome gentleman, who are, by our definition, already handsome, this person is so much more handsome than the rest that the other gentlemen appear plain by comparison. <S> It's a bit of a different question as to what qualities "man among men" is referring to as it relates to people, however. <A> It could go either way. <S> It all depends on the context. <S> Particularly the speaker's tone of voice. <S> Whether they speak of someone/something in admiration or in disgust. <S> Typically, I find that this specific case (man among men) usually means the second, and when speaking of other objects (a tree among trees) it usually means the first. <A> It simply means he stands out as an individual amongst a group. <A> Likewise, you could also use the term "First among equals" . <S> This one is actually a book by Jeffery Archer. <S> A man among men, would in all probability refer to "A Man" characterized by special attributes and abilities not commonly observed in the general class of Homo Sapiens (referred to here as "among men"). <S> Also, I would like to add certain quotes on the characteristics desirable in "A Man" : <S> Only a man who knows what it is like to be defeated can reach down to the bottom of his soul and come up with the extra ounce of power it takes to win when the match is even. <S> – <S> Muhammad Ali Happy <S> the man who, like Ulysses, has made a fine voyage, or has won the Golden Fleece, and then returns, experienced and knowledgeable, to spend the rest of his life among his family!” <S> — Joachim du Bellay <S> I have always thought that every woman should marry, and no man. <S> — <S> Benjamin Disraeli <S> Feelings are not supposed to be logical. <S> Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions. <S> –David Borenstein <S> To me, being an intellectual doesn’t mean knowing about intellectual issues; it means taking pleasure in them. <S> – <S> Chinua Achebe <S> A true man hates no one. <S> – <S> Napoleon Bonaparte <S> The most successful men in the end are those whose success is the result of steady accretion… It is the man who carefully advances step by step, with his mind becoming wider and wider – and progressively better able to grasp any theme or situation – persevering in what he knows to be practical, and concentrating his thought upon it, who is bound to succeed in the greatest degree. <S> – <S> Alexander Graham Bell <S> Now you'd never really hear "A Woman among women" but Have you ever heard "A woman's gotta do what a woman's gotta do" ? <A> I have always taken it to mean the latter. <S> To relay the meaning of the former, it would be "just a man like any other".
| What the phrase is implying is that the subject possesses attributes or qualities that set them above an already superior group.
|
Where did the saying "Bite the dust" come from? Hypothetical example usage: "Another one bites the dust." He said as he watched another building burn to the ground. It just means that something is destroyed. What does biting dust have to do with destruction? Where did that saying come from? <Q> "To bite the dust" means to die or to fail (see e.g. Wiktionary ). <S> Picture someone falling down, wounded or dead, quite literally biting the dust (soil, ground, earth). <S> Etymonline says that the first recorded appearance of the phrase is from 1750. <S> The Phrase Finder supplies it as follows : <S> "We made two of them bite the dust, and the others betake themselves to flight." <S> [...] <S> [Samuel Butler's 19th century translation of Homer's The Iliad ] contains a reference to 'bite the dust' in these lines: <S> "Grant that my sword may pierce the shirt of Hector about his heart, and that full many of his comrades may bite the dust as they fall dying round him." <S> Whether that can be counted as an 8th century BC origin for 'bite the dust' is open to question and some would say that it was Butler's use of the phrase rather than Homer's. <A> The phrase was originally applied solely to humans who, as others have noted, might literally end up with a mouthful of dirt as they fall to the ground in battle. <S> It has since taken on a more figurative sense and can refer equally to all manner of inanimate <S> fails: <S> bite the dust <S> informal be killed : and the bad guys bite the dust with lead in their bellies . <S> • <S> figurative fail <S> ; come to an end : <S> she hoped the new program would not bite the dust for lack of funding . <S> I found this antedating of bite the dust from a 1728 English translation of François Fénelon 's Les Aventures de Télémaque : <A> Through laden pack beasts and shifting clouds of churned earth, two travellers can be seen locked in combat. <S> The desert air is dry and pierced with the calls of vultures. <S> They have been on this road too long. <S> Another challenger has risen to vie for leadership of the clan, the fourth in so many days. <S> As before, the leader's experience and sheer force of will overwhelm the opponent. <S> A sharp crack to the face sends him reeling backwards, twisting, falling, face-first in the dirt. <S> " Another one bites the dust ," she spits, wearied. <A> Seems more poetic than literal, but the expression is probably old as it exists in Spanish with a direct translation (but not that old). <S> :) <S> Source Academic Dictionary (1970 edition) includes expression bite the dust to mean "pay, <S> beat him in the fight, killing him or knocking him down." <A> In Homer's Odyssey Odysseus and his companions defeat the suitors who 'αμα πάντες οδαξ ελον αςπετον ουράς'Literally, 'all together biting with their teeth the great floor'
| According to some Spanish sources, the expression "morder el polvo" (literally translated: bite the dust/powder ) - which means to die or to lose - comes from the "fact" that in the middle ages, when a knight was about to die, would put some dirt in his mouth as a way to express his love of the land. The earliest citation of the 'bite the dust' version [of the earlier phrase 'lick the dust', from the Bible] is from 1750 by the Scottish author Tobias Smollett , in his Adventures of Gil Blas of Santillane:
|
Which noun should I use to describe that a computer system hangs? According to the dictionary, "hang" can also be used as a noun, but I don't think it is the right word to use in this scenario. Should I use "hanging" instead, e.g., this software bug may cause two problems to this computer, crash or hanging? It also sounds weird to me. In general, if a verb doesn't have a direct corresponding noun, what should I do if I have to use a noun to present the same meaning. <Q> You could say "a freeze", but "a hang" is also perfectly acceptable. <S> As a matter of fact the title of the wikipedia article "Freeze_(Computing)" is actually... <S> "Hang" and starts like this <S> " <S> In computing, a hang or freeze occurs when either a single computer program or the whole system ceases to respond to inputs." <S> (emphasis is mine) <S> Personally I would prefer to use a "hang" for a server (typically in the case when a request is sent and one waits indefinitely for the answer) <S> whereas the "freeze" conjures up the idea of an unresponsive GUI (when for instance moving the mouse does not move the pointer) and would therefore preferably apply to a desktop. <A> In at least some technical communities, a hang is perfectly standard, and probably the correct term to use. <S> Try googling, for example, "fixing a hang" or "server hang" : We will go over the basic debugging of a server hang in a future post. <S> If you don’t like that noun usage, then reworking it to use a verb is probably the best option, if there’s a reasonably non-clunky way to do so. <S> I’d be rather wary of substituting other nouns ( freezes , crashes , etc.), depending of course on context. <S> As with all technical and semi-technical terms, there may be subtle distinctions between their precise meanings, which it’s important to respect. <S> I don’t know what the usage is now, but at least on Macs in the early 90 <S> ’s <S> , if I remember right, a freeze and a hang <S> were two specific types of crash — to a lay reader they sounded like synonyms, but when the technical details mattered, they weren’t quite interchangeable. <A> How about freeze or halt ? <S> As to your general question, I would look around for other word stems, or just reword. <S> (In this particular case, I might write, "the software bug might cause the computer to crash or hang".) <A> In such cases you could do the following, in order of preference: <S> Restructure <S> the sentence, as in "this may cause your computer to hang or crash". <S> Use a gerund, as you suggested; this may be a bit awkward if you are using the verb in a marginal sense, one that is not very widely used. <S> In your case, perhaps you could use the noun "freeze", "unresponsiveness", or "unresponsive behaviour": <S> This software bug may cause two problems, crashes and freezing.
| Use a noun that means something similar though slightly different.
|
"much of the time" vs "most of the time" Are these two phrases different in meaning? When do you use "much" or "most"? I was reading a book named "The world of words" where I saw this sentence Substitution in context will help you much of the time . This was the first time I saw this expression. So I wonder if there are any differences between two. <Q> [Edited: it seems we ninja'd each other.] <S> I suspect the author in that sentence hesitated between often and most of the time : he wanted to indicate that it was helpful very, very often; but he didn't want to go so far as to say that it was helpful more than 50 % of the time, and so he chose a somewhat cowardly expression in between. <S> I think he would have been better off choosing either often or most of the time , or perhaps very often , though I don't think the added intensity of very is really necessary. <S> Much of the time would not really be a common idiomatic expression in this situation; I'd be reluctant to use it in a context of frequent events, because I can't imagine a situation where you could not substitute often , a simpler word. <S> If you are not talking about something that happens frequently, but rather about a continuous length of time, you could use much of the time : <S> Much of the time we had left together was spent looking for the right papers and documents. <S> This means that a large part of this time was spent looking for papers, but "large" could be anything from 1 % to 99 %; <S> if I used most of the time , it would mean that more than half of the time was spent on it. <A> Some answers have claimed that much of the time is not an idiomatic phrase, and/or that it is restricted to particular meanings. <S> However, Google claims around 171 million results for the phrase. <S> While some of these are part of other phrases ("How much of the time", "so much of the time"), looking at the first few pages of results suggests that "much of the time" is a common idiomatic phrase, and that the contexts where it can be used don't differ significantly from "most of the time". <S> COCA shows a similar picture (494 occurrences, some of which as part of other phrases, but most not - though contrasted with 3655 occurrences of "most of the time"). <S> So it exists, but is much less common than "most of the time". <S> My own experience, which seems to match the examples I've found from both sources, is that "most of the time", while technically correct for anything that occurs more than 50% of the time, tends to be used for things that occur much more than 50% of the time. <S> The phrase "much of the time", then, conveys a sense of something that happens frequently, or for a significant proportion of the time, but not enough to call it "most of the time". <A> much describes the actions used within the time , as in " much of the time was spent washing dishes," whereas most is used to describe the person speaking i.e. " most of the time I like to wash dishes, but today I do not want to. <S> " <S> Of course, they're often interchangeable like most of the English language :-) <A> I like the definition that "much of the time" means often (1%–99%), and "most of the time" also means often (>50%). <S> For example: We tend to blame fatigue on a too-busy life-style, and much of the time we're right. <S> With that definition, you'll easily understand the meaning of the sentence.
| Most of the time is an expression indicating that something happens more often than not, usually much more often.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.