source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Is "Thank god", as opposed to "Thank God", acceptable? People are quite stingy lately about anything with religious connotations, so I'm worried that the phrase "thank God" might tick some people off. Is "thank god" acceptable? Would that offend people of monotheistic faiths? Or would "thank God" be acceptable to atheists/polytheists too? <Q> Are you worried about offending atheists/polytheists by being too monotheistic, or about offending monotheists by being blasphemous? <S> In any case, I think that in most contexts, anyone offended by “thank God” would still be offended by “thank god”, and vice versa. <S> In informal contexts, I’d be surprised if either offended anyone; extremely devout monotheists might perhaps consider them blasphemous. <S> In some official contexts (if you were acting as spokesperson for a school, say), both forms could upset people who have strong feelings about separation of church and state. <S> “Thank goodness!” <S> is probably an unobjectionable alternative. <S> In case you’re not familiar with this expression, it isn’t a neologistic PC euphemism for “thank God” <S> , it’s a common equivalent phrase which I think most native speakers would be familiar with. <A> So the phrase "Thank God" is appropriate. <S> There are so many contextual nuances that it is truly easier to adhere to that standard, unless you are trying to make a very explicit statement. <S> Even with that standard, you will not please everyone, but at least you are less likely to cause confusion. <S> For example, Christian and Islamic faiths refer to "God" as "God". <S> So do many Jews. <S> However some religious Jews use the following "G_d" or "G-d" instead. <S> If one were writing for an audience with a pantheist belief system, I think it would still be correct to refer to God with a capital G, but maybe in the plural case. <S> " <S> Thank the Gods". <S> Whether a single or multiple instance, you are referring to deities. <S> If you are worried about offending non-religious or atheist readers, do not use the expression "Thank God" at all. <S> There are many alternatives. <A> Conversely, if someone is is unaffected by or indifferent to "God," then "god" is likely to have the same non-effect. <S> I think @PLL is right that "Thank goodness" is both nearly identical in meaning, and ( almost universally) inoffensive. <S> (I wouldn't call it "PC," though. <S> "Politically correct" is usually used by more conservative groups or individuals to refer to the verbal and institutional corrections (or hyper-corrections ) by groups perceived to be over-reacting to the possibility of offending under-represented others or favoring historical majorities.) <S> As I say in my comment under PLL's answer, in my own usage, "thank goodness" has lost any connection to "god" or "gods", and it is an purely abstract epithet.
| In general, if "Thank God" is offensive to a group or person, "Thank god" will be too. "God" is a proper noun, and for that reason should be capitalized.
|
What is the difference between "affect" and "influence"? For example, if I want to say "the performance of this bike could be affected/influenced by many things", is there a difference between these two words? My gut feeling is that "affect" sounds better, but I cannot find evidence in dictionaries. <Q> Influence has two main connotations that affect doesn't. <S> The first is that of relation to process rather than state , so that something might affect a rock but rarely would circumstances arise where we could speak of that rock being influenced . <S> The second, and weaker, connotation is of emotive response being involved; this is probably the connotation that makes it feel less appropriate to use in reference to a bike's performance. <S> (We do speak of mechanistic processes being influenced, though, especially complex ones.) <A> In the following sentence (made up for the occasion) ... <S> "The hand of a magnet takes its position under the influence of the Earth magnetic field but it can also be affected by the presence a nearby metallic object. <S> " ... one can clearly see the difference. <S> You will find that affect has several other negative meanings: <S> "He seems to be very affected by his loss." <S> "He is affected by Alzheimer's Disease" <S> In the example above "influence" is neutral but it can actually go either way. <S> It can be deemed counter productive or beneficial. <S> However only your own judgement will tell you; depending on the nature of the influence. <S> "He started smoking under the influence of the other members of the band". <S> "The Government agreed to more ambitious goals under the influence of its 'Green' Parliament minority". <S> In other words your opinion will not be influenced by the fact that "influence" is usually positive or usually negative ;-) <S> Arguably though, "influential" has a slightly positive orientation. <S> "Philosophers like Voltaire were influential in the Age of Enlightenment". <A> Influenced means "having the character, development, or behavior changed by something or somebody." <S> Affected means "influenced or touched by an external factor." <S> Affected doesn't seem to have a negative connotation (and in most the cases it is considered synonym of influenced ), except in sentences like "the gesture appeared both affected and stagy." <S> In such sentences, affected means "artificial, pretentious, and designed to impress."
| I feel like "affected" as a slightly negative connotation whereas "influence" can go either way.
|
How can I use the verb "sad" in the past continuous? How can I use the verb "sad" in the past continuous? E.g.: I was crying. I was missing. What should be the sentences for sad or upset in past continuous? Why do some words like the two above not follow standards? Are these exceptions? <Q> Sad is an adjective, so it doesn't have a past form. <S> There is the verb sadden , however. <S> I was saddened. <S> Upset can be a verb, but it's an irregular one. <S> Its simple past (and past participle) form is upset . <S> I was upset. <S> I was upset by the news. <S> The bad news upset me. <S> Note <S> that both sadden and upset are transitive verbs. <S> (The intransitive usage of sadden is archaic.) <S> So if you are going for past continuous, simply saying I was upsetting. <S> I was saddening. <S> wouldn't really work — it would raise the question, whom <S> were you upsetting/saddening? <S> So instead, you would have to say I was being upset (by something). <S> I was being saddened (by something). <A> There is no verb "sad" in English. <S> It's an adjective. <S> The closest you can get is "feel sad", which you can put in the past continuous: <S> I was feeling sad. <S> Similarly, you can write <S> I was feeling upset. <A> Cry and miss are two verbs; that is the reason you can say "I was crying" or "I was missing." <S> Upset is also verb, but it means "to make others unhappy;" if that is what you mean, then you can use the past progressive of upset <S> like you do with other verbs. <S> Upset and sad are two adjectives, in sentences like "I am upset" or "I am sad. <S> " If you want to use the past progressive, the verb in those phrases is to be , whose present participle is being . <S> I have never seen somebody using the past progressive in that way, though, when you can simply write those phrases with the simple past.
| You'd just say: I was sad.
|
Which word(s) can be used instead of "the first day of the week?" I have noticed that on Stack Exchange sites, "week reputation" is referring to the reputation gained from Sunday to Saturday (in fact, my today's reputation is different from my week's reputation, and today is Monday). I remember I asked to my friend, who is American, what she would consider the first day of the week, and she replied saying it is Monday. Which word (or words) can I use instead of "the first day of the week?" <Q> It depends on what you mean by "week" in this case. <S> In America, Sunday is considered the first day of the week, and Monday is considered the first day of the work week . <S> Note that SE sites end their week at the end of Saturday, GMT. <S> This makes Sunday the first day of the SE week. <S> If you want to be safe you could just say "the start of the week," but you would still have to define what you meant by "week": the start of which week? <A> Rather than an alternative phrase, make it explicit: ... <S> weekly, starting each Monday ... <S> or ... <S> every week (Sunday through Saturday) ... <A> The ISO-8601 standard defines Monday as day 1 of the week. <S> Or "day 1 of the working week" if you want to ensure an American hears "Monday".
| So say "day 1 of the week".
|
What is the meaning of the expression "We can table this"? This came up in an email discussion - we are arguing about the merits and demerits of a certain approach, and I mentioned what I thought was a drawback to a scheme. To that, my colleague replied : "Okay, we can table this, but I just want to clarify something..." after which he went on to elucidate his views....Does that mean that the discussion is closed on this ? If so, did he mean to say "I agree to what you say, but I wasn't totally wrong either" or something similar, or is it the reverse ? <Q> It might mean to postpone it indefinitely, but usually it just means that the discussion should be resumed at a later date. <S> (As others have pointed out, in British English it means the exact opposite. <S> Two countries divided by a common language, as someone said .) <S> Edit: <S> Etymonline notes : <S> table (v.) in parliamentary sense, 1718, originally "to lay on the (speaker's) table for discussion," from table (n.). <S> But in U.S. political jargon it has the sense of "to postpone indefinitely" (1866). <S> Related <S> : Tabled; tabling. <S> That may be true for political jargon, but in every business meeting I've ever been involved with, to "table" <S> something usually means the issue wasn't going to go away but that we were agreeing not to talk about it during the current meeting. <A> It depends who is saying it. <S> Americans mean "let's postpone discussing it". <A> Colloquially, one can table a suggestion for a group to decide on. (From the UK). <A> According to http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12 <S> (Roberts Rules of Order): <S> The purpose of the motion to Lay on the Table is to enable an assembly, by majority vote and without debate, to lay a pending question aside temporarily when something else of immediate urgency has arisen or when something else needs to be addressed before consideration of the pending question is resumed. <S> In ordinary societies it is rarely needed, and hence seldom in order. <S> [RONR (11th ed.), pp. <S> 209-18; see also <S> p. 127 of RONRIB.] <A> He probably was using the word casually, meaning to communicate that he doesn't think reaching a consensus is necessary or useful, and he doesn't want to continue the discussion either right now or ever. <S> RONR chapter 17(page 209, line 23) begins immediately with the description <S> To interrupt the pending business so as to permit doing something else immediately. <S> It is then followed by multiple pages explaining how to handle the incorrect usage of the motion, explaining how most people mean to postpone the subject, and to table is not what they meant. <S> It is notable that tabling deprives the minority of rights since the motion to table is not debatable; to use it to kill discussion is highly improper. <S> The correct action to achieve that goal is to postpone(to a date or indefinitely), which does allow debate.
| In American English, to table something means to postpone discussion on something. Other English speaking people mean "let's begin discussing it". The correct use of tabling is to get to a matter that is more urgent with the intent to come back to the issue as quickly as possible.
|
How to use "It ain't over till the fat lady sings"? I know the meaning of this phrase: One should not assume the outcome of some activity (e.g. a sports game) until it has actually finished. I'm curious as to whether it would more likely be used when the speaker refers to an assumed favorable outcome that might turn unfavorable : "The Giants are going to win this game, no question!" "It ain't over till the fat lady sings." the speaker refers to an assumed unfavorable outcome that might turn favorable "Might as well go home, no chance the Giants are going to win this one." "It ain't over till the fat lady sings." Or does the phrase apply to both situations equally? <Q> I'd say that both of those usages are fine and that you could generalize it to "an unexpected outcome might occur instead of an expected one." <S> I've also heard it used (on TV) to simply mean that the end hasn't arrived yet and you have to wait for it (before you can, for example, go home). <A> It refers to either. <A> This implies it can very well be used in either of the scenarios. <S> On a side note do you see the resemblance with "Don't count your chickens before they hatch"?
| The meaning of the phrase is that the outcome is still undecided, and whoever is ahead at the moment may still lose, irrespective of which team you are rooting for. "It ain't over till [or until] the fat lady sings" is a colloquialism, essentially meaning that one should not assume the outcome of some activity (e.g. a sports game) until it has actually finished.
|
What does the word 'carcareal' mean when referring to policies? In The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism by David Harvey on page 240 the author alludes to an "... anti-democratic, money-saturated and carcareal drift of capitalist state policies..." which, as far as I can see, is the only time the word 'carcareal' occurs in the book. I've searched Google and some on-line dictionaries but so far haven't found any definition or use of the word in a similar context that would give me a clue what it means. To me the context makes me think of the word 'carcass' and connotes morbidity and death but that's a wild guess. <Q> Both seem fairly rare, and restricted to post-modernist writers such as Michel Foucault. <S> You will find phrases such as "carcareal archipelago" or "carceral archipelago", which seem to mean the division of society into prisons, mental institutions and gated communities, with surveillance everywhere. <A> It's an obscure formation from the same root as incarcerate , and means prison- or imprisonment-related (or, <S> I suspect in this case, imprisonment- oriented ). <A> Not sure if the word is misspelled in the book or you mistyped, but I believe you are looking for "carceral," which is defined as "pertaining to prisons or a prison. <S> " <S> In the limited scope of context provided, I imagine it is a semi-derogatory reference to the characteristic of 'capitalistic state policies' to simply incarcerate criminals rather than reform them. <A> First I think the spelling is incorrect and the word you are looking for is carceral. <S> From Wiki: A carceral state is a state modelled on the idea of a prison. <S> It employs physical boundaries in order to gain control of urban space. <S> In the carceral state, public space is transformed into defendable space, with the installation of walls, gates, fences, surveillance cameras and security checkpoints. <S> Such installations are meant to provide control over urban space. <S> In these spaces, gatherings of strangers to the area are discouraged, and barricades of various forms can prevent people from entering or passing through. <A> It’s in Nabokov’s “Invitation to a Beheading” as well — a book about the imprisonment of one Cincinnatus. <S> Page 206 - 207: ...he was about to sit down again when suddenly the key scraped in the lock and the door opened whining, rattling and groaning in keeping with all the rules of carceral counterpoint.
| Carcareal is almost certainly a variant of carceral meaning "like a prison".
|
Another phrase for "dealing with people you wouldn't normally want to deal with but you do" Has anyone got a nice phrase for "dealing with people you wouldn't normally want to deal with but you do because they perform a function that you would not want to do or are not able to do"? I have in mind the situation in the Merchant in Venice where the Venetians tolerate the Jews, even though they dislike them, because they need them as moneylenders, since Christians were officially not allowed by the Church to collect interest (this despite the fact that countless Christian countries, including Venice, had commercial banks with networks operating all over Europe by the early Renaissance). <Q> <A> An opportunist deals with people by the maxim <S> the end justifies the means : he will use people or parties as a means to whatever his goals are, sometimes disregarding ethical concerns. <S> He may form a coalition with liberals even though he is a socialist himself, if this coalition furthers his goals in some way. <S> You might also call him a Machiavellian , though this implies an even more ruthless application of the maxim. <S> There is also modus vivendi : a situation in which several parties coexist more or less peacefully, not because they like each other or feel the situation is optimal, but rather because destroying the equilibrium by attacking or leaving the system would worsen their own position too much. <S> This situation is less benign than a symbiosis , in which both parties not only profit from each other but are usually also fully committed to each other. <A> Man, i know the damn thing in Hindi but a word by word translation in English would be "If need be, call an ass a Father" <A> How about "begrudging toleration"? <S> "Toleration" already implies that there is something negative (them being Jewish in your example) that you have to accept for whatever reason (you don't like them but the authority tells you to; you don't like them but they have something you want; &c.). <S> Putting "begrudging" in front makes it even clearer that there is quite a negative reaction to whatever is being tolerated, so there must be a good reason for said toleration. <A> I suffered the camels' smell because, without them, it would be a very long and lonely journey home." . <S> "I can barely abide the people in this party, but my girlfriend would be quite upset if I left .". <A> I think there is a subtle difference between "toleration" - putting up with something, and "tolerance", which is more an attitude of mind than an action. <S> I'm suggesting "toleration" for the original question. <A> Why not start by placing it in a sentence? <S> Group A [begrudgingly interacted with distaste and scorn] with Group B. <S> How about any of the following? <S> Group A [deigned to employ] Group B. Group A [abided] or [suffered the presence of] Group B solely out of pragmatism. <S> Group A [condescended to employ] <S> Group B.
| "Necessary evil" is a common description for unpleasant people or things that one is forced to deal with. I would use either the word suffer or abide as in: "
|
How do I choose between "while" and "whilst"? When should whilst be used instead of while ? For example, should I use the first or the second sentence? They don't do this whilst they do that. They don't do this while they do that. Which would be correct? <Q> I believe while and whilst are interchangeable, but whilst is more archaic and adds a nice flavoring to the sentence. <S> That being said, "whilst" doesn't seem to come up so often in the middle of a sentence as you had it there, so I would use "while" in that case, even though both are grammatically correct. <S> Whilst seems more apt to be put at the beginnings of sentences, e.g. <S> Whilst going about my merry way I chanced upon a vagabond. <S> Taking this serendipitous opportunity to satiate my bloodlust I decapitated him with a fork. <A> The two words 'while' and 'whilst' mean the same thing. <S> They could be considered alternate pronunciations of the same word, similar to among/amongst or further/farther. <S> 'While' came first , and then 'whilst' was derived from it . <S> But they are not used with the same frequency <S> and they give different 'feels'. ' <S> While' is much more common (from Google nGrams) ' <S> To Americans, 'whilst' sounds British, but at least in print, there is very little difference in the frequencies of the two words between AmE and BrE (via Google nGrams) <S> In the end, it is correct grammar to use them interchangeably, but it is bad style... <S> uh sorry, not the current fashion to use 'whilst'. <S> No one (at least not in formal writing, like for newspapers or academic writing) uses 'whilst' anymore. <S> It may be common and accepted in certain varieties of English (say Indian English) but is very jarring in standard English. <S> However, in the 18th century the two were on more equal terms. <S> The classic study of text analysis by Mosteller and Wallace to help discover the authorship of the Federalist papers was based primarily on the use of differentiating pairs like this. <A> The difference between the two is "whilst" is British English and "while" is American English. <A> For instance, your boss complains to you for having been out sick for a few days while you were still capable to and actively help through whatever means available whilst being sick. <S> If you had only used while , then your sentence would lack that "flavor" that another poster mentioned. <S> It doesn't sound as direct, and furthermore, it would sound repetitive to use while twice in one sentence. <A> The unobstructed and clearest path to perfect communication is to write and say what is least bothersome. <S> This is a good example. <S> When I encounter "whilst", I find it jarring. <S> It immediately makes me wonder whether the writer is foolishly groping to sound important. <S> My advice is to write it as you would say it. <S> And if you would normally say "while", then for heaven's sake, don't write that other officious, antiquated word of the same meaning.
| "Whilst" and "while" are interchangeable. I would typically use whilst to emphasize the targeted time period; as if that period of time was very important to your expression. Whilst' sounds archaic, affected, or hyperacademic (which means no one in academia uses it).
|
What is the difference between "filtrated" and "filtered"? The word "filtered" seems to be much more common than "filtrated". I know that these words derive from "to filter" and "to filtrate". What is the difference in meaning between these two verbs? The context I have in mind is a mathematical one. Here the words "filtration" and "filter" have fixed and different meanings. In addition, there is an invariant for certain objects which are endowed with a filtration (technically this isn't accurate but let's suppose so). This invariant is called "filtrated K-theory" by several people. Yet, some people insist that it should be called "filtered K-theory" because filtrated is hardly a word or at least sounds weird and artificial. Can native speakers confirm this, or would you go for the more logical(?) "filtrated"? <Q> The meanings of jargon terms often have essentially nothing to do with the meanings of the English words they're made from. <S> Nowhere is this more the case than in mathematics. <S> I would use whichever term seems better established—regardless of whether it sounds artificial to native English speakers who aren't mathematicians—so as to give the reader the best possible chance to figure out what I'm talking about. <S> Updated: <S> I should just answer your question. <S> To my ear, there is a verb filter , and a count noun filter . <S> There is also a non-count noun filtration . <S> (You can count coffee filters, but the filtration of water through coffee grounds isn't something you can count.) <S> So already the mathematical use of filtration as a count noun ("a filtration") differs from the everyday use. <S> I am pretty sure I never heard the verb <S> filtrate used in everyday English until I started searching for such uses just now. <S> A Google search for filtrated hits mainly dictionary sites. <S> At the moment, the first non-dictionary hit is a link to this question! <S> I can confirm that to my ear <S> , it's hardly a word, and it sounds weird and artificial. <S> Filtered sounds much nicer to me. <S> It is an actual common, everyday word (and, correspondingly, gets hundreds of times as many Google hits). <A> The main meaning of filter is derived from the field of chemistry: “to pass (a liquid, gas, light, or sound) through a device to remove unwanted”. <S> It this meaning, <S> filtrate and filter are absolutely synonymous. <S> In specific uses, such as “people filtered out of the room” or “news began to filter in from the hospital”, it sounds rather weird to use filtrate . <S> Finally, as a side node, a filtrate (noun) is the name of a liquid coming out of a filter (basically, the filtered or filtrated liquid is a filtrate ). <S> Edit: <S> OK, so there was a second question… which I don't know how to address! <S> I'm not a native speaker, but “filtrated” doesn't sound to weird to me :) <A> To answer your second question... by that point you're creating technical jargon, so it'll just be whatever people decide on it being. <S> "filtrated K-theory" seems more common than "filtered K-theory" , according to Google, so that seems to be winning out, currently. <A> My first response is one of revulsion to hear 'filtrated', as I presume the intent is to say 'filtered'. <S> The use of 'filtrated' immediately makes me suspicious of the speaker's credentials. <S> My old Webster's lists under the verb filter ... 'n filter, cf filtrate'. <S> Go figure. <S> But in some other field, there might be a process something like 'infiltration', where filtrated describes some subtle property of the thing, and not simply that it has been filtered. <S> That seems to be the case with your 'filtrated k theory'. <S> To answer which is the correct term in the context of 'filtered k theory' requires first that you know what 'filtered k theory' actually is. <S> Are the k groups somehow filtered? <S> Is there good reason to describe them as 'filtrated'? <S> Using a google search to choose the most often found version is bad for science.
| In a chemical context, 'filtrate' is a noun, meaning what comes out of the filter.
|
What is the origin of "moral support"? Why is the phrase "moral support" used, when it seems like it would more accurately be "morale support"? Is this just a misspelling that has become canon, or something else? <Q> It did not originally relate to social values or manners. <S> So moral support means support that is intangible rather than financial, military, or other physical support. <S> I found this through Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral . <A> Etymology Online says that the original meaning of the word "moral" was "pertaining to character or temperament" (good or bad) <S> And that this meaning is retained in the phrase "moral support": with sense of "pertaining to character as opposed to physical action. <S> " <A> Moral support means "support or help, the effect of which is psychological rather than physical." <S> Morale means "the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time." <S> Their morale was high. <S> Morale support is not a phrase I have ever heard, and it would not have the same meaning of moral support .
| According to the Online Etymology Dictionary , moral originally meant "pertaining to character as opposed to physical action."
|
How to use "tens of" and "hundreds of"? If I'm not mistaken, tens of means 10 to 99 and hundreds of means 100 to 999. Is this correct? I found in some dictionaries that tens of is actually not correct. I also found that hundreds of could also mean any arbitrary large number. So how would people usually interpret hundreds of ? Based on context? In my case, I want to describe numbers of some items that are usually 50-90 but sometimes could be around 100-200, but definitely not as many as 300 or so. I want to really emphasize that there are a lot of these items. In this case, can I say "... have tens or even hundreds of ..."? Would people misinterpret what I actually want to say? <Q> In English, one would normally say "dozens of" rather than "tens of", so there is some overlap. <S> I might use "dozens of" for an amount between 36 (a dozen, two dozen, dozens...) and 132 (a dozen less than a gross), "scores of" for a number between 40 and 199, and "hundreds of" for values greater than that. <S> I don't think I've ever thought about the reasoning behind this; it would really depend on which number sounded better in the areas which overlap. <A> greater than 500 Thousands of -- any number from 1,000 to 9,999 Tens of Thousands of -- any number from 10,000 to 99,999 <S> Hundreds of Thousands of -- any number from 100,000 to 999,999 <S> ; after 250,000, it is more appropriate to use quarter, half and three-quarter million <A> When describing victims of a disaster, "tens of" usually means less than a hundred or a bit more, and "hundreds of" can mean up to a thousand or a few more. <S> "Hundreds of dead" could be over a thousand, but the results are still unsure. <S> "Hundreds of" and "thousands of" are more common than "tens of", but if I heard the statement, I would expect "tens of" to be 30 to about 120 or so. <S> A more common phrase for the same general amount is "dozens of". <A> You can use hundreds of in sentences like the following. <S> It costs hundreds of dollars. <S> An unknown number, probably in the hundreds, had already been lost. <S> Hundreds of letters poured in. <S> In the last sentence, hundreds of is used to mean an unspecified large number. <S> Similarly, you can use tens of (except in sentences like the last one). <A> If I'm not mistaken, " tens of " means 10 to 99 and " hundreds of " means 100 to 999. <S> Is this correct? <S> I found in some dictionaries that " tens of " is actually not correct. <S> An unqualified " tens " covers the range from " one ten " through " a few tens " and on to " many tens ", so you can answer it by asking whether many stops at 9.9, which it doesn't. <S> There could quite reasonably be 17 tens, for example. <S> I also found that " hundreds of " could also mean any arbitrary large number. <S> So how would people usually interpret " hundreds of "? <S> Based on context? <S> Yes, and you might have to conclude that you haven't been given enough information to judge. <S> In my case, I want to describe numbers of some items that are usually 50-90 but sometimes could be around 100-200, but definitely not as many as 300 or so. <S> I want to really emphasize that there are a lot of these items. <S> In this case, can I say " ... have tens or even hundreds of ... "? <S> Would people misinterpret what I actually want to say? <S> If you use " tens or even hundreds " then the " even " says that hundreds is not the usual case and " tens or even " <S> suggests that it's the low hundreds. <S> However " tens " can be fewer than fifty and " hundreds " <S> could be taken as three hundred or more. <S> As you definitely do not wish to convey the possibility of asmany as three hundred, you'd need to be definite in saying it. <S> The way you put it is fine - " usually 50-90 but sometimes 100-200 " - or anything similar - " 50-200 but usually less than 100 " or " fifty to a hundred, maybe a couple of hundred ". <A> I have only heard of "tens" used in, "tens of thousands. <S> " Otherwise "scores" is used. <S> Scores being 20-199. <S> And "hundreds" is plural so it would be 200-1999.
| Hundreds of -- any number from 100 - 999; "more than 500" might be more appropriate for numbers As I understand it, the usage is: Tens of -- rarely used; "as many as XX" might be more appropriate
|
Is there any difference between "unproductive" and "nonproductive"? If you can find any difference between "unproductive" and "nonproductive," could you explain that with some illustrative sentences? <Q> There is a difference. <S> Unproductive suggests something that could be useful produces nothing of value. <A> Being unproductive implies that something could have been productive but no action was taken. <S> Nonproductive implies that something was unsuccessfully trying to be productive. <S> John was unproductive and sat around all day watching movies. <S> John spent three nonproductive hours trying to write a novel. <A> Nonproductive=achieving little <S> Unproductive is when something could be produced but despite the reason ( <S> ie: lack of effort, mistakes, laziness) <S> nothing has been produced <A> I feel Non productive means something which is capable of being productive happens to be not productive, temporarily or otherwise. <S> Or something like an asset which was earlier productive has now turned out to be non productive. <S> On the other hand unproductive means something which is not capable of being productive. <A> Non-productive: something which could be useful but employed in something which turned out to be of no usee.g. <S> : <S> politicians spending on distribution of gifts to voters. <S> it doesnt help in country's development in any way <S> Unproductive:something which doesn't prove to be productive but is needed in order to avoid losses.e.g. <S> : <S> expenses incurred on maintenance <A> "Non-productive" refers to someone or something who isn't producing the thing that they're meant to be producing, such as a cleaner or cleaning machine who is just moving the mess around but without making it worse. <S> "Unproductive" refers to someone or something who is producing the opposite of what they should be producing, such as a cleaner or cleaning machine making a greater mess than the one they started with. <S> It's like the difference between producing zero ("non-productive") or negative ("unproductive") units of a thing. <S> Admittedly, the two are used interchangeably in practice, but that doesn't mean that it's right to do so. <S> You could say that such people are being unproductive with regard to their use of the term "non-productive".
| Nonproductive suggests that same something produces nothing useful at all. Generally, "non-" means "not" while "un" means "the opposite of".
|
Do accents still play a role in British class distinctions to the present day? How have things changed since the 1960s and Received Pronunciation? An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks he makes some other Englishman despise him. If you spoke as she does, sir, Instead of the way you do, Why, you might be selling flowers, too! Those are probably my two favorite lines in my favorite song of my favorite musical, My Fair Lady . I have to admit I've been caught quoting them once or twice when asked by friends or family why I tend to be exacting about proper English speech. The movie made huge impression on me since I first watched it at age 6; Henry Higgins is kind of a personal hero of mine. But how true are his words to reality today ? Now, I've read all about Received Pronunciation, and hypercorrective hs, and they are indeed interesting topics to discuss, but I get the impression that not even the upper-class adhere to Received Pronunciation anymore, and that much effort has been invested by many British to be more colloquial in speech so as not to seem outwardly too posh or upper-class. I get the impression that many view speech distinctions as something to be publicly denounced or abhorred. That doesn't mean that those distinctions don't exist of course, but Received Pronunciation in particular seems to me a social distinction of a long past age, and besides there are a ton of other English accents to talk about. Discussing RP as the totality of what it is to be said on the subject also seems myopically centered on London to detriment of the rest of the UK. I think it's also important to consider that the demographics of the classes and thus the linguistic baggage different ethnic groups brought into British speech might have changed the different distinctions. For example, I know that upper-caste Indians have become a prosperous group in the UK; have they in any way changed the markings of the upper class speech? What about the ascendance of Jews escaping from the Holocaust, and a "Yiddish" manner of speaking they might have brought with them? Have wealthy and prominent Russian moguls changed speech patterns? (For example, in this question the question-answerer remarks on the middle class' willingness to use na zdrovyeh as a toast in place of cheers ; have other things changed?) The converse probably holds too: I'd guess that immigrants from Commonwealth Carribean countries and Polish migrant workers have possibly changed distinctions on what it means to have "working-class" speech patterns. What can be broadly said about all this? TL; DR summary : What examples can you offer of accents or speech differentiating social classes in the present day that doesn't discuss Received Pronunciation? <Q> Things have certainly changed in that, for example, you find more TV presenters with regional English accents in more "serious" roles on national UK television. <S> On the other hand, national news programmes still tend to be fronted by presenters with what are perceived as essentially "standard" English accents. <S> Perhaps tellingly, it's been for some time common for national presenters to have Scottish, Welsh or Irish accents, but not regional English accents. <S> Figures in the public eye with notable regional accents such as John Prescott and William Hague have visibly attempted (with varying degrees of success and ridicule) to "iron out" (i.e. move more towards something like RP) their accent when speaking publicly. <S> It's not clear to what degree this is conscious or subconscious, but either way, it's telling of our perception to accents that they do so. <S> Note that what is perceived as a "standard, non-regional" accent of English is almost certainly no longer RP as traditionally transcribed in EFL textbooks (assuming the principle of transcribing vowel sounds with the nearest cardinal vowel symbol). <S> For example, the fronting of the /u/ vowel (so that it sounds closer to French <S> "i" or "u" vowels)-- a phenomenon that is probably at least a century old-- now seems to be fairly standard, but is practically never reflected in general transcriptions in dictionaries, EFL textbooks etc. <S> It's worth considering that the British notion of "class" has probably changed somewhat in the last few decades as well. <S> We live in a world where athletes are given knighthoods and Floella Benjamin is a baroness. <A> Kate Fox is an anthropologist rather than a linguist, so I'm dubious of some of her descriptions of accentual differences, but it's easier to distinguish accents than to explain them <S> so there's still some value in quoting: <S> There is, however, a distinction between upper-class speech and 'educated' speech -- they are not necessarily the same thing. <S> What you may hear referred to as 'BBC English' or 'Oxford English' [i.e. R.P.] is a kind of 'educated' speech -- but it is more upper-middle than upper <S> : it lacks the haw-haw tones, vowel swallowing and pronoun-phobia of upper-class speech, and is certainly more intelligible to the uninitiated. <S> Watching the English , Kate Fox, pp74f <S> And to pick up our discussion on class from the comments, because this wouldn't fit there, from p82 in the summary of the chapter on language: <S> The linguistic codes we have identified indicate that class in England has nothing to do with money, and very little to do with occupation. <S> Speech is all-important. <S> A person with an upper-class accent, using upper-class terminology, will be recognised as upper-class even if he or she is earning poverty-line wages, doing grubby menial work and living in a run-down council flat. <S> Or even unemployed, destitute and homeless. <S> Equally a person with working-class pronunciation, who calls his sofa a settee, and his midday meal 'dinner', will be identified as working class even if he is a multi-millionaire living in a grand country house. <S> There are other class indicators -- such as one's taste in clothes, furniture, decoration, cars, pets, books, hobbies, food and drink -- but speech is the most immediate and the most obvious. <S> ... <S> This reliance on linguistic signals, and the irrelevance of wealth and occupation as class indicators, also reminds us that our culture is not a meritocracy. <S> Your accent and terminology reveal the class you were born into and raised in, not anything you have achieved through your own talents or efforts. <A> I don't think we actually need to discuss the role of RP in its traditional, 1950s BBC English sense, since it is so rarely heard and verges on anachronistic today. <S> The standard 'English' accent is a more toned-down version of this – something closer to a refined Estuary English from the South-East of England around London. <S> Many UK politicians from very educated, perhaps what might be described as upper-class backgrounds, have adopted this Estuary English accent in order to hide their background, just as presenters or politicians with very strong regional English accents have perhaps modified them towards this middle ground of "refined Estuary English". <S> It appears that British accents are converging on a middle ground. <S> Even the Queen is said to have 'toned-down' her RP-accent since she first started making television/radio addresses in the 1950s/60s. <S> While you do hear regional English accents on TV nowadays, you very rarely hear broad , dialect-heavy speech. <S> It is more often than not a very toned down version of whatever regional/national variety of English it happens to be, and this includes Scottish and Welsh presenters and politicians. <S> The marker of class then (the establishment class?) <S> , I would say is conformity towards some sort of middle ground around a British 'standard English' based on Estuary English. <S> A regional accent by itself is not enough to distinguish class, though it may once have been. <S> Other characteristics of speech such as vocabulary, certain colloquial usages etc. <S> etc. may also be subtle markers of background or education level. <S> (I must point out that I dislike using the word class as it's becoming less relevant each generation) <A> Q: What is all around you that you breathe? <S> A: <S> Air Q: <S> What grows from your head? <S> A: <S> Hair Q: Where does a lion live? <S> A <S> : Lair Put the answers together and you have a standard greeting used by Sloane Rangers . <S> Air hair lair equates to <S> Oh, Hello! <S> When searching for "air hair lair", the results indicate that this phrase is quite well known, the results seem to almost form a meme , which most of the time are ridiculing the accent. <S> This in itself indicates that posh accents are on the decline as hinted at by this article .
| In general, the lines between class and accent have become blurred somewhat. I would say that accents and speech certainly do still play a role in class distinctions, assuming (and this is a big assumption) that class distinctions are still relevant in contemporary UK society.
|
What's a generic name for an attack animal? I'm looking for the name of an animal trained to attack, whether for defense or sport. I feel like it's on the 'tip of my tongue' but can't quite get it. “Blood sport” is a bit too broad (and, in a sense, too narrow as well), and refers of course to the act and not the creature. <Q> A dog trained to attack is called an attack dog. <S> A dog trained for sentry duty is called a guard dog. <S> I can't think of a single word that encompasses all of these types of training. <A> How about fighting ? <S> Fighting bull , fighting dog , <S> fighting cock <S> (yes, gamecock might be more common, but I'm trying to make a point here). <S> I don't see a reason why other animals trained to fight cannot be called the same, be them hamsters or narwhals. <A> animal are two possibilities in the defense category: Section 1-14 – Dogs or other Animals Used for Sentry or Guard Duty <S> Any person owning, maintaining, or harboring a dog or other animal for sentry or guard purposes must register <S> said dog or other animal with the Animal Control Director. <S> A sign warning that there is a guard or sentry animal on the premises must be displayed such that persons are made aware of the presence of a guard or sentry animal before they enter the property. <S> Such sign shall specify what type of animal the guard or sentry animal is. <S> from the Franklin County, NC, <S> Animal Control Ordinance
| A dog trained for fighting is called a fighting dog. Sentry or guard
|
Tense change: previous actions on something that's currently true I'm describing a situation that happened in the past. To explain it, I want to use a description that is both true now and true when the situation happened. Specifically, I want something like: She touched me where my neck met my collarbone. Since my neck is still attached to my collarbone (thankfully), I'm wondering if I shouldn't use the present tense here instead: She touched me where my neck meets my collarbone. Which is preferable, and why? <Q> [I believe this question already exists somewhere else on this website, but I can't for the life of me find it.] <S> In short, though the present tense is also possible, the most natural choice would probably be the past tense: <S> She touched me where my neck met my collarbone. <S> The main clause happened in the past, while the subordinate clause is a timeless fact; that is, it was true in the past and it is true now. <S> Which tense to use in the subordinate clause? <S> General rules about the sequence of tenses shouldn't normally be involved, since it is a timeless fact. <S> The most logical choice would be to use the present simple, because that is the common choice for timeless facts in a main clause (cf. <S> mice like cheese, the Earth revolves around the sun, Liechtenstein borders on Austria, etc.). <S> If I said "Liechtenstein bordered on Austria", you might expect to hear that the borders were changed later. <S> However, this is where assimilation or attraction of tenses kicks in: if a certain tense is used in the main clause of a sentence, especially a past tense, most writers will have a natural inclination to use this tense throughout the sentence where possible, because it looks neater in some subconscious way. <S> (Note that this doesn't apply so much to tenses other than the past.) <S> In this case, since the subordinate clause is true now and was also true in the past, the simple past tense is possible; I'd say that either tense would be all right, but the past tense looks a bit more natural, especially in speech, where this attraction usually has an even stronger influence. <S> Fowler as edited by Burchfield agrees that this is a common phenomenon: <S> A certain assimilation normally takes place in many forms of sentence, by which the tense of their verbs is changed to the past when they are made into clauses dependent on another sentence whose verb is past, even though no notion of past time needs to be introduced into the clause. <S> He mentions that the past tense is normal, but the present tense is also used in this type of sentence, to a somewhat more vivid effect. <A> I think you've pretty much answered your own question, really. <S> The present tense is preferred because it's a description of an indefinite or continuous event, rather than a single, specific, discrete occurrence. <S> Consider what would happen if you were writing about something in the future <S> : She will touch me where my neck will meet my collarbone. <S> You're going to have a hard time enjoying that touch since apparently your neck and collarbone haven't gotten together yet. <S> Also it kinda sounds like your body parts are going out for a date or something. <A> Strunk and White, in <S> The Elements of Style , encourage the following in rule 17 [ 1 ]: <S> Hence, the correct form, according to a slavish interpretation, would be either: <S> She touched me where my neck had met my collarbone. <S> She touches me where my neck has met my collarbone. <S> But I think your intuition on this is right. <S> There is no compelling reason to construct parallel tenses here. <S> Simplification can get us out of this dead end: <S> She touched me where my scar is. <S> But not: <S> She touched me where my scar was. <A> I can only answer according to my own style preference and rationale here, but I would use the past for prose, such as in, say, a novel: She touched me where my neck met my collarbone. <S> I would use the present for direct personal speech, such as when discussing the fact with another person: <S> She touched me where my neck meets my collarbone. <S> My rationale is based on a combination of style and a "fact test", to term it loosely. <S> In the second example, when discussing the fact of being touched in direct speech, the present tense seems preferred because the neck meeting the collarbone is a true fact that is still clearly true in the present. <S> (Conversely, to use the past tense "met my collarbone" in direct speech might imply that it is somehow no longer true in the present. <S> "What, your neck no longer meets your collarbone? <S> " This my subconscious response if the past tense is used instead here.) <S> However, the first example of past tense seems more appropriate for prose. <S> In a "fact test" here, the relevant and verifiable facts of a past tense narrative are generally the things that happened in that moment. <S> Is the character's/author's neck still connected to their collarbone in the present? <S> It hardly matters to the story, and as a reader, I'd even prefer not to be told. <S> (Even if a fact of that nature is likely to still be true in the present, it feels like a stylistically negative intrusion on the past tense to state any facts about the present--sort of like a jarring whip to the present that draws attention to the current state of the narrator, and therefore distracts from the flow of the past narrative. <S> Subtle, perhaps, but it's how I'd feel reading or writing this myself.) <S> Summary: Each seems useful in different applications.
| If the summary is in the present tense, antecedent action should be expressed by the perfect; if in the past, by the past perfect.
|
What does the "shed" in "watershed" mean? It seems like a kind of house; if it is, I cannot grasp the meaning of watershed . <Q> Old English <S> sc(e)ādan <S> [separate out (one selected group), divide,] also [scatter,] of Germanic origin; related to Dutch and German scheiden . <A> Oxford dictionary online says shed2 …(of a tree or other plant) allow (leaves or fruit) to fall to the ground… <S> A watershed sheds water to either side in much the same way an umbrella or raincoat sheds water. <S> The British National Corpus has <S> "I seem to have a veritable Serpentine in my locks," said the newcomer, still shedding water and laughing wildly. <S> Frankenstein unbound. <S> Aldiss, Brian. <A> It's worth noting that the word watershed can also mean a critical point that marks a division or change of course. <S> Watershed is also the name given to the period of time in which programmes unsuitable for children can be shown on public television. <A> The word watershed is a compound noun: <S> water + shed . <S> The simple building, which the OP refers to, is unrelated. <S> A shed is a variant of shade and means a plain structure used for storing things, usually made of wood or metal. <S> Typically at the weekends, a married man might spend hours in the garden or toolshed tinkering away. <S> The shed in ‘watershed’ instead refers to the verb shed 1 . <S> (transitive, obsolete, UK, dialect) <S> To part or divide. <S> ‘A metal comb shed her golden hair’ . <S> 2 . <S> (transitive, intransitive) <S> ‘You must shed your fear of the unknown before you can proceed.’ <S> ‘When we found the snake, it was in the process of shedding its skin.’ <S> 3 . <S> (transitive, archaic) <S> To pour; to make flow. <S> ‘Did Romeo's hand shed Tybalt's blood?’ <S> 4 . <S> (transitive) <S> To allow to flow or fall . <S> ‘I didn't shed many tears when he left me.’ <S> ‘A tarpaulin sheds water.’ <S> Webster's Third New International Dictionary suggests that watershed is an English translation of German Wasserscheide (also mentioned in F'x answer ) and defines the word as watershed <S> 1 . <S> water parting 2 . <S> a region or area bounded peripherally by a water parting and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water, the catchment area or drainage basin from which the waters of a stream or stream system are drawn. <S> 3 . <S> something (as a sloping contour or member) introduced into a structure primarily to shed or throw off water . <S> • <S> a narrow watershed over a car window <S> And because sometimes a ‘picture’ speaks louder than words... <A> A watershed can also be defined as a geographical area, as in the Mississippi watershed, determined by the boundary of the drainage area of a watercourse or river. <A> shed in this case comes from the German "scheiden" which means "to divide", can be seen in the form "entscheiden" - to make a decision, hope this helps <A> Shed = <S> Fall over to the ground; give away eg-1: <S> The trees shed their leaves in autumn (season). <S> eg-2: Women often tend to shed tears when they are emotional.
| To part with, separate from, leave off; cast off, let fall, be divested of. The New Oxford American Dictionary says: Early 19th century: from water + shed in the sense “ridge of high ground”, suggested by German *Wasserscheide¨, literally ‘water-divide’ It says of shed , in the sense “allow to fall to the ground”:
|
Difference between 'obliterate' and 'eliminate' Do obliterate and eliminate have the same meaning? They are spelled very differently. <Q> Obliterate has the connotation of total, complete, utter destruction of a thing. <S> It is a very strong word. <S> Though it can be used figuratively, e.g., one might say "I obliterated my opponent in a chess match," it has a very strong sense of connoting physical and tangible destruction. <S> To obliterate an object is to utterly and irrevocably remove its identity; an obliterated object can no longer rightly be described in the same sense as it previously was, in marked contrast to an eliminated object. <S> The punishment of damnatio memoraie , that is, the effacing of all traces of some unlucky individual's name and public accomplishments from official records, and which was thought by the Romans to be one of the most severe they could mete out, is often translated from Latin to English as being "obliterated", which gives yet another clue to the gravity of obliterate 's connotation. <S> In contrast, to eliminate has a much more tempered connotation than obliterate . <S> It can be a very mild word meaning simply "to remove," though as a result of Cold War spy-games it has also gained currency for use in a coldly euphemistic sense to mean "to kill someone" or to "dispatch someone." <S> The word elimination finds use in the sciences as well; for example, one of the most fundamental things one learns in an Organic Chemistry course is the elimination reaction , an apt term for the process by a which a molecule ejects or removes its one of its former constituents, its leaving group. <S> For a doctor who specializes in treating the alimentary system , to eliminate finds use as a polite synonym for more colorful words meaning "to poop"; asking "Do you have trouble eliminating waste?" doesn't provoke the same level of embarrassment from a hypothetical patient as a result of the term's clinicality and "removedness." <A> To obliterate something is to destroy it completely, leaving nothing behind. <S> To eliminate something is far less dramatic; it means to remove it from further consideration. <S> For example, in a knockout tournament, a losing team is eliminated. <S> A classic example of how 'eliminate' is much less dramatic than 'obliterate' is Sherlock Holmes 's quote: <S> How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? <S> You could not put 'obliterated' into that sentence and still have it read sensibly. <A> The dictionary definitions ought to make the distinction clear. <S> Here's my understanding of the terms <S> Obliterate - destroy utterly, pulverise into nothingness, remove all trace. <S> You can eliminate a bad smell by moving the kipper from under your sofa into the trashcan. <S> There is no need to obliterate the fish (the process of obliteration might be counter-productive)
| Eliminate - destroy or (importantly) remove elsewhere.
|
Is there a specific term for "conditions treated as though there are OR operators between them"? I'm writing a program that generates playlists from a large pool of mp3 files. The program can keep track of total playing time, number of tracks and total size of the files, and can be given upper limits on each of the three. What I want to make clear in the documentation is that even though any combination of the three limits may be specified, the program will quit after any one of them is reached. Effectively, it treats them as though they were specified with the boolean "OR" operator. Is there a programming term to describe this? My uneducated guess would be to use "the conditions are treated disjunctively" i.e. the logical operation of disjunction is performed on them, but I don't know if this is accepted (or, for that matter, existing) terminology. <Q> I would simply write it in plain English, with any : <S> “the program will exit if any of the three conditions is triggered”. <A> Usually the way this is written is to list the conditions that trigger an event, and add "whichever comes first": <S> The game ends when all other players go bankrupt, one player reaches $1,000, or the time limit has been reached, whichever comes first. <A> “Exclusive OR”. <S> (Latin) <S> “aut” (inclusive OR) vs “vel” (exclusive OR). <S> Note: <S> a “sufficient condition” is a condition that… is sufficient — that counts — regardless of whether or not any other conditions obtain. <S> (The converse is “necessary condition”; the former is ( a -> b ); the latter is ( -a -> -b).)
| An “inclusive OR” requires all the conditions; an “exclusive OR” requires only one.
|
What does 'corporeal form' mean? These series, however, are only one particularly obvious example; throughout practically the whole of chemistry, even in the various nitrogen oxides and oxygen acids of phosphorus or sulfur, one can see how "quantity changes into quality", and this allegedly confused, hazy Hegelian notion appears in so to speak corporeal form in things and process. What does 'corporeal form' mean? What do these pronouns substitute? Does "quantity changes into quality" only apply to physic objects? <Q> There's the idea of "you" as a self-aware entity or a soul that defines how you will behave and react, which nobody can see or touch directly; and then there's your corporeal form, which is to say your actual physical body. <S> Similarly, there's the mathematical concept of a square, and then there's an actual square drawn on the sidewalk in chalk. <S> The concept of a square has no corporeal form; the drawing takes the concept and gives it a corporeal representation. <S> The this that you highlighted is referencing the phrase "quantity changes into quality", and the author then further defines that phrase as being an "allegedly confused, hazy Hegelian notion". <S> The author is basically saying that you can point to something and say "at the start of this process, we have quantity. <S> Then things happen, and at the end of the process, we have quality. <S> Thus the process embodies the concept of quality changing into quantity." <A> I believe that "so to speak" is the writer's way of putting quotes around the word "corporeal" to suggest that this should not be read as a literal meaning of the term. <S> and this allegedly confused, hazy Hegelian notion appears [figuratively speaking] in corporeal form in things and processes. <S> The writer could have simply said: and this allegedly confused, hazy Hegelian notion takes shape in things and processes. <S> A larger context for the passage might let us understand whether this is just poor writing or a witty remark of some kind. <A> To my observation, faith is the substance of things unseen, and thus, unknown in the natural state of physical places. <S> That in the essence of religion explains the creed of not trusting one's own understanding as the object of creation but rathet in a supernatural source of creation. <S> However, in the context of places discerned or discivered in the human consciousness, is the sensory perception of the corporeal; <S> e. g. <S> structural, dimensions of things with energy, space, time and value to theidentificational relative affect of emotional interests to have and to produce in physical natural environments of human habitation. <S> Corporeal form is a synonymical term to describe a concept of positive rightness of human acceptance of thequality of balance and function and stability in thequantoty or plural quantities of individual orsocietal welfare: as in Psalms 23, yeaness though of goneness through in paths of righteousness of our own natural namesakes.
| Corporeal form , when used literally, means the physical existence of something.
|
What is the difference between the verbs "make and "do"? In my native language, Portuguese, "make" and "do" can be translated into one verb "fazer". When I write an English sentence I never know which one to use. So my question is about when to use "make" versus when to use "do". Can someone provide some guidance about which situations it is most appropriate to use each of them? I always get confused about it. <Q> This is a hard question, and there is a lot of idiom involved. <S> The cases where you can be reasonably sure that "make" is right is when you are creating something:"make a salad", "make a home", "makea mess", "make a film". <S> when you are causing somebody orsomething to do something: "makesomebody listen", "make him stop","make <S> the book stay open" when you are causing somebody or something to be a certain way: "make him late", "made me happy". <S> "Do" tends to be more general, and tends not to be used in the cases above (and is rarely used with a direct object except for a word like "job" or "task" - but see below). <S> "Do" is also used as "pro-verb" in questions and replies, standing for almost all verbs, including "make": "What did you do?" <S> "I made a cake". <S> But there are many idiomatic cases which are not obviously predictable. <S> We "do" the shopping, the washing ("do the laundry" in the US, I believe), the dishes, the windows (i.e. clean them), our homework, our tax return; but we "make" the bed (i.e. arrange the bedding neatly). <A> As a last resort, quick-and-dirty rule-of-thumb: Use "make" where you could use "create". <S> Use "do" elsewhere. <S> This isn't even close to a complete answer , as @Colin Fine gave a more thorough answer. <S> But in the spirit of small rules to shape your way of "thinking in English", this may help. <A> MAKE = <S> The verb make is used when talking about creation or production in a process . <S> In other words, it is used to refer to the result of an action. <S> For example: ‘Make a cup of tea’, ‘Make plans for the future’ or ‘Make a model boat out of wood’. <S> DO = <S> It refers to the process of carrying out these actions . <S> This verb is similar to the formal words perform or execute (as in: execute a command). <S> For example: ‘I did my homework yesterday evening.’ <S> (completed task). <S> Another use of the verb do is to replace a different verb in the context of a clear or straightforward result . <S> For example: ‘Do the dishes’ (vs. wash the dishes). <S> ‘Do my hair’ means cut, dye, style or perform another similar action on my hair. <S> The word ‘do’ can also be used for recreational and individual sports, such as martial arts. <S> For example: ‘Do karate twice a week’ (take part in this sporting activity, perhaps by attending a class). <S> 'Do' can also be used in questions and for emphasis, as in: 'Do you like ice cream?' <S> and 'I do love her, I really do!' <S> (when someone has said you don't). <S> IMPORTANT! <S> Non-natives make mistakes with these verbs because 1) they are used differently in their mother tongue or there is no clear distinction 2) <S> they have not memorised collocations with make vs. do in English. <S> To lean more set expressions with these verbs, you can read this guide with make vs. do collocations and phrasal verbs . <S> (Disclaimer: I wrote this guide for my students, but you are free to read or download it for your personal use)
| The verb ‘do’ is used when we talk about tasks, duties, obligations and routine work .
|
What's the adjective form of "sauce" as "salty" is to "salt"? Saucy has a totally different meaning. When I describe food having too much sauce, I would like to use an adjective, however salty is not really applicable here. <Q> I'm not sure what the objection to using saucy is all about. <S> Merriam-Webster says : saucy adj 1: served with or having the consistency of sauce 2a : impertinently bold and impudent b : amusingly forward and flippant : <S> irrepressible 3: smart, trim <a saucy little hat <S> > <S> The very first definition is exactly the meaning you are looking for. <S> Sure, the word has other meanings, but most words have multiple meanings. <S> If your food is too saucy, then just say so. <A> How about "over-sauced"? <S> While the suggestion "swimming in sauce" as suggested by nico is the probably the most idiomatic option, it's colloquial and might not be the best choice if you were speaking, say, formally in a kitchen or in a restaurant review. <S> As mentioned above also, "saucy" is an old term meaning "pert" or "impudent." <S> Yet, the primary definition offered by Merriam-Websters is "served with or having the consistency of sauce." <S> So given these prior meanings, whatever solution devised will be a nonce coinage. <A> There isn't a word for that specifically. <S> However, in some cases you might describe something as "runny" if it has too much liquid and isn't solid enough. <S> If you are just looking for a contraction of "was made with too much sauce", you could describe it as "over sauced" although this is not an everyday phrase (we are simply using the prefix "over" as it can be used with any verb) and may sound a bit pretentious. <S> From a practical point of view, within the context of food, you will be understood if you just say "too saucy", although it's not dictionary-correct. <A> The food can be described as overflowing with sauce. <S> If instead you say the food is saucy,well i'd guess it would be chocolate and strawberries :D <A> If you insist on a single word, you may try "overcondimented". <S> But "drenched in sauce" sounds better. <A> As in, there's so much sauce that it may as well be a soup. <S> http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/soupy
| If I were served a dish with a sauce that had far too much sauce, I would call it "soupy".
|
Does 'should' imply an unquestionable command? My question is prompted by a question on the programmers.stackexchange : This may be a duplicate of another question here on english.stackechange , but the answers given to that question did not provide a definitive legal definition of ' should ' vs. ' must '. It has long been my impression that 'shall', 'will', and 'must' have about the same imperative weight; that is, the phrase that follows these words is a command that is not to be questioned. However, in my mind, 'should' falls in a category of lighter imperativeness, almost to the same level as 'may'; that is, the phrase that follows 'should' is a command that does not need to be completed. Does 'should' imply an unquestionable command, as is the claim in the chosen answer on programmers.stackexchange and the second definition on wiktionary , or is it closer in meaning to 'may'? <Q> Since it appears that you're referring to requirements analysis or contracts specifications, the governing body or contracting agency should specify what the language requirements will be. <S> In some instances I've been involved with, anything not specifically using shall (which would include should ) is not considered to be a true requirement (that is, failure to abide by it is not ground for breach of contract). <S> However, if you look at the IETF Standard for RFC writing, they use shall , must , or required to indicate a true requirement. <S> Should is used to mean a recommendation only. <S> IEEE's Style Guide has the following to say: 13.1 Shall, should, may, and can <S> The use of the word must is deprecated and shall not be used when stating mandatory requirements; must is used only to describe unavoidable situations. <S> The use of the word will is deprecated and shall not be used when stating mandatory requirements; will is only used in statements of fact. <S> The word may is used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of the standard (may equals is permitted). <S> The word <S> can is used for statements of possibility and capability, whether material, physical, or causal (can equals is able to). <S> So at least in a couple instances, you're correct that should is not equivalent to <S> shall as the programmers SE question suggested. <A> As you rightly imply, there's no absolute "degree of imperativeness" concensually accepted by speakers for any of these modals. <S> Where it really matters, these words should be treated as terms and defined, just like any other terms in the contract/specifications in question. <S> Two slightly anecdotal comments that I can add from my own work. <S> Firstly, as a professional programmer, I have dealt with formal specifications from time to time, and these generally stipulate the intended meaning of "shall", "must", "should"; "shall" and "must" are typically treated as synonymous, while "should" is interpreted as a "nice-to-have" or something that "must be implemented if readily possible". <S> From that point of view, the answer to the previous question that you mention is, I think, wrong. <S> I also translate (among other things) contracts for a living and have consulted with lawyers/paralegals from time to time on this kind of issue. <S> Amongst the legal proefssion, there appear to be two conventions readily used and accepted: (1) use "shall" for essentially any contractual future event, or <S> (2) both "will" and "shall" can imply a contractual future event, with "shall" implying something more like 'will have a duty to', but with there being essentially nothing legally hinging on the choice of one or the other. <S> In French, the language I translate from, the difference is marked by the future tense of the verb 'devoir' vs the future tense of other verbs, so I concede that part of the reason that I make a distinction is simply for "translational convenience". <S> One comment I received from a property lawyer I worked with recently was that they preferred to use "shall" throughout because it "implied more of an obligation", but conceded that it was just a matter of preference (for the aforementioned translation reason, I was suggesting using "will" instead and they agreed that, legally speaking, it made no difference). <A> First of all, legalese can be a very different beast than standard English, so expecting normal rules to apply may trip you up. <S> Secondly, and this is mostly conjecture on my part <S> , I expect that that "should" in legalese is being used in its older grammatical form, as the past tense of "shall", rather than as a present-tense verb of its own meaning something around "ought to but need not necessarily". <S> In that presumed legal sense, "should" is clearly the equivalent of "shall". <S> (If you check out the legal section of Freedictionary.com , you'll see that "should" is redirected to "shall".) <A> 'shall' does not exist in spoken AmE (we recognize it culturally (the Bible, Harry Potter), but don't use it). <S> I can't speak for BrE. 'will' is semantically the future modal, and only has an imperative feel pragmatically (" <S> You -will- <S> go <S> see your aunt when in Florida, won't you?") for amount of the imperative weight, the order is surely 'must', 'should', 'may'; the first is an order, the second is a good suggestion (and we'll be disappointed if you don't), and the last, well, no, it's not imperative at all, it means 'allowed to' (pragmatically could mean ' <S> should' as in 'You may kiss the bride', really, you should). <S> So 'should' is definitely a very questionable command, more of a strong suggestion, and 'may' is not an imperative at all, simply an allowance (it also has a slightly related connotation of possibility).
| The word shall is used to indicate mandatory requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to the standard and from which no deviation is permitted (shall equals is required to). The word should is used to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding others; or that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily required; or that (in the negative form) a certain course of action is deprecated but not prohibited (should equals is recommended that).
|
Use of 'pagan' in an essay: is it acceptable or not? I'm writing an essay right now and I'm deliberating whether or not I should use Pagan gods instead of Greek gods (to provide variation in the essay). I've looked up the word pagan in the dictionary and it mentioned it was a derogatory term. Would it be acceptable to use it though in an essay or would it be inconsiderate for me to use that term? <Q> The New Oxford American Dictionary lists the "derogatory" usage as a dated way of referring to a non-Christian. <S> The main listing says pagan <S> a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions. <S> In other words, pagan is a term often used by people who believe there is a "True Faith" and that they follow it. <S> It's like a religious version of "foreigner" spoken by someone who lives in a country that looks with distaste on outsiders. <S> Ambrose Bierce might have described it as someone who believes the wrong mythology, had he thought to include it in his Devil's Dictionary . <S> Myself, I would prefer to use the adjective Greek to describe Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite and the other Olympic deities, since that is both more specific and less presumptuous. <A> Pagan can be a derogatory term, but it depends on the audience. <S> The word's formal meaning is simply "polytheist," although in more colloquial language, it's also used to refer to someone who is immoral or hedonistic. <S> To some people, the two meanings are synonymous. <S> As a (very) general rule, I would avoid using pagan in writing aimed at a mass audience, most of whom might only be familiar with the "immoral" connotation and might thus misconstrue your message. <S> But when writing for an academic or specialized audience, I would feel free to use it as a synonym to keep the piece from sounding repetitive. <A> All Greek gods are pagan gods, (not Pagan gods unless you want to make a point about them being non-Christian or un-Christian), but not all pagan gods are Greek.
| I don't agree that pagan has an immoral connotation, except in the minds of some religious adherents.
|
When should I use "a discussion of" vs. "a discussion on" vs. "a discussion about"? “A discussion of”, “a discussion on”, and “a discussion about”: When is each phrase used in preference to the other? If context is important, I want to use it as a subheading on a piece of non-fiction. <Q> Oh lordy, another "there's a difference, but I can't quite put my finger on it" question. <S> But I'm gonna try anyway. <S> :) <S> A discussion about a topic <S> — this implies that the discussion was just a conversation, really, and it might not have stayed strictly on-topic. <S> A discussion on a topic <S> — here I picture the discussion to be somewhat one-sided, almost a lecture. <S> Note that all of these connotations are vague and amorphous, and can be overridden by customary usages, or by what "sounds best" in a given context. <S> If you pressed me to suggest a single best choice, today I'd go with "of". <S> No guarantees about tomorrow. <A> I suppose the answer depends on what your subject is, and what tone you're trying to set. <S> "Discussion on" can sound serious or pretentious or formal, to me, as in: A discussion on the subject of probity, wherein we discover an upstanding truth " <S> Discussion of" could describe the particulars of the event of the discussion (currently happening, perhaps having just happened), even separate from the explicit topic: A amusing discussion of whistles, plastic and otherwise <S> Or it can refer directly to the subject at hand, a summary of what you will discuss: <S> A discussion of monsters, meteors, and meerschaum pipes <S> "Discussion about" sounds informal. <S> "Here's some stuff we're talking about." <S> A discussion about some things which happened in the garden that Wednesday <A> A discussion of can refer to the people discussing or what they're discussing. <S> A discussion about is less ambiguous. <S> Here, the writer clearly means the object of the discussion (that which is being talked about). <A> I would probably lean toward about as in: <S> We had a discussion about otters and other salt-water mammals. <S> Using the preposition of there feels wrong to me. <S> In a subheading on a paper A Discussion of Otters and Other Salt-Water Mammals <S> it would feel as if it was the otters who were having the discussion. <A> about seems to be more informal, like <S> Last night, we had a discussion about winemaking in the bar of is more likely to be used in writing, often in scientific or formal setting: <S> The discussion of winemaking and its role in local economy will be held in the Conference Room B, ... on <S> is somewhere in between, but closer to "of".
| A discussion of a topic — this brings to mind a true discussion, going into all sorts of details of the topic (and only the topic).
|
What is the question form of "used to do"? What is the correct way to convert "used to do" into a question? Since I want to emphasize that the action is not on-going any more, so simple past tense is not a good idea here. Could I say "do xxx use to do" or "did xxx use to do"? Both sound weird to me. If there is no way to do it. Do you suggest any other alternatives? <Q> Well, most of your doubts would be retracted after reading up http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-m_used-to-do.htm <S> I would like to summarize the main points from the webpage. <S> 1) <S> For example, He used to watch a lot of TV. <S> They used to be married. <S> 2) <S> Used or use? <S> - when there is did in the sentence, we say use to (without d) - when there is no did in the sentence, we say used to (with d) <S> For example, Did you use to smoke? <S> I didn't use to go swimming. <A> In principle, there's not much reason to think that the construction isn't perfectly regular, and you will find the following used: <S> Didn't they use to come here often? <S> But phonetically, "use to" and "used to" are practically indistinguishable and almost certainly not reliably distinguishable. <S> In practice, you will see the following more commonly written down: <S> Didn't they used to come here often? <S> In speech, it's not really clear what percentage of people are 'really' saying use and <S> what percentage are saying used . <S> The following slightly archaic forms also exist: Used they to help you? <S> Used they not to help you? <S> Usen't <S> they to help you? <S> Of these, <S> usen't they is also used to form tags ( <S> albeit not so commonly as other forms such as didn't they , wouldn't they etc). <A> You could just cut out the "used" entirely. <S> "What did you do? <S> " <S> It sounds much more natural, than used to, despite used to technically being grammatically valid. <S> It may not work with what you are trying to use it for, but it's another option.
| We use the used to do expression to talk about: - an activity that we did regularly in the past (like a habit) - a situation that was true in the past
|
"In a call" versus "on a call" Is either "in a call" or "on a call" incorrect usage when referring to someone attending a phone (possibly conference) call? If not, what's appropriate usage for both? <Q> The two are used interchangeably as to be in or on a call is a fairly new expression, with some very slight contextual differences. <S> "In" is more often used to describe whether someone has successfully connected (especially in conference calling): "Are you in yet?". <S> However, it is sometimes used more generally <S> "I'm sorry, he is in a call" because it sounds similar to "in a meeting". <S> You wouldn't ask someone having technical problems "are you on yet?" though. <S> (This is a bit confusing, because we talk about logging on, but once someone has logged on, they are usually described as "in".) <S> "Will you be on that call this afternoon?". <S> But you could equally say "in" here. <A> The phrase "on a call" can also mean making a visit, usually an official one. <A> "On a call", on the other hand, would imply that the party of which you speak is is out of the office, visiting a customer location (or, for a doctor, visiting a patient). <S> (And, of course, "on call" means the individual is standing ready to fulfill some role, should she be called to do so. <S> In this case physical location is unspecified and unimportant, so long as the person can be reached by phone, pager, etc.)
| "On" is more often used to describe someone who is in the process of taking part in a call more generally. The terminology may have lost some meaning of late, but previously "in a call", in a multiperson office situation, meant that the person was physically in an office with several other people, talking via speakerphone with some remote party (presumably either a superior or some significant customer).
|
What do I do when I hear 'Say cheese!'? Photographers seems to love to say this. Is this still considered funny? <Q> Because of the way that Cheese should be pronounced, especially when it should be pronounced emphatically (the exclamation mark at the end), it should cause your cheeks to rise and your lips to part and your eyes to slightly lower on the corners. <S> This causes your face to lighten. <S> Additionally, it is rather an odd command, so it generally induces people to smile while opening their cheeks and exposing more of their face to the camera. <A> The idea behind "say cheese" is not to make a joke, but to get your mouth into a position that resembles a smile. <S> Depending on how you say them, ee sounds like in cheese can cause you to widen your mouth, sort of like a smile. <S> (Of course, unless you're being a wise-ass, you shouldn't actually say cheese, or anything else <S> really, when you're told to "say cheese"; instead, you should just smile to the best of your ability.) <A> You are meant to smile. <S> Usually only young children think this is funny. <A> "Say cheese" means you have to smile wide and show your teeth for the best click. <S> Something like ":D" <A> When standing in front of a camera, Chinese people would say "Chie zi!", which sounds very similar to cheese--although it actually means "eggplant" in Chinese. :)
| But really, just smile wide and look at the camera (and don't blink!)
|
What English word has the most consecutive consonants? I was driving past the village of Hampsthwaite the other day, and happened to spot the six consecutive consonants in the middle. It set me wondering whether this was the most possible, and if not, which word contains the maximum number? <Q> Archchronicler, catchphrase, eschscholtzia, latchstring, lengthsman, and postphthisic each have six consonants in a row. <S> The shortest such word is TSKTSKS. <S> All of these words can be found in major English dictionaries. <A> Foreign proper names are probably your safest bet. <S> I always liked <S> Chruschtschov <S> though Khrushchev is the more common transliteration. <S> Wikipedia has a dedicated section that lists a few more: <S> Twelfthstreet <S> (normally two words but sometimes written as one, as in a song title; <S> Eighthstreet is feasible by analogy), and <S> Hirschsprung , as in Hirschsprung's disease (though this is after a Danish surname). <S> The scientific name of the white (or Tubergen) squill is Scilla mischtschenkoana , and the transliterations of several Russian names, such as Tischtschenko , contain the same constellation of seven consonants. <A> Sorry if this is a tad off-center, but the longest sequence of typographic (as opposed to phonologic <S> ) consonants in a single syllable may be five, in the words <S> strengths and lengths . <S> ( Strengths may be the one-syllable word with the largest number of [spelled] consonants: 8.)
| HIRSCHSPRUNG'S (DISEASE) has seven consecutive consonants, as does SCHTSCHUROWSKIA.
|
Is 'peaceful demonstration' an oxymoron? Oh, we know the standards: Jumbo Shrimp, Real Phony,Living Dead..... is peaceful demonstration in the list: reasons why/not are, of course unexpectedly anticipated. <Q> 'Peaceful demonstration' is not an oxymoron. <S> There is nothing inherent in the definition of 'demonstration' that suggests order or chaos--a demonstration can be either. <S> Here are a few more adjectives that are commonly associated with 'demonstration' that delineate one type of demonstration from another: <S> Quiet Classroom <S> Ceremonial <S> Religious Political Military (not the same as riotous) ngrams.google.com produces this nice graphic demonstration that underscores my point. <S> Edit: Created a new graph that includes 'violent demonstration' <A> Peaceful Demonstration is only an oxymoron in repressive countries, where regardless of the intent of the demonstrators, the government shows up and initiates violence. <S> Ordinarily[*] it is entirely possible to put your political opinions on display in a peaceful manner. <S> [*]: speaking from a modern, US-centric viewpoint; world history may make me a liar. <A> Why oxymoron? <S> a public display of group feelings (usually of a political nature) can be very peaceful. <S> People can sit totally quiet And Shrimp: any of various edible decapod crustaceans Just because a person who is deemed shrimp sized is small, does not mean that a huge shrimp cannot be called jumbo...
| Describing a demonstration as 'peaceful' sets that demonstration apart from one that is 'chaotic', or even 'riotous'.
|
"Why is this not" versus "why is not this" Should I use "why is this not" or "why is not this?" Or are both correct? <Q> The usual order is "Why is this <S> not [ready yet]? <S> " <S> Inverting it to " <S> Why is not this [rose in bloom]? <S> " might be possible in poetry, but it sounds awkward at best in everyday usage. <S> Note: <S> awkward at best is a euphemism for incorrect . <S> Edit: you didn't ask about it, but for completeness I thought I'd mention that <S> "Why isn't this [all over the internet]? <S> " <S> is perfectly fine; indeed, it's probably the most common choice, despite the fact that expanding the contraction results in precisely the why is not this construction criticized above. <S> (Contractions are like that.) <A> Since you are not negating the entire "this", whatever it is, but only some element of it, the "not" should go next to the element being negated: "Why is this not blue like I asked for it to be?" <A> The following is coming from the perspective of a native German speaker. <S> As far as I understand English grammar, most constructions are strictly right-associative: <S> Why (is (this flower (not (on (the table))))), but on the floor? <S> Why (is (not (this flower (on (the table))))), but the other one? <S> It wasn't always this way. <S> If you look at old English literature and poetry, the grammar shared a closer affinity with the German language, where the "not" is more flexibly positioned. <S> (The "not" is left-associative in German, but not in the whole sentence.) <S> In German, the important part of a sentence is always at the beginning, where the interrogative pronoun is placed. <S> For example, if the following question is asked: Where must this stay?/ <S> Where has this to stay? <S> Then one might answer: <S> Here / Not here … must this stay! <S> / has this to stay! <S> This does sound OK, or at least not too odd in German, but I believe that this sounds really strange for native English speakers. <S> The position of the word "not" can be a bit flexible in newer English language, as in the above sentence, but modern English usage allows this flexibility less. <S> Please correct me, if I'm wrong. <S> (Or if my English is wrong.) <A> I can't think of a rule but "Why is this not a good example?" <S> sounds way better to me than "Why is not this a good example?"
| The "not" should be placed as close as possible to the thing it's negating; generally directly next to it is the most appropriate spot.
|
What single word describes the ability to think analytically? I am trying to complete the following sentence: This job requires both creativity and X Where X is a single word describing the ability to think analytically. What would the best word be? <Q> Here's something fancy to impress the ladies: perspicacity . <S> As in: <S> "Nathan Rothschild was a man of keen perspicacity and profited immensely from his shrewd decision to employ a courier at the Battle of Waterloo, which lead to his eventually becoming the wealthiest man in all of Britain." <S> From Wikitionary : perspicacity ( n. ) <S> 1. <S> Acute discernment or understanding; insight. <S> 2. <S> The human faculty or power to mentally grasp or understand clearly. <S> 3. <S> ( obsolete ) <S> Keen eyesight. <A> You could use exactitude , thoroughness , precision , or rigor <S> if you mean thinking in the mathematical sense of "analytical thinking". <S> if you mean "analytical thinking" in the sense of "critical thinking". <S> I personally like shrewdness because of the connotation of "good business sense": <S> This job requires both creativity and shrewdness . <A> How about thoroughness , rigor , logic or method ? <S> All describe the need for logical thinking, which is probably the main component of analytical thinking. <A> "Analyticality" fits the bill. <S> (Whether or not it sounds good to many is another question.) <S> As suggested earlier by @F'x, "rigor" is pretty good, and it plays off of and creates a nice tension with "creativity" . <S> It suggests rather than capturing whole "the ability to think analytically," so there is conceivably some ambiguity there. <S> But personally I think any ambiguity there is appropriately resolvable by anyone with creativity and the ability to think analytically. <A> Some offerings: Cogitation Analysis Ratiocination Brainwork <A> Often by thinking more specifically about what kind of analytic thinking you really want, you'll realize there is a better word than any of us could tell you without knowing your specific situation. <S> (Although, "perspicacity" and "logic" are good generic suggestions.) <S> "Properly", analysis means breaking apart ideas. <S> But due to uncareful usage, it's become synonymous with: <S> math spreadsheets computers <S> clear thinking and many other things. <S> Do you really want to hire someone with the ability to break things apart? <S> Or do you want someone smart? <S> Oder...? <A> The term now used is 'analytical ability'. <S> Probably because there is no way you can take chances with what is intended being lost in linguistics or semantics. <S> May the candidate be saved from, well, overuse of his analytical skills.
| You could use acumen , discernment , or shrewdness
|
Which to use: "altitude" or "elevation" in regards to height above sea level? I've developed an Android application that is used as a Car Home replacement. One of the pieces of information that I return to the user is what I originally called "altitude": the height above sea level the user is currently at while driving. However, a user sent me an email regarding my use of the word altitude and recommended that I switch it to elevation saying "Altitude is a measurement used to show how far off the ground you are, elevation is used to show how high above sea level you are." I started to believe that what he told me was correct, but after a search I found this interesting comparison of the two . Additionally, Android's API declares this value as "altitude" when returning it from the GPS receiver. Now I'm just confused. Which word should I be using to express this? <Q> Both altitude and elevation are measures of the height of a point relative to some datum. <S> The differences are in how they are derived and what they are normally used for. <S> Altitude <S> is typically only used to describe the height of an aircraft in flight. <S> It is a barometric measurement expressed relative to the height of a runway or mean sea level in a given location or region (taking into account current local atmospheric conditions), or to an arbitrary standard datum (to eliminate the effect of localised variations in air pressure). <S> Elevation is usually used to describe the height of the ground, or a feature fixed to the ground. <S> It is a geometric measurement expressed relative to the mean sea level datum established for the region by the national mapping agency. <S> I would take some care to understand the meaning of a value named altitude obtained from a GPS receiver. <S> At a basic level, GPS can only tell you the receiver’s height above the WGS‑84 ellipsoid, and it cannot be assumed that the surface of the ellipsoid is the same as mean sea level in any given location. <S> Some receivers contain look-up tables to calculate the offset between the two, given a lat/long position, which ought to be incorporated in the determination of ‘altitude’. <S> Whether to use altitude or elevation for your application is largely a matter of preference, I’d say. <S> Since a moving car is neither an aircraft in flight nor fixed to the ground, I’ve conveniently excluded it from my definitions of the two terms here. <S> As your measurement is geometric rather than barometric, I’d lean towards elevation . <S> Alternatively, you could just keep the terminology simple (if imprecise) and call it height … <A> The problem with using altitude is that it is a relative measure with a non-standard reference point. <S> Or as wikipedia puts it: As a general definition, altitude is a distance measurement, usually in the vertical or "up" direction, between a reference datum and a point or object Since you're not declaring what your reference point is (sea level, ground level, etc.) <S> it's ambiguous at best. <S> Elevation tends not to have this problem, as while it's a relative measure, it's reference point is usually the Mean Sea Level. <S> Also from WP: <S> Although the term altitude is commonly used to mean the height above sea level of a location, in geography the term <S> elevation is often preferred for this usage. <S> If you'd prefer to stick with altitude , you could add the modifier <S> True to indicate that you're referring to the altitude above sea level. <S> See the Altitude page on WP for more info. <A> The other answers have covered a lot of this, but I'd like to add another data point that I think is relevant: <S> In the context of mountaineering, where people generally wish to talk about their height above sea level (since their height above ground level is a mostly constant and very much less impressive value), the term altitude is used. <A> The altitude is the height of an object or point in relation to sea level or ground level; the elevation is the height above a given level, especially the sea level. <S> The flight data include airspeed and altitude. <S> It is a network of microclimates created by sharp differences in elevation. <S> In astronomy, the altitude is the apparent height of a celestial object above the horizon, measured as an angle. <A> I think either one is a completely reasonable choice when referring to a car's height above sea level. <S> Either will be well understood by the user. <S> I do think there are some contexts in which one or the other is used more frequently, perhaps out of pedantry, but probably mainly out of convention. <S> For example, the height at which a plane is flying is almost exclusively referred to as its altitude . <S> (And I don't believe planes fly higher over mountains to maintain a constant separation from the ground, but rather maintain a steady height above sea level.) <S> Ground-based heights (as for mountain peaks or cities) are often referred to as elevations , though both terms are common for those cases, which is why I believe either could apply to a car. <A> There is one particular difference <S> I can pin-point and others should correct me if I'm wrong. <S> Whereas Altitude is the height of an object above the sea or the ground level, Elevation is the height of an object with respect to any given level, esp. <S> sea level. <S> In that sense, Elevation is more generic. <S> So when you are describing a difference (gain or loss) of height, you may want to use the term Elevation instead of Altitude <S> There is another flaw in using Elevation , minuscule as it may be. <S> Say you are at an altitude of 15 feet <S> and you are not specifying the units, say ft. . <S> Now if you say the Elevation is 15, it could also mean some sort of an angle with the horizontal, as it can be interpreted as 15 degrees . <S> This by the way is another meaning of the word elevation. <S> Though chances of this happening are remote and it's possibility can be avoided in totality, yet this might be thin line of difference you are considering while selecting from the two largely interchangeable terms Altitude and Elevation . <A> Altitude should be used, although it is a relative term and must be qualified to be above sea level (ASL) to be an absolute. <S> Elevation can be an angle from a specified point; an example might be a telescope where to look at a particular point, you set an angle of elevation in degrees.
| Both altitude and elevation can be used to mean the height of an object from the sea level, but elevation is especially used to mean that.
|
Should I fix typos/grammatical errors in quotation? When writing papers, I meet typos/grammatical errors in quotations now and then. Should I correct them, or leave them as they are? <Q> When quoting, the convention is to quote the text exactly as it appears in the source. <S> The word sic (which is from Latin) means "as such", that is, the apparent problem occurred in the original text. <S> The square brackets indicate that the text was added by the quoter. <S> For instance, Our massage treatments help relive[sic] <S> your pain. <A> Adding corrective braces can be useful for this. <S> Instead of <S> "He go into the sunset" you could gently correct with "He [goes] into the sunset" . <S> Instead of "I'm going to do it careful <S> " you can use "I'm going to do it [carefully]." <S> You can also use "[sic]" if you want to leave the error present, and highlight its presence. <S> It's also common for brackets to be used to modify the tenses and pronouns of the quoted material to match the new text into which it is nested. <S> Here's example involving verb tense, from the 'net: <S> The judge's order "restrain[ed] and enjoin[ed] the further implementation" of the law, including the prevention of Secretary of State Doug LaFollette (D) from publishing the act in the Wisconsin State Journal. <S> TPM <S> The original had present tense, which was altered by the brackets in the second version: <S> "I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10," Sumi said, <S> according to a transcript. <S> Wisconsin State Journal <A> The adverb sic—meaning "intentionally so written"—when added just after a quote or reprinted text <S> indicates that the passage is just as it appears from its original source. <S> The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription—i.e. <S> that they are reproduced exactly from the original writer or printer. <S> Sic is generally used inside square brackets, like [sic], and occasionally parentheses/brackets: (sic). <A> I would caution to be sure it is the error of the author and not the publisher. <S> Always try to track down an original source.
| It is common to mark a misspelling (or other problematical word) that might be otherwise thought to be an error by you (the quoter) by following it with "[sic]".
|
Apostrophe for noun modifiers I would like to know which of the following is grammatically acceptable, please. The first American students' scientific conference The first American students scientific conference The first American student's scientific conference The first American student scientific conference <Q> Supporting example : United Nations International Student Conference of Amsterdam ( <S> UNISCA) are both grammatically correct. <A> The first American students' scientific conference <S> acceptable <S> The first American students scientific conference not acceptable The first American student's scientific conference <S> not acceptable The first American student scientific conference <S> acceptable (probably best) <A> The last two sound incorrect to me, and I think that the first two are interchangeable. <S> As your conference will need branding, I recommend option 2, which does not have the apostrophe (always an issue in logos, emails headers, etc.). <S> Enjoy your conference!
| I would say The first American students' scientific conference Supporting example : The European Students' Conference (ESC) and The first American student scientific conference
|
What loan-words keep their native pronunciation? Being a non-native English speaker I recently discovered that for some words you don't use English pronunciation. For instance you seem to be omitting the l's when saying tortilla . Yet this isn't always the case considering that with a comparable word karaoke you don't use the Japanese pronunciation. Are there more commonly used words that are pronounced in their native tongue that I should be aware of? <Q> I don't think there are hard-and-fast rules when it comes to words that have been recently assimilated into English. <S> The pronunciation that usually sticks is a halfway house between the original foreign pronunciation and what is easy for Anglophones to actually say. <S> To take your two examples: A word like tortilla can just be pronounced as if it were an English word, tortia , without any Spanish accent. <S> But you will still find English speakers who pronounce the double l, just like the do with paella and Marbella , and also the j of fajita and jalapeno as [dʒ], since they are unaware of the Spanish pronunciation. <S> The sounds in the Japanese word karaoke are a bit more foreign. <S> The r in there is a very different liquid to the English r, English speakers aren't used to gliding from [a] to [o], and English words seldom end with with an [e]. <S> Hence the slightly mangled /ˌkæriːˈoʊkiː/ <A> For example, you will tend to find Spanish/Mexican words more often pronounced natively in states and cities that have relatively large Latino populations. <S> OTOH a word like <S> "karaoke" will be Americanized because very few Americans know the original pronunciation. <A> There are many words that have stayed close to their original pronunciation: Wunderkind, schadenfreude, mademoiselle, sabot, ciao, pizza, etc. <S> As @Jim Balter mentions, foreign words are probably more likely to keep their foreign pronunciation when the foreign population is of sufficient size. <S> I suspect that along with the shear size of the foreign population, the rate at which that population assimilates the native language has an effect too. <S> A closed foreign community, of any size, is more likely to retain its original language longer than one that is open. <S> Refer also to the question " What words are commonly mispronounced by literate people who read them before they heard them? <S> " to get a longer list of words where the accepted pronunciation does not necessarily match the accepted spelling. <A> As a non-native speaker, I always think twice about pronouncing a loan word from my language in English, e.g. salon , outré , ensemble , force majeure , reconnaissance . <S> I always feel a bit silly after pronouncing it in a non-native way; it feels so contrived. <S> However, I concede that switching between languages mid-sentence can prove difficult...
| I encourage you to use the native pronunciation of any loan word from your native language, whenever you use them in English. Borrowed words tend to keep their pronunciation when there's a large subpopulation that uses the original language.
|
Why do so many newspapers use the word "Times" in their names? It seems that the word itself doesn't mean news or newspapers, but many newspapers use it in their names. Is there a historic reason? <Q> The name originally comes from the British newspaper The Daily Universal Register founded in 1785, which changed it names to The Times in 1788. <S> Since then it has lent its name to papers all over the world. <S> Wikipedia: <S> The Times <S> The original meaning of time is to happen , so <S> the times means that what has happened , which is a fitting name for a newspaper. <S> Online Etymology Dictionary: time (v.) <A> that try mens' souls. <S> " You want yesterday's news? <S> There are also plenty of Heralds, Bugles, and even some "Cryers" (as in "Town-"), for the obvious reason that they are "announcing" the latest doings. <A> When in doubt about English, I like to go back to my Dutch roots. <S> The Dutch words for 'newspaper' is ' krant ', which derives from the Dutch word ' courant '. <S> The Dutch word 'courant' can mean either newspaper or currency (money), and it derives from the French ' courant ', which, when used as an adjective, means current or present (time). <S> Another English term that derives directly from the French is ' au courant ', which means, literally, up to date, informed on the latest developments etc. <S> This leads back to the idea of a newspaper reporting what is happening at the current time . <S> Along with newspapers that use the word 'Times' in their name, you will also find many that use 'Courant'.
| Simple: Currency, and location in history, as in "these are the Times
|
Can you use "(sic)" in other contexts? In Polish you can use sic to indicate not only erroneous spelling (uncorrected for editorial reasons), but also to note that the sentence should be as it is when it comes to its meaning (e.g. "The lecturer brought an axolotl (sic!) to the lecture.", "The flight was cancelled because the pilot forgot his lucky dime (sic!)."). Can you do that in English? <Q> Generally "sic" should be in square brackets, not parenthesis, as an editor's mark. <S> Parenthesis are acceptable, but because square brackets are less often used, the intent is more clearly conveyed. <S> Also, sic should not be italicized nor should a period be placed after it as it is not an abbreviation. <S> ( Reference ) <S> Sic is derived from a Latin adverb sīc meaning " <S> so," "thus," or "in such a manner. <S> " <S> I personally would not use sic to indicate unusual or ironic meaning. <S> In the case of the pilot, The flight was canceled because the pilot forgot his lucky dime! <S> The exclamation point conveys the meaning clearly. <S> It's an outcry. <S> Compare to: <S> The flight was canceled because the pilot did not have her security credentials. <S> The presence of an exclamation point on a statement conveying a usual situation would feel out of place. <S> However, if this were being spoken by someone who was enraged by the canceled flight, the exclamation point could be added to convey emotion and frustration. <S> In the above cases, punctuation serves to convey the intended meaning by context alone. <A> That would be an ironic extension of the regular usage of sic . <S> I'd interpret it as "yes, dear reader, surprising as it may be, this is what he did". <S> I have seen it used like this on occasion. <S> It looks a bit silly; I'd never use it myself. <S> There exist several little jokes that are made again and again by journalists because they feel they need to decorate their texts; I'd skip them, unless they are new or actually funny. <S> But perhaps that is just grumpy old Cerberus whining. <A> I have not answered before, English not being my mother tongue (while in Italian, my language, the usage of "(sic)" described by the OP is quite frequent, to the point that some people don't know its original use, and confuse sic with sigh , as if the author were sighing for the blunder or funny episode he is telling). <S> That said, I have just found in a text by Damon Knight , who knew his English, such a use. <S> In an article later collected in In Search of Wonder he berates several aspects of A.E. Van Vogt's style, plotting, language etc. <S> In particular, he is describing some incongruences in Van Vogt's The World of Null-A . <S> In one of these, a gang hostile to the main character is temporarily helping him all the while, Knight writes, keeping him under control by means of a “vibrator” which changes the atomic structure of everything around him so <S> he cannot memorize it (sic) and effect an escape. <S> So, apparently, Knight's use of "(sic)" is exactly to stress the absurdity of the situation he is relating. <A> Also highly unconventional would be the use of an exclamation point following sic within the brackets or parenthesis. <A> I have only ever seen [sic] used to indicate a very obvious problem like a misspelling. <S> In fact, I cannot think of any appropriate situation for it other than to indicate a misspelling in quoted text.
| Based on my experience, using sic to draw attention to unusual characteristics of a sentence would be considered unconventional in English.
|
Is the word "savage" offensive? Is it? If it depends on context, please provide some examples of offensive and not offensive usage ;) What I have in mind is to say something like "The Zulu were a savage people compared to e.g. the United Kingdom". <Q> When applied to animals or natural forces, it means fierce or violent . <S> So, it is very negative. <S> As a noun, a savage means “a member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized”, and is thus very offensive. <S> It is now mainly a historical term. <A> Savage originally meant 'wild', as sauvage does in Old and modern French. <S> It acquired two different transferred meanings when applied to human beings; <S> as in 'savage fighters' it became 'fierce and bloodthirsty'; though this isn't always negative (whether applied to soldiers or guard-dogs) very few people would apply it to themselves, and, however apt a nineteenth-century historian might have thought your example, it can't be applied to a whole race these days. <S> The other meaning, of 'untamed', meant 'uncivilized' in the technical sense . <S> (Early anthropologists used savages for peoples who had not discovered agriculture, and barbarians for those who had agriculture but not metalworking). <S> Like all scientific terms, it should have neither positive nor negative connotations; but the implications of unspoiled innocence (for Huxley in Brave New World and Rousseau as previously mentioned, for example) or animal brutishness (in too many examples to name) make it too difficult to use objectively. <A> What about Rousseau's Noble Savage?
| When applied to human beings, it means cruel , aggressive or vicious .
|
What is more appropriate — "hanged" or "hung"? Say that you are using some software, and it hangs. In this case, what should I say: ... when we execute this command, software X gets hanged [ or simply hangs]. ... when we execute this command, software X gets hung. From what I know (from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language): Hanged , as a past tense and a past participle of hang , is used in the sense of “to put to death by hanging,” as in Frontier courts hanged many a prisoner after a summary trial . A majority of the Usage Panel objects to hung used in this sense. In all other senses of the word, hung is the preferred form as past tense and past participle, as in I hung my child's picture above my desk . But I'm not 100% confident on what is more appropriate. <Q> From NOAD: 2 ( past hanged ) <S> [ trans. ] <S> kill (someone) by tying a rope attached from above around the neck and removing the support from beneath (used as a form of capital punishment) : <S> he was hanged for murder <S> | <S> she hanged herself in her cell <S> For all other purposes, use hung . <A> In this context only 'hangs' seems to be appropriate as this is the action that the software performs itself -- <S> it's not being hung/hanged by any external force. <S> Also, as chaos mentioned, it sounds awkward. <S> In fact, if I received a report saying 'When we execute this command, software X gets hung' I'd ask for clarification -- what hung it? <S> This form may suggest that there's another reason for it, not mentioned in the report. <A> I would use "hangs". <S> "Gets hanged" is inappropriate and awkward, saying that the software has been executed by hanging, and "gets hung" invokes a slang expression regarding the size of sexual anatomy. <S> ("Gets hung up" would avoid this, but "hangs" is still better.) <S> Fun fact: being sentenced to "death by hanging" and "to be hung by the neck until dead" denote different forms of execution. <S> "Death by hanging" means to have the knot of the noose placed to the side of one's neck so that the neck is hopefully broken by the drop; being "hung by the neck until dead" means to have the knot placed in back of the neck so that one survives the drop and dies slowly of asphyxiation.
| Hanged has the specific meaning of execution by hanging, with a rope, "until dead."
|
Is there any difference between "offense" and "offence"? "Offense" vs. "offence", which is more correct? If both are correct, are there any differences in shades of meaning and/or usage? <Q> There is no difference in meaning between offence and offense . <S> They're exactly the same in all their definitions. <S> The difference is that offense is the preferred spelling in American English, while offence is preferred in British, Indian, Canadian, and Australian English. <S> These American publications use offense : <S> The veteran tight end never found a home in Mike Martz’s offense and was inactive for all but five games. <S> [Chicago Sun-Times] <S> If people take offense at hackneyed phrases it <S> ’s <S> because they’re hackneyed . . . <S> [The Atlantic] And these non-American publications use offence : <S> Both offences can exploit some areas that play to their strengths. <S> [CBC] Parents who fail to keep air guns away from their children will be fined up to £1,000 under a new offence from next month. <S> [Telegraph] Pulpit choice gives offence [Sydney Morning Herald] <A> In the United States, "offense" generally means engaging an opposing team with the objective of scoring points or goals. <S> In the same context in Britain and elsewhere, the term "offence" is usually taken to mean an infraction of the rules - i.e., a penalty or foul - and "attack" is more likely to be used where Americans would use "offense". <A> Offence is the British spelling. <S> This is just one example of the difference in spelling words that end in "ence", in American English. <S> You can learn about all of the words that involve this difference on the internet. <S> For example, these pages have good explanations of it: http://www.tysto.com/articles05/q1/20050324uk-us.shtml <S> and http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/british-american-spelling.html <S> There is a difference in usage. <S> Offense is written by people who speak American English and by people that are writing mainly or only for an audience who speak American English. <S> When writing mainly or only for an audience who do not speak American English, writing offense will not be necessary and will not be appropriate. <S> If you need to decide on which spelling to use, base your decision on your audience (who will be reading your writing). <A> Words change with time. <S> Originally the British word was "offence", and Americans slowly took the word "offense". <S> They both meant the same thing. <S> We stress the last syllable when referring to breaking a rule, whereas we stress the first syllable when we speak about the opposite of defence. <S> The fact that the last syllable is stressed when we speak about the opposite of offence is probably why people want to spell it like the common word "fence", whereas people are now using the term "offense" when they stress the first syllable. <S> It's not always been that way. <S> But languages are not defined by their histories, they're defined by the people who use them. <S> Historical linguistics does not determine how people use a language currently.
| Offense is simply the American spelling of the word offence . They both mean the same thing. There is a difference between "offense" and "offence" in the context of sports.
|
What does "You might be better off thinking of something" mean? I found this sentence in my programming book: You might be better off thinking of the block and the method as coroutines, which transfer control back and forth between themselves. What does be better off mean? <Q> It means it " might be a better idea to think of the block and the method as coroutines .." <S> It's a common English idiom. <A> The author is encouraging you to think about the problem in the way he has described. <A> The NOAD reports that the meaning of "be better off" is "be in a better position, especially in financial terms." <S> The sentence you wrote could be considered equivalent of the following sentence. <S> It would be better to think of the block and the method as coroutines, which transfer control back and forth between themselves.
| In this context it means "You might gain a greater advantage" or "You might be well-served by." The writer is suggesting an alternate approach to thinking about the subject, and expressing it as if it were your choice.
|
What is the etymology and literal meaning of 'Cock a snoot/snook'? I've been using this expression all my adult life but have no idea what it means or where it originates. Google searches lead me to the description of it being to do with putting your thumb on nose and wiggling four fingers. This is not an entirely satisfying conclusion to my quest. Can anyone elaborate? <Q> From the Phrase Finder: <S> The general understanding of what's meant by 'cock a snook' is the spread hand with thumb on the nose, preferably with crossed eyes, waggling fingers and any other annoying gesticulation that comes to mind at the time. <S> It's what the Americans call 'the five-fingered salute'. <S> So, it looks like this: Hope <S> that image helped you visualize, as well as the description 'crossed eyes, waggling fingers...". <S> Very satisfying! <S> jks. <S> The origin of "snook", is the word "snook"! <S> "Snook" means: a gesture of defiance, disrespect, or derision. <S> "Cock" here means to lift up, as in lift up your hand, or "cock your rifle". <S> So, its origin just comes from saying "Lift up a snook" <A> Etymonline has this reference: snoot "the nose," 1861, originally a Scottish variant of snout. <S> This would lead one to believe that it means "to cock one's nose" at something, to affect an air (and posture) of disdain. <S> However , WorldWideWords says this is all balderdash , and in discussing one of the expression's variants ("cock a snook") <S> they say: <S> The gesture of derision it encapsulates is that of putting one’s thumb to one’s nose and extending the fingers. <S> Waggling them is optional but greatly improves the effectiveness of the insult. <S> The gesture is widespread but names for it vary: cocking a snook is mainly the British name for what Americans, I think, sometimes describe as a five-fingered salute. <S> Heaven knows what the notably blunt Australians call it. <A> He spent a lifetime cocking a snook at the art world. <S> As for the origin, the dictionary reports it is late 18th century, but the origin is unknown. <A> This is more of a comment than an answer, but it won't fit in a comment. <S> Looking through Google books, I found the slang word "snook" defined in two dictionaries. <S> From the royal dictionary abridged (1802) To snook: <S> être aux aguets pour tâcher d'attraper quelque chose. <S> which (my possibly poor translation) means "to be on the lookout to try to catch some thing. <S> " This seemed to me a very strange definition to have a word for, but from Dictionarium Brittanicum (1736) we have To Snook, to lie lurking for a thing. <S> Essentially the same definition. <S> I don't know how you could get from there to "cock a snook", though.
| The NOAD reports that the phrase (chiefly British) cock a snook means "place one's hand so that the thumb touches one's nose and the fingers are spread out, in order to express contempt;" it is also used with the meaning of "openly show contempt or a lack of respect for someone or something." The truth is, we have no idea at all where this phrase comes from.
|
Is "yesterday night" acceptable? I catch a lot of grief about this from family and friends, so I figured I'd settle the score once and for all. In verbal context (though not written), I tend to use the phrase ... yesterday night... rather than last night . Is this grammatically correct, regardless of how uncommon it might be? <Q> This is grammatically correct, indeed, assuming: You are using it as an adverbial adjunct, as in Yesterday night I went to the movies . <S> You believe the word yesterday is a noun (as in Yesterday is over. ) <S> functioning as an adjective (just like with yesterday morning ). <S> Then, yesterday night is a valid noun phrase, however awkward. <S> In fact, I find it pretty common! :D <A> I'm not sure it's incorrect strictly speaking, but it triggers some cognitive dissonance because "yesterday" implies day rather than night. <S> Just say "last night" already. <S> ;) <A> Tomorrow is the funeral of the late Prime Minister. <S> From a legal point of view, Mr. Peres is, as of yesterday night , acting Prime Minister. <S> There is a take-care government. <S> The President will call on the president, on Mr. Peres within a few days to establish a new government, with the real shock an earthquake of grief that we all feel here, there is and must be stability in the political system. <S> Here yesterday night seems just as good as last night , though I couldn't say exactly why (Rabin was assassinated in the evening). <S> Why not start using yestreen ? <A> "Last night" is more specific but I don't think anyone would object to calling "tonight" part of "today." <S> (At night) What did you do today? <S> (At night) What day is it today? <S> However, you certainly wouldn't say "today night" instead of "tonight." <S> I checked my local dictionary for a definition of "yesterday": the day before today . <S> My guess is that "day" here implies a 24 hour period. <S> That period includes a night and saying "yesterday night" provides an unambiguous reference to a specific time. <S> All of that being said, "last night" sounds better and takes less time to type and write. <S> The only reason I can see for saying it is to bug your friends which, in my opinion, isn't good enough.
| I'd say overall that yesterday night sounds nonstandard, but I checked for it in the corpus, and found that it is attested, and even in professional-sounding contexts; see the following quote (from a newscast):
|
Adverbs for Dirty (Dirtily?) It is common to simply use 'dirty' as the adverb here, ex: He talks dirty. Other resources say that the adverb is dirtily! I do not believe I've ever heard this used... is it correct? <Q> Dirtily is the adverb while dirty is used as an adjective or verb. <S> However, to talk dirty is an informal phrase and is always used this way. <S> talk dirty <S> informal talk about sex in a coarse or salacious way. <S> I assume that you wouldn't want to talk about talking dirty in a formal context anyway, so <S> talk dirty <S> should be fine. <A> Dirtily is correct, but it does sound a bit clunky. <S> A few alternative adverbs: foully, uncleanly, shamefully, basely, vulgarly, coarsely. <A> Think of it this way, <S> "As the miner emerged from days working in the coal mine, he was dressed <S> so DIRTILY <S> I barely recognized him".
| "Dirtily" is the correct form for the adverb.
|
"Checking" vs. "chequing" vs. "chequeing" with regards to types of bank accounts I came across this little dilemma when looking up the incorrectly spelled word "chequing" in my web browser's dictionary (Opera). According to the different dictionaries you can select in Opera: EN US is "Checking" (Which I knew) EN GB and EN ZA is "Chequeing" (Which looks really strange to me) Here in Canada I've always seen and used "Chequing", which I actually thought was the GB version. Example of BBC using "chequeing": Link So how many versions are there? Which is technically the right version for Canada and Great Britain? <Q> This terminology dates back to the Anglo-Norman Kings who, having conquered Saxon England, started collecting taxes methodically, of which The Domesday Book is a famous example. <S> For accounting, they were using a large board with rows and columns not unlike a chessboard, or un échiquier in French (from Persian origin, imported via Latin). <S> The person responsible for this task was therefore named Chancellor of the Exchequer . <S> He or she had to verify that the numbers indeed matched expectations. <S> From this exercise also comes the verb to check . <S> In the meantime, the European banking system started using bills of exchange to credit and debit accounts between branches in various cities on behalf of their customers. <S> Lombard Street in London was famous for this, but they were far from the only ones. <S> This allowed for only paper to be transported, which was both safer and easier. <S> From 1745 onwards, the Bank of England exclusively had the right of printing money au porteur (payable to the bearer). <S> This happened much later in the US, when the Federal Reserve was instituted. <S> Private bankers who could therefore not emit their own banknotes any more had to resort to a different type of bill that had to be "checked" because they were nominative. <S> The word check then went back to France, when they imported the concept, and they spelled it chèque and sometimes chècque . <S> The word then went back again to England as cheque , and only the US actually simplified it back to check . <S> It should therefore be: <S> check in the US cheque in the UK, AU, ZA and Canada <S> As for "checking" vs "chequing" vs "chequeing", my understanding is as follows: <S> "Checking" accounts are used in the US, both "chequing" and "chequeing" are accepted in Canada with a marked predominance for the former, although the latter is the correct original British English spelling. <S> Actually, in the UK you don't hold "chequeing" accounts, but "cheque" accounts, but this phrase is seldom used; "current account" (as opposed to savings account") is preferred. <S> However, when the gerund is used it is spelled "chequeing" <S> (this is disputed however, see Brian's comments below). <S> I'm told that in Australia, "cheque account" is used and "chequeing" is rare (comments below from staticsan). <S> Another famous "ping-pong"-type etymology between French and English is "taster" (to grope for testing purposes) = <S> > "to taste" => "tester" (to try) <S> = <S> > "to test" <A> I just took a tour of some Canadian banking sites. <S> Easy enough since we have so few . <S> Scotiabank offers Chequing accounts <S> TD made me drill around a bit and look under Canada Trust, but they too offer Chequing accounts. <S> (Their American division offers Checking accounts) <S> Bank of Montreal offers Chequing accounts Royal Bank , just to be different, offers "Banking and Saving" accounts although some of its "banking accounts" come "with chequing privileges" <S> Bottom line: the Canadian spelling is chequing . <S> I knew that, but wanted to prove it a little. <A> I think the question makes an incorrect assumption: namely that cheque is a verb in British English. <S> It's not listed as such in the Oxford, Collins or Cambridge dictionaries, and there's no instance of it as a verb in the British National Corpus. <S> So it doesn't matter whether you spell it as * chequing or * chequeing : <S> either way, British English speakers will assume you're an American trying to use British spelling and failing to take into account that the spelling isn't the only difference. <S> (Given @KateGregory's comments about Canadian English, it's apparent that this wouldn't necessarily be a correct assumption, but that's a separate issue).
| CIBC offers Chequing accounts
|
Where does the use of "why" as an interjection come from? Examples: Why, I'd love to. Why, of course! I get the concept of starting a sentence with a word not completely related to the overall response, but this one seems to be a particularly odd choice — is there any semantic meaning I'm missing? <Q> According to the OED, the use of why as an interjection dates back to the 16th century: 1519 Interl. <S> Four Elem. <S> Bvij, Than Iperceyue ye wyll make gode chere. <S> Hu. <S> Why, what shulde I els do? <S> 1581 <S> Confer. <S> with Campion (1583) Ciij, Why,is not Saint Iames Epistle called theCatholike Epistle of Saint Iames. <S> Howdo you then denie it to be Canonicall? <S> 1599 Shakes. <S> Much <S> Ado <S> iv. <S> ii. <S> 44 <S> Whythis is flat periurie, to call aPrinces brother villaine. <S> Ibid. <S> v.iv. <S> 73 Bene . <S> Doo not you loue me? <S> Beat . <S> Why no, <S> no more then reason. <S> The OED doesn't explain why it is used in that manner. <S> I can only speculate. <S> First it was just a question expressing doubt reduced to its essence: <S> It is best that we negotiate a trucewith Spain. <S> — Why is that so? <S> Ibelieve the Spanish armies cannotthreaten us. <S> They will fail in their attempt toconquer England. <S> — Why? <S> Their fleet is far superior in strength and number. <S> This developed through rhetorical question into a mere interjection of surprise: <S> We should offer the English crown tothe Dutch Stadtholder. <S> — Why, Williamof Orange, you say? <S> That would be aterrible idea. <S> From there its function of calling attention (if that's what it is) to a following statement developed: This Corsican might be trouble; why, I think he will conquer all of Europe in a decade. <S> The OED notes that it is often used this way in opposition to a vague doubt or apprehension. <A> "why" can be compared to an old Latin form qui, an ablative form, meaning how. <S> This use might be explained from a formula such as "How does it come that ...". <S> If you meet an old friend of yours, whom you never expected to meet in town, you can express your surprise by saying: Why, it's Jim! <S> This <S> why in the meaning of "how", in Latin qui, can be explained as rest of a whole sentence: How is it possible? <S> It's Jim, whom I never expected to see again! <S> This is my personal view of the matter. <S> I don't suppose that everybody will agree. <A> Why, that's what it means! <S> It doesn't actually transform the sentence into a question; the question mark does that (see also: <S> French). <S> We've just gotten used to always seeing it at the start of a question, but it's really there to draw attention.
| Today"why" is used as a question word to ask the reason or purpose of something.
|
"Discover" or "invent" in mathematics context A very theoretical question I came across with friends some time ago. I am not a native English speaker, so I may be misunderstanding some details, but as I understand: 1) Discovery relates to a concept which existed prior to ... well "discovery" but was unknown before the act. 2) Invention relates to a creation of a concept which never existed before the act Following from this, are mathematical concepts such as sinus "discovered" or "invented"? In one sense, being a fundamental property hence could only be discovered. On the other hand, the logical metaphor was created by humans, hence invented. Which one is right and which one is wrong and why? <Q> This is a very old question, even among mathematicians who are accomplished native English speakers. <S> There are definitely aspects of discovery as well as invention in math, and some things lend themselves more to one than the other. <S> For example, it is more appropriate to say that notation is invented, rather than discovered. <S> It's the other way for proofs. <A> Most mathematicians are typically Platonists internally, even though the Platonist view has no real credibility among philosophers or those that study the philosophy of mathematics. <S> Since most mathematicians are atheists (based on my experience in grad school and in working as a math professor), it would be more consistent for them to speak of inventing theorems, but they just don't. <S> I suspect that the reason for this is that in the process of doing mathematics it is expedient to think as if this stuff is simply out there . <A> I think neither verb is entirely appropriate for mathematical concepts in ordinary English. <S> You can't "discover" a square root, nor can you "invent" a radius: <S> they just are , I'd say. <S> I suppose you could use these verbs, depending on context, but I suspect that it would nearly always be better to avoid the situation. <S> If I said "Pythagoras discovered the Pythagorean theorem", that would be possible; but it'd sound a tiny bit childish, as though I weren't aware of the very problem you present here. <S> The same applies to "invent". <S> (If you like Kant, you will probably agree that mathematical concepts are best considered models created by the mind in which we shape our sensory impressions. <S> We have always used these models subconsciously in various ways: discovering or inventing them means just becoming aware of patterns in the ideas we have about reality.) <S> You might use to conceive of : <S> Surprisingly it was Pythagoras who first conceived of the Pythagorean theorem. <A> It depends on what you believe. <S> A. Mathematical concepts exist. <S> (we find them out) <S> B. Mathematical concepts don't exist. <S> (we build them) <S> If you believe A <S> then you can use "discover" <S> else you can use "invent". <S> Even if you believe A you can still use "invent" but that won't be consistent with your belief. <S> If you believe that A is true then B is false for you and if you believe B is true then A is false for you. <S> There is no way to decided which one is actually true. <S> That is why this debate can go on forever. <S> In real life, people don't really care which one (A,B) is true. <S> So they are comfortable with either word. <S> Such questions are bread and butter of philosophers. <A> All things are discovered. <S> All possibilities exist. <S> We only discover these possibilities. <S> Does a composer create a symphony? <S> All of the notes are already there. <S> The composer merely disovers a pleasing sequence. <S> Did Hans Lippershey invent the telescope, or did he observe properties of light and materials and discover that when certain materials were arranged that a pleasing image is produced. <S> Did Jack Kilby invent the integrated circuit? <S> The physical properties of conductors already existed. <S> All the properties of physics and chemistry, the laws of motion, and of mathematics, and of economics and the universe already exist, just waiting to be discovered. <A> An English speaker probably won't mind hearing <S> discover (or even invent ) in the context of mathmatics. <S> However, if you want to be technical you could always use the mathematic term proof . <S> Pythagoras is credited with the Pythagorean Theorem proof. <A> 1) Discovery relates to a concept which existed prior to ... well "discovery" but was unknown before the act. <S> 2) Invention relates to a creation of a concept which never existed before the act <S> That is exactly correct. <S> Both terms are used. <S> In popular writing, they seem to be used interchangeably. <S> My gut feeling is that no mathematician would say that either Pierre de Fermat or Andrew Wiles invented Fermat's Last Theorem. <S> Generally, I think a mathematician would seldom if ever use the word invention to refer to a specific recent mathematical result (a theorem proved in a new paper). <S> But I think mathematicians do use the adjective inventive to describe specific people, approaches, techniques, papers, etc. <S> that they find really impressive and unexpected; and I think some mathematicians use the noun invention for those things. <S> So you might hear a mathematician call Galois theory an amazing invention. <S> I am not a mathematician. <S> All this is speculation.
| Discover is typically used among mathematicians. In general, if you're not sure which one, it's a little safer to say discover , as it is a more "humble" term; but in casual use, either one is usually acceptable.
|
What's the difference in meaning between "emigrate" and "immigrate"? What's the difference between emigrate and immigrate? They seem to have the same definitions in the dictionary but they are antonyms... <Q> The difference is fairly subtle To Emigrate is to leave one country to settle in another. <S> (The focus is on the original country) To Immigrate <S> is to come to a new country to live. <S> (The focus is on the new country) <S> So if I were born in Ireland, and then migrated to the US, all of the following would be true and grammatical: <S> I emigrated from Ireland. <S> I immigrated to the US. <S> (Now the tricky bits) <S> I emigrated from Ireland to the US. <S> (This focuses on the leaving bit) <S> I immigrated to the US from Ireland. <S> (This focuses on the arriving bit) <S> And finally, relatives in Ireland might say: Dusty emigrated to the US last year. <S> (from their perspective, I left) <S> While new friends in the US: <S> Dusty immigrated to the US last year. <S> (from their perspective, I arrived) <A> To emigrate is to leave here and move to another country. <A> The "e" in emigrate is short for "ex", which means "out". <S> You see it in words like exit (to leave), expire (out of breath >> out of time <S> > <S> > death), exterminate (to drive out). <S> The "im" in immigrate is a variant of "in", which means in. <S> You see it in words like internal (inside), insinuate (to curve in), input (that which is put in). <S> This "in" should not be confused with the other "in" which means "not", used in such words as indiscriminate, incapable, and insatiable. <S> So, to emigrate means to exit a location. <S> To immigrate means to come into a location. <A> Emigrate means leaving a country, immigrate means entering a country. <S> Like "exhale" versus "inhale". <A> The NOAD contains the following note about emigrate . <S> To emigrate is to leave a country, especially one's own, intending to remain away. <S> To immigrate is to enter a country, intending to remain there: <S> my aunt emigrated from Poland and immigrated to Canada . <S> The OED reports that immigrate is chiefly North American. <A> Immigration and emigration have to do with humans migrating between two countries. <S> The use depends on which country we are referring to. <S> With respect to the US, people who leave the country are emigrants. <S> People who move here are immigrants. <A> In my experience, as an Indian ex-pat living and working in the UK: If you're white-skinned and you move to another country you're said to have emigrated . <S> If you're not white-skinned and you move to another country you're an immigrant . <A> Emigration & immigration are almost equal to product movement internationally: Export: leaving this country and go to another country — emigration <S> Import: <S> Leaving another country & arriving in to this country — immigration
| To immigrate is to leave another country and move to here.
|
Is there a single word that means "self flagellation" or "self punishment"? In the back of my mind, I'm almost certain there are at least several individual English word that means to punish one's self. It doesn't have to be physical, necessarily, but it must be some kind of self-punishment. Are there such words? Clinical words are also accepted (i.e. psychological terminology). <Q> I can only think of penance, contrition and such words. <A> Masochism? Or masochistic tendencies? <A> Clinically, self-harm is grouped into different categories, but there doesn't seem to be one catch-all single-word term for it--just a collection of acronyms as outlined here from Wikipedia: Self-harm (SH), also referred to as self-injury (SI), self-inflicted violence (SIV), Non-Suicidal Self Injury (NSSI) or self-injurious behaviour (SIB), refers to a spectrum of behaviours where demonstrable injury is self-inflicted. <S> An example of self-harm/self-injury is cutting and is the second most common form of self-harm in the UK. <S> The term self-mutilation is also sometimes used, although this phrase evokes connotations that some find worrisome, inaccurate, or offensive. <S> I've heard people who cut themselves referred to, nonclinically, as cutters . <S> Of course, the more specific you get in terms of what harm is being done, the more choices there are for clinical terms describing that particular compulsion, e.g., bulimia, anorexia , trichotillomania , algolagnia , etc. <S> Then there's the whole realm of body modification , and a host of other specific terms like scarification . <A> Asceticism is a form of self-denial, or voluntary suffering, especially as a way of life. <S> It isn't always associated with guilt though. <A> <A> You'd describe a person who believes that they are in need of self-punishment as penitent . <S> I think that's more a state of mind than an actual act of self-punishment, though. <A> Playing off of Jason Orendorff's answer, the thesaurus entry for "Asceticism" gives some of these similar words: Austerity Aceration (hard word to find. <S> From the word Acerate, meaning needle-like) <S> Perhaps "Stoicism" or "Stoic" <A> Masochism is the first that comes to mind, but I seem to remember the word misogynist him being used as an alternate definition <S> but I can't find verification for it on any of the online dictionaries. <S> I realize that misogynist is most recognized definition is the hatred of women <S> but I seem to recall it being used in the context that you're referring to. <S> Hope this helps.
| Maybe it is too extreme but suicide is also a kind of self-punishment.
|
Difference between "stir up" and "provoke" Just I want to know the difference between the "stir up" and "provoke", where it should be placed exactly. <Q> Interesting. <S> Well, to stir up means to instigate, or initiate or to set in motion. <S> So a sample sentence could be <S> Che stirred up a revolution against oppression. <S> To provoke is to stimulate or give rise to a strong emotion or a reaction, which is typically an unwelcome one. <S> A sample sentence could be Che provoked the masses to set all the houses on fire. <S> Does that clear your doubts? <A> In this sense provoke is about creating a reaction <S> He provoked the crowd by telling them what their enemies would do while stir up is used to mean excite <S> He stirred up the crowd by telling them how strong they were <S> Stir up is in common English usage because of a phrase in the old Anglican collect for the last Sunday before Advent Stir up, we beseech thee, <S> O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people where it was a translation of the Latin excita . <S> It was taken as an indicator that it was time to make (i.e. stir up) Christmas puddings. <A> The decision provoked a storm of protest from civil rights organizations. <S> She stirred up the sweating crowd. <S> The difference is that provoke is also used for an unwelcome reaction or emotion, while stir up is used for a strong feeling.
| Provoke means "stimulate or give rise to a reaction or emotion (typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone," while stir up means "arouse strong feeling in (someone); move or excite.
|
Words order when asking a question in a complex sentence I'm having trouble to decide which word order to use in this sentence: So the question is if I am to modify the programme in what environment I should do it . Is it correct or do I need to change the last part to in what environment should I do it ? <Q> You have two options, a direct question and an indirect question . <S> Both are correct, but they should not be mixed. <S> So the question is: "in what environmentshould I do it?" <S> ( direct ) <S> So the question is in what environment Ishould do it. <S> ( indirect ) <S> In the direct question , you literally pose the question in the exact same words you would use if you actually asked someone the question; in direct questions, subject and finite verb are reversed so that you get finite verb — <S> subject <S> ("should I"). <S> The question mark is required; the quotation marks are not required (in your example I'd remove them); instead of the colon, you could use a comma (probably better in your example). <S> Then you get n0nChun's version, which I agree is probably the best choice. <S> The question mark should not be used. <A> I think you just need to swap the places of "I" and "Should". <S> So, your sentence could be <S> So, the question is, if I am to modify the program, in what environment should I do it? <A> I would suggest ending the sentence with “so” rather than “it”. <S> So if I am to modify the programme, the question is: in what environment should I do <S> so ?
| In the indirect question , you make the question subordinate to the main clause of the sentence, so that it isn't a literal question any more, and you use the regular order of subject — finite verb ("I should").
|
What is the grammatical difference behind "is interesting" and "is interested"? I am a native English speaker, yet I cannot explain to a non-native speaker why I say: I am interested in history. as well as History is interesting to me. Why is it "is interesting" when history is the subject, but not when I am? <Q> To expand on the other answers, there is nothing special about interesting vs interested . <S> I am interested in X. — <S> X is interesting to me. <S> I am excited about X. — <S> X is exciting to me. <S> I am worried about X. — <S> X is worrying to me. <S> I am horrified by X. — <S> X is horrifying to me. <S> I am surprised by X. — <S> X is surprising to me. <S> I am puzzled by X. — <S> X is puzzling to me. <S> I am amazed by X. — <S> X is amazing to me. <S> And so on, and so forth. <S> And note how saying "X is interested in me" would be perfectly grammatical. <S> It just wouldn't mean the same thing as "I am interested in X". <S> But I don't see why that should be surprising. <S> At all. <A> Start with the verb form: History shocks me. <S> There are two parties to this kind of shocking event: a shock-er, the one doing the shocking (in this case, history ); and a shock-ee, the one being shocked (in this case, me ). <S> In grammar, the first is called the agent and the second the patient . <S> English would be very confusing if we had no way to tell which was which! <S> Fortunately we do. <S> When shock is used as a verb, the main hint is the word order: John shocked Kaitlin vs. Kaitlin shocked John . <S> The subject is the agent. <S> The direct object is the patient. <S> To turn a verb into an adjective, we use different suffixes that help make this distinction. <S> The suffix -ing makes an adjective (called a participle) that describes the agent: shock <S> → shocking , tends to shock people. <S> The suffix -ed makes an adjective (called the past participle) that describes the patient: shock <S> → shocked , startled or upset. <S> (Many words have irregular past participles <S> : break → broken , not breaked .) <A> People are interested ; topics are interesting <A> They are both adjectives, but: Interesting refers to the subject. <S> Therefore using the wrong one would mean that 'I' am interesting, not History. <A> If you wanted to make yourself the object, you could also say: History interests me.
| Interested refers to the direct object.
|
Meaning and etymology of "tiger by the tail" Am I trying to take someone's Frosted Flakes? Is this sage advice or an old wives' tale? <Q> There's this from William Safire in The New York Times , writing about the phrase's origin: <S> 'Ch'i 'hu nan hsia pei' goes the Chinese proverb, translated in 1875 as 'He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount.' <S> The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs interprets the old Asian metaphor as 'Once a dangerous or troublesome venture is begun, the safest course is to carry it through to the end.' <S> The earliest use of the phrase in print that I can find is from 1829 in a Journal of an Embassy from the Governor-General of India to the Court of Ava, in the Year 1827 : <S> This lends credence to the Chinese-origin theory. <A> It's a metaphor for a situation where trying to extricate yourself might be fatal. <S> You have no option but to hang on and continue in circles - let go and the tiger will catch you. <A> There's a discussion regarding this one here . <S> There's a similar proverb: "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount - <S> Once a dangerous or troublesome venture is begun, the safest course is to carry it through to the end. <S> 1875 <S> W. Scarborough 'Collection of Chinese Proverbs.'" <S> My inclination however is to disagree that "tiger by the tail" has the same meaning. <S> In the proverb, getting off the tiger is dangerous (or fatal), and it's usually used when relinquishing control of something is difficult. <S> In the phrase in question, however, the tiger is certainly capable of causing harm and holding its tail is likely to enrage it. <S> Thus, at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant, the rescue crews are in danger because of the radiation, but the crisis will worsen if they flee; they have to stay in spite of the danger <S> ("he who rides the tiger..."). <S> However, the act of trying to control the reactors is deadly, and they have a tiger by the tail. <A> Basically underestimate your foe you will pay and pay dearly. <S> For example. <S> If someone hurt's a man's daughter. <S> A normal sane man can turn into a rabid beast a gnaw your face off if need be. <S> That's catching a tiger by its tail. <S> The response to the act of hanging onto the tail will be with fangs and claws. <S> Not restraint and control as you tried with him. <A> You get on to the tiger to ride it, but you are thrown off. <S> You now hold on to its tail as it runs all over the jungle. <S> The moment you let go of its tail, the tiger will turn around and kill you. <S> You can neither ride the tiger nor leave the tiger. <S> That is the predicament. <A> I have always believed the meaning to be that givin in the 1827 Journal quoted above - one who "has a tiger by the tail" is equally imperiled by holding it and releasing it. <S> If held, the tiger can turn around and kill the person. <S> If let loose, it can still kill the person. <S> Catching a tiger by the tail is a naive and dangerous way to deal with the beast, and one who has one by the tail made an error in dealing with a troublesome situation. <A> I remember reading this tale as a child: Once a man was walking in the jungle and saw something move behind a tree and grabbed it. ' <S> It' turned out to be the tail of a tiger that was resting on the other side of the tree. <S> Startled the tiger, tried to run around the tree and encountered the man holding the end of its tail. <S> As it tried to catch him, its tail yanked the man away from it. <S> The man soon realized that he had made a terrible mistake but had no real choice. <S> He held on to the tiger's tail as it chased him around the tree. <S> — The End.
| I feel "having a tiger by the tail" is best described as someone in a situation with a powerful beast foolishly taking a tiger by the tail thinking this is how you can catch it and control it. Thus, in practice, the phrase means, "trying to control X - or be in possession of X - is extremely dangerous."
|
Difference between 'haven't ...yet' and 'didn't.... yet' I was wondering what the difference was between a sentence with have and one with do .For example this one: They haven't started yet. They didn't start yet. Is there a difference? When would one use the first or the latter? <Q> Wikipedia has a decent article on past tenses <S> that explains a lot of this. <S> In the positive form it indicates that the activity happened at some definite known point in the past, and is over and done with now. <S> In the negative form this is a more nebulous idea, but in this example it would imply that "they" were supposed to have started at some time. <S> In view of that, "They didn't start yet " sounds odd. <S> "They didn't start" is a complete idea, and "yet" tries to extend it in time in a way that the simple past doesn't allow for. <S> "They haven't started yet" is the negative of the perfect tense , "They have started." <S> As the article puts it, it is "used for describing a past action's effect on the present." <S> It more or less requires that the idea gets extended in time, which "yet" does nicely. <A> “…haven't…yet” implies a statement about the present, i.e. what is currently happening. <S> In my view the “didn't” and “yet” in your second example therefore don't fit naturally together. <S> Note that there are constructions where “didn't” and “yet” would go together, for example “they didn't know yet.” <S> The difference here is that the “yet” is implying some other past event (from the point of view of the writer) rather than something yet to happen. <S> I hope this is clear enough! <S> (One comment on your question: “first” and “latter” are not naturally complementary words; I would suggest “former” for the former.) <A> I don't think "didn't start yet" is really valid English in most contexts. <S> I can't exactly say what it is about the construction that I don't like, but I decided to check written usage by others. <S> In Google Books I find just 14 hits for "doesn't start yet" and 91 for "didn't start yet" , compared to tens of thousands for "haven't started yet" , and for "hadn't started yet" . <S> Even if someone wants to argue that it's not actually "ungrammatical", <S> doesn't/didn't <S> is certainly avoided by most writers in this context; I suggest OP does the same.
| To summarise: "They didn't start yet" is the negative form of the simple past , "They started." “Didn't” however implies a statement about the past, i.e. what has already happened.
|
Why isn't the word "undiscovered" a double negative? Why do we use the word undiscovered ? As far as I know, un– and dis– have the same negative meaning; why don't we just say "covered"? <Q> Because “discovered” has over time developed its a meaning independent of its roots, and is not the converse of “covered” in modern usage. <S> (That would be “uncovered.” <S> ) <S> We therefore use a more complex word—undiscovered—to express this concept. <A> Because English language can express more florid concepts than mathematics. <S> I am sure we could design a more logical language based on signed (positive/negative) concepts <S> and I think it may have been tried before (1984 doublethink). <S> If I say I am tracted - by your logic that means I am focused rather than distracted. <S> But if my point is not so much that I am focused but more that my focus has not been disturbed and I make no comment about whether I am focused or not <S> - I could say I am undistracted. <A> I'm no etymology expert, but this is an interesting question. <S> Might it be because covered <S> suggests an intention to keep something secret, thus creating the need for an alternative word that means "something we just haven't found yet <S> but that isn't an intentional secret"? <A> For example uninterested means not interested while disinterested means not biased . <S> Dis- has a different effect on covered from un-. <S> If something is uncovered <S> it could mean that it has never been covered or hidden. <S> If something is discovered <S> it means that it has changed state from being covered to being uncovered . <S> It would also usually be that whatever it is has been covered by ignorance - <S> once something is known, the veil of ignorance has been lifted and the thing has been discovered. <S> That's why you'd say undiscovered instead of hidden. <A> In general, negative prefixes do not cancel each other like free-standing negative words do (in standard English). <S> "Uncover" means "to remove the cover from something." <S> "Un-uncover" (insofar as it is a word at all) means "to put the cover back on something from which the cover had been previously removed." <S> The simple word "cover" lacks the sense of putting back .
| Un- and dis- don't have the same meaning.
|
"A makes B good, and so does C" This sentence is the short form of "A makes B good, and C makes B good too." Then, what is the short form of "A makes B good, and A makes C good too?" <Q> Possibly: A makes B good, as well as C. <S> Though this may be ambiguous (though it will probably be obvious from context). <S> Maybe this would be better: <S> A makes B good, and makes C good as well. <S> Perhaps just say <S> A makes B and C good. <A> Either A or C makes B good or B is good due to either A or C or <S> Both A and C make B good <S> However, the last form, implies that A and C are required simultaneously to make C good. <S> EDIT, post comment. <S> A makes B good, as does C <A> A makes either B or C good. <S> The latter could be used if A does not do so concurrently.
| A makes both B and C good.
|
"No kidding" and "not kidding" What is the difference between not kidding and no kidding ? Is no kidding valid English? <Q> The phrases mean roughly the same thing in most contexts, but are used slightly differently ( not kidding requires mentioning who isn't kidding, whereas with no kidding <S> it is implicit). <S> There are many ways these phrases can be used in colloquial English, including: This may be hard to believe, but I'm honestly not joking : <S> There was a goose in our kitchen - no kidding! <S> ( or I'm not kidding!) <S> Really? <S> You're not joking? <S> -There was a goose in our kitchen! <S> -No kidding?! <S> ( or You're kidding me?!) <S> I couldn't agree more; Yes, I know, I experienced it myself. <S> -It must have been hard for you to go without food for six weeks! <S> -No kidding! <S> ( or You're not kidding!) <S> Don't fool around <S> No kidding around now please! <A> "No kidding" means "I agree," while "not kidding" means "I'm not joking." <S> It is valid English, but only in certain registers. <A> Another difference between "no kidding" and "not kidding" is that "no kidding" can be used as an interrogative. <S> Speaker A <S> I just won a million dollars! <S> Speaker B <S> No kidding? <S> Speaker A <S> I'm not kidding!
| "No kidding" could also mean "no joking allowed."
|
How do you pronounce "what did you" in "So what did you dream about?" and other similar questions? Tina : I had a strange dream last night. Jack : Well, dreams are always strange. I've never had an absolutely "normal" dream. So what did you dream about? Tina : I dreamed about a skyscraper devouring a small "Starbucks". How would you pronounce "So what did you dream about?" here? I am especially interested about the did you part. Is it like di you or d'you or what? (In case my example is poor, please think of any question then that would start with "So what did you…"—the most important thing for me is that this question must not be simply one separate question, but should rather be a part of someone's dialogue line—it should therefore be pronounced quicker than if it were just a question on its own.) <Q> I do pronounce every syllable of it, so you would really hear “did you”. <S> I tried to look up video examples, and could find one of Sarah Palin, who I believe as a public speaker tends to eat half of her words. <S> See 11:12 here <S> and you'll see you can hear all syllables. <A> A native American speaker, slurring words, would have several pronunciations: <S> So, whatcha dream about? <S> [wutcha] <S> So, what'dya dream about? <S> [wuttedya or wuddedya] <S> So, whadja dream about? <S> [wudja] <S> So whadjoo dream about? <S> [wudjoo] <S> There are other minor variations, but these are the main ones you'd hear. <S> Other dialectical variations would include replacing "you" with "y'all" [chiefly Southern] or "youse" or "yas" or "yins" <S> [various] for second person plural. <A> If you want to make a contraction out of it, it would be wha'd'ya dream about . <S> As this contraction could be either what did you or <S> what do you , the rest of the sentence (or the situation where it's used) would have to provide enough context to determine what it means. <A> This is actually a question about register. <S> In my idiolect, "what did you" is standard in formal contexts. <S> "Whuh-ju" is familiar. <A> I'm from S.E. England. <S> With me, the t becomes a glottal stop and the second d gets pushed back to the third syllable, equal stress on all syllables: "wha' di dyou" <A> Some people, who don't slur their words but contract them, might say What'd you dream about? <S> If you say it quickly and slur it a bit, the d and the y merge a bit into a j sound: <S> What'djoo dream about? <A> I'm totally late on this one, but whatever. <S> When spoken (in Los Angeles, CA, at least) and slurred together, it comes out WHUH dih joo . <S> Hope this helps :)
| When spoken the t in what and the d in did can sound merged, so that it sounds more like wha tid you , but other than that the words are pronounced completely.
|
Usage of hyphen in "oft-cited" The oft-cited first sentence of this work Why would you not just use two words, oft cited ? <Q> Oft-cited is a phrasal <S> adjective (a/k/a compound modifier). <S> Because "oft" and "cited" must be interpreted together in order to precisely convey the intended meaning, the hyphen is placed between them to tie them together and prevent any mistaken interpretation of them as two separate modifiers. <A> You want to distinguish between "the first sentence of the work, which happens to be often cited"; "the sentence of the work which is often cited first"; and "the earliest of the many sentences of the work which are often cited". <S> This makes clear it is the first of these alternatives. <A> In the phrase, "The oft-cited first sentence of this work," the hyphen introduces no clarity because "oft," an adverb, cannot modify anything here but "cited," an adjective—and a hyphen that doesn't introduce clarity is superfluous and is certainly not needed. <S> The latter two distinctions suggested by jwpat7 are nonsense and cannot possibly be considered in this construction. <S> He seems to be under the impression that "oft" is an adjective and could be construed as modifying "cited first sentence" or "first sentence" alone, neither of which is possible. <S> Adverbs do not modify nouns. <S> More simply put: never use a hyphen between an adverb and an adjective. <S> Modifying adjectives is part of adverbs' job. <S> Hyphens are for when adjectives act like adverbs and modify other adjectives.
| "Oft," like "often," is an adverb and requires no hyphenation when it modifies an adjective.
|
Using "And" at the beginning of a sentence Since I first learned English, I have been holding this understanding that "and", as a conj. but unlike "but", can only connect two clauses, not two sentences ended with periods. But recently, I have seen so many prints, either in entertainment or in academia, where "And" is popularly used in the beginning of a sentence. It seems like the author is trying to connect the sentence just right before and the sentence following "And" in some intended meaning which I don't quite get. I was wondering if I have been wrong all the time, or if there is a new trend that I fail to understand and accept? How to understand such usage of "and" in rigorous English grammar? If I am right, why it is used differently from "but" in terms of what I mentioned at the beginning of this post? <Q> Small children have a particular writing style that teachers often mark as wrong. <S> We had a field trip. <S> And we went to the zoo. <S> And we saw monkeys. <S> And they were funny. <S> And then we went home. <S> And the bus was noisy. <S> Nobody thinks that's a well-written story. <S> So the teacher circles all the "And"s and says "don't start a sentence with and ". <S> But somehow we all internalize that as a rule for all of life — which it isn't. <A> It is perfectly all right to begin a sentence with a conjunction. <S> It is a special form of emphasis, used to elevate a clause to a position of more influence and importance. <S> I hold that all beets are red. <S> And I will stick to that belief until you show me a green beet. <S> We were tired, hungry, and exhausted. <S> But we were home. <S> It can also be used as a summation of previous statements. <S> [Blah blah blah ... <S> fairy tale or fable ... <S> blah blah] <S> And that is how the elephant's nose grew into the long trunk it has today. <A> I would offer an expansion on those answers concluding that it is not forbidden to start a sentence with " <S> And. <S> " The examples thus far are all short sentences which are arguably suited to merging into a single sentence per Chris Browne, excepting the strong emphasis example offered by Sunshine. <S> My own frequent usage of " <S> And" is associated with two contexts. <S> The first is long sentences that do not easily bear further continuation, yet which are incomplete in their intended task. <S> They require a further thought that, though necessarily connected, is sufficiently different to sensibly permit a new sentence. <S> The "And" makes the connection of the two thoughts less burdensome than would be the case if all were combined into one sentence, however grammatically correct. <S> The second context is in speeches I write for politicians and business people. <S> While there is obviously a distinction between what is fit for spoken versus written English, the gap need not be large between formal speeches and the written form. <S> And so I say speeches should be written with a mind to being read more frequently than ever they will be spoken. <S> Now the "And" that starts the previous sentence can be seen as completely superfluous. <S> A sharper writer would omit the entire entrance " <S> And so I say," to achieve that vaunted goal of using the fewest words possible. <S> But I do not acknowledge a linguistic famine that mandates such strict rationing. <S> I pose no defense against a charge of bad style. <S> To me it is pleasing. <S> And to my clients it has been effective. <S> Or so it would seem by the fact that they return to the source of this bad style. <S> I can write compactly. <S> I do, as required. <S> But, when the opportunity presents itself, I luxuriate in languid, listless, indulgent sentences, that succeed in communicating meaning, not for the miserly sake of communicating meaning, but to the more generous end of letting the language dance. <S> And that can take the form of using conjunctions as instruments of pacing, or of bridges over which the waltz can move from one thought to the next. <S> This is what for me separates language as work from language as recreation. <S> I can do the work. <S> But I want to play. <A> In these cases, "and" and "but" are grammatically the same. <S> Their purpose is to conjoin two clauses or sentences. <S> I like pickles, and I wish everybody liked pickles. <S> "But" connotes some contrast or unexpected idea. <S> I like pickles, but I don't love them. <S> Stylistically, it is not usually considered good practice to begin sentences with a conjunction because a sentence that would begin with "and" or "but" generally connects well enough with the previous sentence that it should connect to it rather than becoming its independent sentence. <A> But not ever starting a sentence with a conjunction removes one arrow from your quiver. <S> I quote (from http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm <S> ): <S> There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. <S> An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues. -- from The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. <S> Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. <A> As a writer, I use "And" at the beginning of sentences in novels. <S> I take (what I consider) <S> this poetic license typically to emphasize a thought in a narrative or to more closely mimic informal speech. <S> As we audibly converse, we often pause and continue our thoughts with "and. <S> " The more authentically natural speech is, whether grammatically correct or not, the better narratives flow. <S> Examples: To emphasize a thought in a narrative: <S> I learned long ago to take life as it comes. <S> And be patient. <S> Versus <S> I learned long ago to take life as it comes and be patient. <S> Separating the thoughts renders them more pronounced as it allows the reader to digest the thoughts separately. <S> The reader might interpret taking life as it comes as accepting what life brings, or making lemonade out of lemons. <S> The reader might interpret and be patient as contentment or simply, having patience. <S> Such depth of meaning may be overlooked when the sentence is simply combined using "and." <S> To more closely mimic informal speech: I learned long ago to take life as it comes. <S> (speaker thinking). And be patient. <S> For the record, I do not typically begin formal sentences with " <S> And." ... just my thoughts.
| "And" as a conjunction usually communicates that the following clause will agree and perhaps expand the previous one.
|
Proper use of "out to lunch", "out for lunch" and "out at lunch" Recently a co-worker and I debated the proper use of "out to lunch". The argument stemmed from conversation over the appropriate preposition to use, and became particularly heated when we tried to determine if lunch was a verb, or was short for "luncheon" — or some other, older word. (Yes, he referenced "lunchentach".) Convention aside, what is the proper usage of the phrase? <Q> "Out for lunch" makes me think the person will be bringing the food back with them. <S> John went out for lunch. <S> John went out for sandwiches. <S> John went out for staples. <S> I have <S> heard the other variations <S> and they seem to mean various things: <S> John is out at lunch. <S> Can I take a message? <S> We went out to lunch at the new burger joint. <S> Can I take you out to lunch? <S> I have also heard the phrase used to imply someone is "out to lunch" or not entirely there mentally. <S> Context seems to be the only clue that this meaning was intended: <S> Why did he do that? <S> Is he out to lunch? <S> When talking to someone while eating, I find this more common: <S> Can I call you back? <S> I am at lunch. <A> Here, the word lunch is used in the verb form as opposed to its noun form which indeed is a shortened version of luncheon. <A> Here (central Scotland) we would never use "Out To Lunch" when talking about lunch - it tends to be used to mean that you are mental:-) <S> You could say going "Out for Lunch" and that would be fine.
| "Out to lunch " simply means going out (of your place of residence) for the purpose of having lunch.
|
What's a "labour of love"? I found that phrase applied a lot to women but then also to men (so that's probably not [only] related to being "in labour"). At first I thought it had to do with motherly/parenthood chores. But now I understand it's also applied to various unrelated activities. And do we know the origin of the expression ? <Q> It's a labor performed for the love of the work or for the target of the finished product. <S> From TheFreeDictionary : a labor undertaken on account of regard for some person, or through pleasure in the work itself, without expectation of reward. <A> From Princeton's WorldNet : <S> productive work performed voluntarily without material reward or compensation Google definitions <S> Example usage: <S> Grandma's sweater for you was a labour of love, and yet you refused to wear it! <S> She spent hours knitting it, and you threw it away like an old gym sock! <S> You should be ashamed of yourself! <S> As you can see, "labour of love" is a selfless act. <A> Both answers given above regarding the meaning of labor of love are correct. <S> And @muntoo's selfless act sums it up nicely in two words. <S> To answer the second part of your question, however, the first known use of the phrase is probably the one in the Bible, specifically the King James Version which translation dates back to 1611 : Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love , and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 1 Thessalonians 1:3
| In some ways it's similar to the concept of pro bono work (work done for free), but it normally is used to describe work someone really enjoys doing and is not compensated for.
|
How old is "Bollocks!"? As a non-English native it took me years to grow up and understand, what meant "Never Mind the Bollocks" as the title of Sex Pistols album. Using "bollocks" as "rubbish", "crap" or what so ever took much more. And after that I somehow automatically bound "bollocks!" with Sex Pistols. Suddenly I understood, that it is so just in my world. Or isn't? Is there some etymology of the idiom(?) ? How old it is in English? <Q> The spelling "bollocks" is actually rather recent, the most common spelling before the mythic Sex Pistols' single was actually "ballocks". <S> Further back in time the Old English form was "bealluc" (testicles) - from Old English "Beallu" (ball). <S> Ælfric <S> (a prolific writer whose works are an important source for Old English) uses the term "beallucas" c. 1000 <S> (this was absolutely not vulgar at the time and he also happily uses "ars"). <S> Personally I'm tempted to conjecture that there might also have been some Norman influence because the French version is "Balloches" (small balls) and it's still used very commonly in French under this form for testicles (colloquial, not <S> vulgar)."Alors ? <S> T'as rien dans les balloches ?" <S> (So ? Got nothing in the balls ?). <S> In addition, the surname "Baloche" (cf. <S> the America Singer ) is specifically rooted in Normandy . <S> This time there is no allusion to the testicles. <S> The origin instead is that "Balochers" were people in charge of a particular type of balance in which the weights were made of small balls. <S> It might well as well be the other way round however, because whereas the use of Baloche for balance is well attested in medieval French, its use (as "Balloches" with double 'L') for testicles seems to be a later English borrowing. <S> I'd definitely be interested if some OE or OF specialist could shed more light regarding what I surmise <S> could be mutual influence. <A> Etymonline provides a different etymology : bollocks "testicles," 1744, see bollix . <S> In British slang, as an ejaculation meaning "nonsense," recorded from 1919. <A>
| The Wikipedia article has a lot of background on the word, noting it dates in the written record back to 1382, and certainly has had the meaning "nonsense" at least since the nineteenth century.
|
How does one write the name of a married female and spouse in a list of classmates? In a list of classmates, how is the name of a married female and spouse listed? Is the female given name or her husband's given name written first? How is the maiden name shown? <Q> One term sometimes used is the French word 'née' (meaning 'born', literally, but referring to the maiden name in this context). <S> Hence: <S> Mrs Jane Smith (née Jones) <S> Mrs Cynthia Corning <S> (née Stratton-Longbottom) <S> Etc. <S> I'm not sure whether 'Mrs' or 'Ms' is preferred when the context clearly shows that the lady is married. <S> The referenced URL did not place brackets around the maiden name. <S> Also, in a list of classmates, the spouses would not not normally be given - <S> the spouses were not, in general, part of the class. <S> However, if you are listing the people invited to an event, you can decide how to display both the names of those invited and the names that would have been known when they were in the class. <S> For example, you might have two columns, for example, the first listing one the 'Emily Post' approved forms, and the second listing the name that would have been used in class. <S> That might be too arid for the context in which the list is to be used, though. <S> You might list the class member's name, and then their spouse's name, if applicable: <S> Mrs Jane Smith (née Jones) and Mr John Smith Mr Adam O'Hare and Mrs Susan O'Hare <S> This isn't the normal presentation, but the important information here is presumably the person who was in the class, and this shows that Jane Jones and Adam O'Hare were in the class but both are married. <S> It is self-consistent as presented, but you might omit the first "O'Hare", I suppose. <A> The Emily Post Institute recognizes the following forms : <S> Ms. Jane Smith and Mr. John Smith Jane and John Smith (informal) <S> Ms. Jane Johnson and Mr. John Smith <S> Drs. <S> Jane and John Smith Note that there is no informal form if the female uses her maiden name and that you should always use <S> Ms. <S> unless you know that Mrs. is preferred. <S> Also, the Emily Post Institute gives no formal guidance on whether or not to use the maiden name—however, it seems from various examples on their site that the husband's last name is preferred unless the wife has indicated otherwise. <A> then the spouse's name. <S> Eg: <S> Ms. Jane Smith (née Jones, '85) and Mr John Smith. <S> Another form I see them use is to insert the "Maiden name" right before the current last name. <S> Eg: <S> Ms. Jane Jones Smith ('85) and Mr. John Smith <S> Here's some entries from my alma-mater's actual yearly report : James ’76 & Jill Jones ’76 Deck Michael & Cara Shimkus ’84 Hall <S> In the first instance, it appears both husband and wife were students (probably a really sweet story there...), and in the second, just the wife. <A> Some same-sex couples are opting to change names these days. <S> If this causes a confusion, the (nee [birth name]) formulation is still apprpriate, but if the couple are male, you need to change the gender of the French: (ne [birth name) (omitting accents here). <S> Eric.
| I'm old-fashioned enough to think it should be 'Mrs', but modern style might use 'Ms'. What my school tends to do is include the woman's name, name she went by in school, graduation year (just to make sure the reader understands which one is the former student), and
|
"To his amazement the girl did kiss her hand and stretch it out" To his amazement the girl did kiss her hand and stretch it out. In my understanding, to mostly refer the object of an action. So what's the meaning of to in this sentence? I think, the sentence should be rewrite to something like the following sentence. Amazemently, the girl did kiss her hand and stretch it out. <Q> I think saying to his is used to specify the person who is amazed. <S> When you say, Amazingly, the girl did kiss her(or his?) <S> hand and stretch it out <S> You are never sure, to whose got amazed there. <S> The person who is narrating the story, or the onlookers, etcetera. <S> Where as, when you say To his amazement .. <S> You mean that the guy was amazed that the girl kissed her/his hand and stretched it out. <A> The sixth entry in the New Oxford American Dictionary's listing for to is: to 6 <S> governing a phrase expressing someone's reaction to something : to her astonishment, he smiled. <S> So to in your example is simply a marker to introduce the reaction and identify the person having the reaction: <S> To whose amazement? <S> To his amazement. <S> (Whoever "he" is.) <S> (And as others have suggested, you really never want to use bizarre coinages like amazemently in a sentence.) <A> Your suggestion <S> Amazemently, the girl did kiss her hand and stretch it out. <S> Amazingly in place of amazemently (is this even a word?) <S> will be more appropriate <S> I believe <A> It means the girl's action of kissing her hand and stretching it out led to him being amazed or to his amazement .
| I don't find anything wrong with the first sentence, To his amazement the girl did kiss her hand and stretch it out here to refers to 'his amazement' which is the object.
|
"Where will I be," "where will I get to," "what place will I reach": What's the best way to ask? What's the most natural way to complete this question (the person asking this question wants to know the name of a place)? If I keep going south from here, […]? <Q> I would say: If I keep going south from here, where will I end up? <S> "End up": does not imply anything about what type of destination it is, like whether it's a general area, a city, a building, store, neighborhood. <S> You can "end up" in New York, at a grocery store, in Canada, on Elm Street, or in a bad neighborhood. <S> has the connotation of arriving at the destination without first knowing what the destination is, making it fitting for this context. <S> does not imply how far you will go, or that you will even know when to stop, or that you are even going to a specific place. <S> This puts the burden on the answerer to decide how to answer the question (as opposed to "which place will I reach?" which limits answers to places as @n0nChun says. <S> "Where will I be" to me seems slightly less open-ended than "end up", though almost the same. <S> I don't think I've ever heard "get to", but I suspect it's regional and equivalent to "end up". <S> I don't see a fitting wiktionary definition for " get to " though. <A> The most natural completion (in speech) would be, in my opinion <S> If I keep going south from here, where will I get to? <S> or If I keep going south from here, where do I get to? <A> If I keep going south from here, what establishment will I be at? <S> what what building will I be at? <S> what landmark will I arrive at? <A> I think both of the following are correct. <S> Others, correct me if I'm wrong. <S> If I keep going South from here, what place will I reach? <S> If I keep going South from here, where will I get to? <S> On a sidenote, the answer to the second question may not specify a particular place. <S> Like, the person may say, you'll get to a dead end. <S> If you really want a particular place, I guess you should frame your questions more specifically like in (1)
| " End up " is natural in this context (for my American English).
|
Can “as” ever properly mean “because”? We often encounter as used to mean because . As we know, as is not merely ambiguous: it’s hexiguous or octiguous. I’m especially uncomfortable when I find the usage in a technical paper 1 , where precision (as I claim) trumps written or spoken style. I argue that as cannot stand in for because in a paper as rigorous as a specification. But as I think about it, maybe I’m acting as a mere pedant; maybe I should lighten up a little. Do you folks think as I do? Or should I take it easy, just accept and go with it as the leaf accepts the breeze? As in the current spec for the C programming language spec , for example. <Q> From NOAD: as 3 because; since : I must stop now as I have to go out. <S> That said, as you noted it does introduce a level of ambiguity that may be out of place in a strict piece of technical writing. <S> While it would still not be wrong, it may not communicate as clearly as some readers would like. <S> If you are the writer, judge for yourself whether the usage is clear. <S> If you are the reader and encounter the ambiguity, consider looking up the material in a different source. <S> edit <S> Sometimes writers <S> do want the ambiguity, especially poets. <S> Consider the opening to Fern Hill" by Dylan Thomas: <S> Now as I was young and easy under the apple boughsAbout the lilting house and happy as the grass was green, The night above the dingle starry, Time let me hail and climb Golden in the heydays of his eyes <S> Now, as here may be read as "because" or "at the time that" or possibly other meanings. <S> The ambiguity is one of the things that makes poetry convey so much meaning out of so few words. <A> I believe using as as a mere synonym of because is quite common, especially in prose that is intentionally formulaic rather than aimed at maximum clarity, which definitely includes many technical papers. <S> However, several style guides deplore this usage. <S> Fowler's Modern English Usage recommends that as should only be so used to introduce a fact well known to the reader, as a mere reminder—not to introduce an ordinary reason or argument. <S> Caesar's dying words to Brutus were, "you too, my son". <S> For the record, he didn't use those exact words, as he didn't speak English. <A> I don't think we can have a problem with the use of as meaning “because” except when it causes the aforementioned ambiguities. <S> I teach Peruvian students in a bilingual school. <S> They use as to mean “because” all the time because in Spanish, at least in Peru, como is used a lot more than porque . <S> The problem, I think, only arises when, as happens frequently when I read their work, I take as to mean “because” and only realise at the end of the sentence that they meant “because”. <S> Taking exception to as for any other reason than this would, in my view, be pedantry. <A> Let me post a tangential, theoretical answer to supplement at least two other answers, already posted, with which I agree. <S> You can make of it what you will. <S> Very occasionally, as might even be preferable to because, even in technical writing. <S> The reason is as subtle as it is obscure. <S> In a philosophical context, the Anglo-Latin stem cause can carry Aristotlean freight, implying a question as to whether the cause is material, efficient, formal or final. <S> The Saxon conjunction as carries no such freight. <S> The as is vaguer, of course; but English as English has its own, rather effective ways to consolidate what the French and the Greek regard as typically Saxon vagueness. <S> However, my answer is merely theoretical. <S> So far as I recall, I have never once written a sentence that simultaneously disqualified because on Aristotlean grounds and since by (as @Wayne has observed) confusion of temporal sequence (though I have several times written sentences that disqualified the one or the other); and, if I ever did write such a sentence, I probably would rewrite the whole sentence to avoid falling through to as as the third alternative. <S> The as as a synonym for because is inadvisable because -- well, because it is inadvisable. <S> It suggests poor education, somehow, and has long done so. <S> I do not remember either Gibbon's or Burke's ever using as for because, for instance. <S> If Twain put as in the mouth of a character of his, why did he do that? <S> It never was to compliment the character's education, I don't think. <S> That's English for you. <S> By the way, I very much like @Cerberus' sample sentence. <S> It wants neither because nor since, precisely on Aristotlean and temporal grounds, whereas as works nicely there. <S> However, that sample sentence is a rather rare case.
| Using as to mean because is grammatical and common. The as might be all right in context.
|
What do salespeople mean by "don't sell the steak, sell the sizzle"? Who coined this phrase, and what is the meaning behind it? <Q> This sales phrase was coined by Elmer Wheeler in the mid-1920s . <S> It means appealing to the senses and emotions of the buyer with the assumption that this is what motivates most people to purchase. <S> It may be best put by Wheeler himself in this YouTube video . <A> I don't know who coined it, but I understand the meaning to be: don't base your pitch on the properties of the product; talk about what it can do for the client and how it will make life better for them. <S> In other words, don't talk about how the vacuum cleaner was made in Germany and incorporates the latest technology; tell the client he'll be able to vacuum the house in half the time <S> and he'll never have to buy a replacement bag. <A> Sell the superficial aspects of the product; its shape, how people will perceive you with the product, how the product is perceived, not the actual substance of the product you are selling. <S> So the response can be when trying to sell the sizzle, alone is... <S> "where's the beef?"
| It urged salespeople to focus on the experience around a product being sold rather than simply on the object itself.
|
Are there other idioms like "a stone's throw away" that both describe an activity and act as a measurement? If something is quite close by, it could be described as being a stone's throw away ; even closer might be a hop, skip and a jump . I'm interested in these "units" of measurement based on human action. Do you know of other similar words, phrases or idioms that both describe an activity and act as a kind of measurement ? They do not have to be limited to distance measurement. <Q> How about: <S> He came within spitting distance <S> It happened in the blinking of an eye (not human but) <S> I'll be with you in two shakes of a lamb's tail <A> In the southern US, walking distances are sometime described in looks . <S> As in "Then you go 'bout three looks down the road <S> and you'll come to..." . <S> When you start down the road or path, you look for the most distance landmark you can see, and when you get there, you look again... <S> Obviously the nature of the path and terrain mean that the length of a look varies a lot. <A> I don't trust him any farther than I could throw him. <S> (unit of trust) <S> There’s room in her bathroom to swing a cat. <S> (unit of capacity) <S> I guess none of these are exactly units of measurement <S> —you don’t say things like <S> “It’s about seven stones’ throws away” or <S> “How many hops, skips, and jumps is it to the store from here?” <S> They’re more like thresholds that you measure something against. <S> In <S> The Joy of Lex , Gyles Brandreth proposed a unit of measure, the millihelen , defined as the amount of beauty required to launch one ship. <A> Some less common ones: MilliHelen (artificial, the facial beauty required to launch one ship More than you can shake a stick at. <S> (unit of quantity) <S> Big as a house. <S> A buttload. <A> I Would not touch him with a ten foot (barge) pole To come within a gnat's hair , a hair's breadth , or a whisker of something <A> What about to be a heartbeat away from something ? <A> Don't fire until you can see the whites of their eyes. <A> (Sometimes the adjective "red" is added.) <S> Also "near as damn" <S> (although personally I'm uncertain just how near that is...) <S> And a difference that "doesn't amount to a piss-hole in the snow" <S> First time through I forgot this favorite of my grandmother's "If it hadda been a sarpent it woulda bit <S> ye" - used when your keys were on the table next to you all the time you were wondering what became of them, or <S> your glasses were really on top of your head... <A> I trust her as far as I can throw her. <S> (unit of measure for trust) <S> I trust him as far as I can see him. <S> (unit of measure for trust) <S> The university is right in my backyard. <S> (unit of measure for distance) <A> I'm not sure if it is quite what you have in mind, but you may be interested in the furlong/firkin/fortnight system of measurement, in which the speed of light may be rendered as 1.8 Megafurlongs per microfortnight. <S> More on Wikipedia: FFF System ; Attoparsec . <A> Don't forget the Smoot . <A> In Rhode Island, we say: Q: "How far is Providence?" <S> A: <S> "Oh, maybe a half-hour," meaning a trip by car lasting thirty minutes. <A> Before you can say Jack Robinson. <S> Serious as a heart attack. <S> By the skin of your teeth (or seat of your pants). <A> I just want to add a kind of overview and some links that might be relevant to the subject (in addition to many fine answers). <S> You should note that in traditional systems of measurement the units were often based on dimensions of human body. <S> According to wikipedia these were often specifically based on proportions given by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio: <S> Leonardo da Vinci: <S> Vitruvian Man <S> There is an article that list anthropic units such as the yard , the span , the cubit , the Flemish ell , the English ell , the French ell , the fathom , the hand , and the foot . <S> If you read up on the history of these terms and how they become used, you will find that the all described some sort of human activity and that was the reason these were accepted as units of measurement. <S> NOTE:I found stone-throw as "steinkast – stone's throw, perhaps 25 favner, used to this day as a very approximate measure of a short distance." under Norwegian units of measure . <S> They list an interesting unit for medium distances - rast which is lit. <S> rest - a distance you would travel without rest (estimated at approx 9 km). <A> X bowshot(s) <S> away comes to mind. <S> Lord Bern uses it in C. S. Lewis' The Voyage of the Dawn Treader : <S> "And about five bowshots hence, when you get open sea on your port bow, run up a few signals." <A> The respected British IT journal The Register has proposed a series of units . <S> Including the nanoWales (20m^2) and a unit of speed based on the velocity of a sheep in a vacuum <S> There is also an online conversion tool <A> The intrusive popup displayed when I visit the site <S> is one click away . <S> (I used to be an annoying visitor of some forums; a moderator there said I was just a click away.) <A> In Ireland, from older speakers, you may hear that you are within an ass's roar of something (close enough that you could hear a donkey's bray). <A> Often used metaphorically as well as for actual linear distance, just a (short) step away seems to be getting more common over recent decades.
| Some old machinists are fond of the phrase "within a c*nt hair".
|
Difference in pronunciation between 'warship' and 'worship'? I came across these words together in a text, and I was wondering whether they are pronounced the same way. 'War' is actually pronounced as 'wor', so I'm not entirely sure. When I pronounce them, I do not hear a difference, but I'm not a native English speaker. Could anyone perhaps shed some light on whether the two words are pronounced differently? <Q> I'd more or less agree with the above answer, apart from the part about the difference between English and American pronunciations. <S> Dictionary.com has the two pronounced as /ˈwɔrˌʃɪp/ [wawr-ship] for warship , and /ˈwɜrʃɪp/ [wur-ship] for worship . <S> These are about how I'd expect them to sound as a British English speaker. <S> I'm not quite sure about either of those. <A> I'm sitting here saying the two words to myself and marveling that I never noticed that similarity in pronunciation before. <S> :) <S> The difference is all in the "or." <S> In worship , the "or" is pronounced more as "ur" by most Americans. <S> We say it as "wurship." <S> "wawrship," with the mouth opening a bit wider on the "a." <S> Accent is on the first syllable in both words. <A> The 'a' in Warship is like the 'a' in Law. <S> It is a sound that is hard for a non English speaker to pronounce, try making 'law' and 'low' sound different, they should sound very different and this is part of the same issue. <S> The 'or' in Worship is like 'err' in "to err on the side of caution", or the mechanical sound that is associated with spinning, 'whirr', as in "The machine whirred past". <A> Warship : wôrˌSHip ( more like Wor-Ship ) <S> Worship: <S> wərSHəp ( more like Wer-Ship ) <A> I cannot hear a difference between the two at all. <S> (And for what it's worth, detecting audible differences comprises much of my life). <S> On the other hand, I agree with @Kelly C Hess -- despite their similarity, I am pretty sure I have never confused them. <S> Fortunately there are probably very few cases when it would be ambiguous in context.
| Merriam-Webster suggests 'wər-shəp\ or 'wòr-shəp\ for worship . Warship is pronounced more the way it looks: If I heard someone say either word out of context, I would have no idea which one they meant.
|
Can you still call a woman "handsome"? On the recommendation of some regulars here, I managed to watch the movie The Madness of King George over the weekend, and found it excellent. Anyway, one funny scene in the movie is when King George, who despite being contentedly married is quite flirtatious, remarks on the looks of one of the Queen Consort's ladies-in-waiting to the head of his attending guards: That's Lady Penbrook. Handsome woman, what? Daughter of the Duke of Marlborough...husband's an utter rascal. Is the usage of "handsome" here archaic, or just rarely used by those in the know? If the former, when did it become so? <Q> Well, the use of handsome in that film may well be archaic or it may not. <S> According to NOAD it currently means <S> handsome (of a woman) striking and imposing in good looks rather than conventionally pretty. <S> What I think it doesn't mean is hot in the sense we would use it today. <S> The emphasis is on striking : she's not conventionally pretty, but neither is she ugly. <S> She has striking features. <S> Here is someone I think would fit the bill rather, er, handsomely: <S> And here is someone who is more conventionally pretty: <S> But remember the worn adage about beauty being in the eye of the beholder? <S> It's worn because it's true. <S> There are certainly people who find Sigourney Weaver more attractive than Scarlett Johansson. <S> And I can tell you who I would choose in a heartbeat if I were ever in a death match with an alien. <A> Handsome and pretty are two different types of human attractiveness, with handsome being more rugged and angular, and pretty being softer and more delicate. <S> We tend to associate handsome with masculine beauty and <S> pretty with feminine beauty, but there are also pretty men and handsome women. <S> As alluded to by Brian, the use of the term might not necessarily be viewed as a compliment, since it implies a gender-atypical look. <A> I don't know about other parts of the US, but in the South it is very common to refer to a lady as handsome. <S> In general it is a term used by older folks. <S> A woman who is handsome has good looks that keep <S> and she may have a certain chiseled quality or ruggedness that is noticed more on men, but is distinctly feminine on her. <S> This is someone who ages well. <S> My grandmother would always point to women 'looking handsome' at church. <A> the observer <S> but does not markedly stir his deeper feelings. <S> (M-W's dictionary of Synonyms) <A> I was under the impression that "handsome" was reserved for older (~50+ yo) women. <S> Perhaps used when beauty had faded but the women retained a certain je ne sais quoi. <S> I thinking here of Glenn Close, Sigourney Weaver or Helen Mirren. <S> That being said, I have not heard the term used for a while. <A> This is a condensed version of a multitude of posted answers on The Net(that <S> I agree with): "By a handsome woman, we understand one that is graceful, well-shaped, with a regular disposition of features. <S> Usually applied to a woman who is very well-groomed with the kind of refined beauty and attractiveness that requires poise, dignity, and strength of mind and character. <A> The Irish song <S> "Tell Me Ma" includes the following line, referring to a woman as "handsome" as the first of multiple positive adjectives: " <S> She is handsome <S> , she is pretty, she is the Belle of Belfast city." <S> According to the Wikipedia article linked to above, Sham Rock's recording of it in 1998 sold over 200k copies (>3M including compilation albums) and stayed on the UK top singles chart for 17 weeks, reaching #13. <S> This is a relatively recent popular example repeatedly calling a woman "handsome." <S> By context in the song, the woman referred to is a young woman of courting age and highly desirable ("all the boys are fightin' for her"). <A> Is the usage of "handsome" here archaic, or just rarely used by those in the know? <S> If the former, when did it become so? <S> I suggest that it is a dated phrase. <S> It enjoyed some popularity , and you <S> can say it, and if you do you bring the meanings presented in other answers, but in doing so you bring a certain stuffiness or old-fashionedness to your sentence. <S> As the google ngram shows, it peaked in usage in the 80's. <S> Since that's now over 20 years ago, it seems fair to say "it's dated". <S> note: <S> google isn't smart with quoted phrases in its ngram urls. <S> If you follow the link I provided, adjust the end year to 2015 and hit "search" to see the result.
| A woman who is described as handsome rather than beautiful or lovely is by implication one whose appearance aesthetically satisfies
|
Is there an alternative to the word "coincidence" to describe when two say the same word spontaneously? Is there a word to describe a scenario where two people having a conversation utter the same word/phrase together, simultaneously, and unconsciously? Something else than just a coincidence. <Q> A jinx . <S> A common slang term used when two people say the same thing at the same time, said as a game among children. <A> A phrase often used for saying or thinking the same thing as someone else is " great minds think alike ", which is like the German phrase @user3448 <S> pointed out in a comment. <S> Great minds think alike has a history back to at least the 17th century : <S> Dabridgcourt Belchier wrote this in Hans Beer-Pot, 1618: <S> Though he made that verse, Those words were made before. <S> Good wits doe jumpe. <S> That citation uses 'jump' with a meaning long since abandoned in everyday speech, that is 'agree with; completely coincide'. <S> In my experience as an American English speaker, it's often acceptable in places, such as with professional colleagues, where calling "Jinx!" might come across as childish or inappropriate. <A> A certain stripe of person will refer to this as a hivemind moment. <S> Others would call it a synchronicity , though I'm a little dubious that the event calls for that word's vaguely mystical implications, and might prefer synchronism . <A> You could say the two people said [the same word] in stereo . <S> Or one of the speakers could just say Stereo! <S> as noted here from Urban Dictionary: <S> When two people say the same word or phrase simultaneously during a conversation (usually by coincidence), the word "stereo" would then be uttered immediately by one or both parties to acknowledge this phenomenon. <S> Of course, if both parties say stereo in stereo, then one would have to say Jinx! <A> What one says is "snap" — based on the card game of the same name. <S> (British/Australian English — cf. "jinx" in US English.) <A> Jinx. <S> (It's a race to see which of the two people says "jinx" first after they've unintentionally but simultaneously said exactly the same thing. <S> The victor may add something like "you owe me a Coke.") <A> The best word I can think of at the moment to describe this situation is telepathy/telepathic . <S> I use this word all the time to describe situations such as this, using sentences like: <S> Wow, that was telepathic!! <S> Ooh, some telepathy at work! <S> We got some telepathy going. <S> Wow, you guys said exactly the same thing at the same time! <S> That was soooo psychic! <A> You could try "concurrence". <S> Or more awkwardly, a "convergence of events". <A> You could say that they spoke in unison : simultaneous performance or utterance of action or speech : ‘Yes, sir,’ said the girls in unison <S> Chorus might be a stretch. <S> But it is related: a simultaneous utterance of something by many people: a growing chorus of complaint ‘Good morning,’ we replied in chorus
| People simultaneously utter exactly the same word, phrase or exclamation especially when they are thinking [of] the same thing in exactly the same way. Another adjective that could be used to describe this context is psychic :
|
What is the meaning of "clubbed to death?" What is the meaning of "clubbed to death?" The song Clubbed to Death was the reason of my question :) <Q> So if something is clubbed to death , then it's beaten with some large weapon until it's dead. <A> It's also a song by Rob Dugan, aka DJ Rob D, best known for the appearance of the "Kurayamino mix" of it on the Matrix soundtrack (in the "woman in the red dress" scene). <S> In that instance, it's a double entendre between Dusty's answer and F'x's, or variants on the latter like "having been immersed in the club scene until dead or wishing one were". <A> Also, it could also be a pun on the standard meaning (see Dusty’s answer), but actually mean “to party ’til you’re dead” . <A> "Clubbed to Death" is an album, a band, a film, and a song. <S> For the quite different phrase "clubbed to death", see Dusty's answer. <S> Of course, that could appear capitalized in a title or headline, such as this where the phrase is used metaphorically and as a pun on "rugby club". <A> In contrast to what people are saying being clubbed to death could also be taken in a different way suggesting that Mr Hyde (for example in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) was taking it as a joke whilst he beat Crew as if he was a golf ball.
| To club something is to beat it, usually with a large blunt-force weapon (e.g. a club).
|
Difference between "to foot the bill" and "to fill the bill" I already knew the expression, "to foot the bill," and there is also, "to fill the bill." I initially thought this was just a variant, but on closer examination it seems to be an altogether different idiomatic expression. So what's the difference? <Q> To foot the bill is to cover the costs or expenses of something or someone. <S> One of the meanings of the verb foot is to pay for/cover . <S> Thus, expressions such as I'll foot it , foot the expenses , foot the costs , etc, are also valid. <S> foot verb (informal) : pay (the bill) for something, especially when the bill is considered large or unreasonable. <S> — <S> Oxford Dictionaries Not to worry. <S> I'll foot the bill. <S> That wedding must have cost an arm and a leg! <S> I wonder how they managed to foot the bill. <S> To fill the bill means to be suited/fulfill all requirements . <S> ( Fit may be more common than fill for this expression.) <S> fit (or fill ) <S> the bill : be suitable for a particular purpose — Oxford Dictionaries <S> We need someone who is aggressive, motivated and disciplined. <S> Do you fit the bill? <S> He doesn't look like someone who fills the bill. <A> fit (or fill) <S> the bill: be suitable for a particular purpose ( a partner is an ally or a companion, and you don't seem to fit the bill ). <S> foot (or pick up) <S> the bill: (informal) pay the bill, especially when the bill is considered large or unreasonable. <S> form the New Oxford American Dictionary <A> To fill the bill means that something satisfies a need or fits the desired specifications well. <A> Looks like lots of folks have mentioned how the two senses differ. <S> I think it's worth pointing out that the word "bill" has several meanings in English, which ties into this. <S> Consider these two meanings: an itemized statement of money owed for goods shipped or services rendered; "he paid his bill and left"; vs a list of particulars (as a playbill or bill of fare) <S> In the case of "foot the bill", we're talking about a statement of money owed (in many cases, a literal statement on paper). <S> For "fill the bill <S> " the meaning is more like "matches this set of requirements", which relates to the second meaning of "bill". <A> I'm not a native nor fluent speaker of English, but I think 'bill' used in the context means a kind of a printed notice for advertisement. <S> Therefore, 'if sb fills the bill' can be interpreted to mean that he is cut out for the job.
| To foot the bill is an expression meaning to pay for something.
|
Proper answer to "excuse me" What is a proper reply for excuse me ? Like for thank you , you can say no problem or welcome . I don't know what a proper reply for excuse me would be. <Q> If someone says "excuse me" to get your attention, the response is "I'm sorry, yes?" or something to that effect. <S> If they say "excuse me" because you are in their way, then the response is to move out of the way and say "I'm sorry" or "sorry". <S> And if they are saying "excuse me" in a loud, drawn-out, sarcastic way , the proper response is to tell them the 1980s called and they want their dated pop culture references back. <S> At least that's what I do. <A> There's more. <S> Such a versatile phrase! <S> "Excuse me?" <S> as a question is a request for a repeat of what was just said. <S> "Excuse me!" <S> can also follow audible bodily functions and should be replied to with a polite, "You're excused." <S> "Excuse me," may be said by someone getting up to go to the bathroom in a restaurant or by someone needing to suddenly leave or take a cell phone call. <S> A head nod is an appropriate response. <A> <A> Why? <S> What have you done?
| I was taught to say "Certainly" in all cases, followed up by whatever action (or inaction in the case of "unseemly noises") might be appropriate.
|
Is my worst enemy my best friend (interpreting negative adjectives applied to negative nouns)? "The worst student" is the student who is bad at things. In this case, "worst" simply describes the noun. Following this logic, your "worst enemy" would be the person who is very bad at being your enemy, thus is actually your best friend. Your "worst enemy" is actually the enemy who is very good at being your enemy. Thus, in this context, "worst" acts to amplify the inherent negative intent of the noun. "Worst disaster" would be another example of this. Is this just a matter of context or there some science behind the interprettation of a negative adjective applied to a negative noun? <Q> Don't confuse English language with the mathematical theory . <S> The adjective worst qualifies the noun enemy with even more bad values. <S> So, a worst enemy is more dangerous than a normal enemy. <A> The "science behind it" is pragmatics: if you use a word like "worst" you've almost certainly got negative thoughts around. <S> In principle you might be able to concoct an example of what you're suggesting, but I haven't managed to think of a way. <S> What you can just about do is get "worst" to mean "least effective", as in " <S> I've ranked Batman's enemies in terms of how much trouble they give him. <S> The Penguin does best, and Catwoman is easily the worst" but even there you need to set up quite a lot of context to avoid "worst" suggesting "nastiest". <S> [I'm not advancing the quote as an opinion, by the way: it's just an example!] <A> I agree with Colin Fine that this is pragmatically guided; we use the negative modifier because we want to make this negative concept more negative. <S> As it is a matter of pragmatics, the construction cannot be deconstructed on a purely semantic basis in order to justify its use. <S> So, the worst president will be someone who is the most inferior at being president, but the worst dictator is one who will, purely logically speaking, be the "best" at being a dictator. <S> This is not only done in the case of "worst". <S> Another example would be: <S> He had a very bad injury. <S> Actually, the injury is quite "good" — in the sense that the injury is superior to other injuries — but an injury is a negative thing, so we use "bad" rather than "good". <S> Note that in some dialects a person can say "he got hurt real good" — <S> here the "logical" good is used, but it basically means the same thing as "he got hurt real bad" (with the negatively agreeing "bad"). <S> Since neither use is sarcastic, if "good" = "good" and "bad" = "bad" regardless of pragmatics, then these two sentences should not mean the same thing. <A> The meaning seems more intuitive than logical to me, just like most idioms. <A> The "worst" also means most corrupt, bad, evil, or ill . <S> So your worst enemy could be your most evil enemy. <S> But this is untrue in many cases and here come other meanings of the word: most unpleasant and most unfavorable . <S> Therefore, your worst enemy even being a very good person can be the most unpleasant, unfavorable or simply the most unfriendly enemy to you. <A> I think this is pretty simple: the many meanings of bad and worst overwhelmingly tend toward horribleness and undesirability, not incompetence or logical negation. <S> So given the choice between the two possible interpretations of worst enemy , people will naturally choose the one where the enemy is especially horrible or undesirable. <S> Sometimes, as in the worst dentist in the county , it happens that the undesirable quality is incompetence. <S> But I can't think of an example where bad means incompetent in a benign sense. <S> You occasionally see something like “Her delightfully bad singing won me over” , but it seems like there's some intentional irony there. <A> In another case, "greatest" and "best" are not interpreted the same as well. <S> He was my greatest enemy. <S> This is often interpreted as "most challenging" or the one who was my enemy the most. <S> He was my best enemy. <S> This could possibly be interpreted almost as a joke. <S> My best enemy was an enemy I found funny. <S> "The best enemy to have." <A> The meaning is often seeming obvious and clear, but is contextual rather than strictly logical, and can be subjective and up to the speaker to decide and to communicate effectively. <S> To use your example, "worst" in "the worst student" doesn't necessarily "simply describe the noun". <S> e.g. it could be either something like: <S> "Ralph was the worst student this term, attending only half the classes and failing the test." <S> (i.e. he was worst at the class requirements) or "Of all the ill-mannered students, Jason was the worst student Mathilda had ever encountered." <S> (i.e. Jason was the worst behaved) <S> A clearer example of this possibility might be: <S> "Sam received a bad blow to the face." <S> (it's bad because the speaker sympathizes with Sam) <S> vs. <S> "Bob landed a good blow on the monster's wing." <S> (it's good because the speaker is siding with Bob)
| "Worst" has a very broad meaning and in this case means something like, "most negative".
|
Can I use two prepositions in this example, or is one better? I want to say "the reality of and outlook on crime in Europe" without using two prepositions. Can I say "the reality and outlook on crime in Europe?" Can you lead me to a grammatical reference for this issue so I can read further? <Q> First, what do we mean by "outlook?" <S> Prediction? <S> Opinion? <S> Emotion? <S> The word tells us very little. <S> Better to use a word that's not so lazy, not so weasely. <S> Also "reality": why not just say or show the facts without the preamble? <S> Then, to me, the reality of crime and the "outlook" on crime are two ideas different enough that each deserves its own phrase or sentence: <S> "We issued 42 speeding tickets last year 1 . <S> We are working to cut that number by half 2 ." <S> -- pete 1 <S> The reality. <S> 2 <S> The "outlook." <A> Reality and outlook take different following prepositions, and trying to make them use just one will at best jar. <S> The best rephrasing I can think of that keeps your word choice is "... <S> perceptions of crime in Europe, in both reality and outlook." <S> That's not exactly wonderful though, and your original phrasing is just fine as far as I'm concerned. <A> When forming a parallel construction such as this, it is important to include all the words necessary to make the parallelism work properly. <S> Since, as you note, "outlook" and "reality" require two different prepositions, those prepositions need to be included in the paralleled structures. <S> However, the prepositions do make the sentence look at least a little bit awkward, so it is probably worth your while to search around a bit for alternative words that use matching prepositions, or to reword the sentence to eliminate the parallel construction: <S> The reality and the perception of crime in Europe Crime in Europe: the reality vs. the outlook <A> How about <S> An outlook on the reality of crime in Europe.
| The answer to your question is no, I'm afraid you can't do that without sounding odd.
|
What does "No Thanks!" mean? Alice: Do you want some cookies? Bob: No thanks! Does it mean that Bob doesn't want cookies but still is thankful or its just opposite of thanks? <Q> I always understood this to mean "no, but thanks for the offer." <S> Saying <S> no would be a little blunt, so its just a polite way of refusing. <A> It is mere politeness. <A> The words <S> no thanks <S> always mean basically the same thing: " <S> no, thank you [for offering it <S> /them to me]". <S> In spoken English, there can further emotional meaning conveyed by the intonation, but this is generally hard to indicate in written English. <S> However, the particular case of using an exclamation point and no comma ( No thanks! ) is often used to suggest the intonation that conveys something like " <S> No, I really don't want it", which might be because the speaker has never liked cookies, or is valiantly trying to stay on a diet, or has diabetes and must avoid cookies, or has already declined before. <A> In the brief context, it is almost certainly saying "No, thank you." <S> in an informal way, since this is a discourse between two people and especially when one is offering something 'nice' to the other. <S> In general discussion, people will tend to be more explicit if the meaning is intended such as.. <S> Yes I did such and such, no thanks to you! <S> As has been stated already, it is basically just a polite way to decline that became shortened over the years from "No, thank you" to "no thanks." <A> (Assuming Bob says "No, Thanks!") <S> Bob doesn't want any cookies, but he's showing that he's grateful for the offer. <S> As opposed to just "No", it's the politer way to say the same thing. <A> "No, Thanks" and "No Thanks!" <S> mean different things, depending on the prosody. <S> The stress and intonation will convey non-verbal information. <S> For example,no thanks (unstressed, "no" on a high tone and "thanks" on a low tone, equal duration for both words) will indicate a polite decline of the offer of cookies. <S> no THANKS <S> (stress on "Thanks", "no" on a mid tone and "thanks" on a high tone, "thanks" taking up half the duration of the "no") will indicate a firm refusal, or perhaps a disdain of the offer, or perhaps an allergy to an ingredient in the cookies. <S> Reading this dialogue from Young Frankenstein will not convey the prosody, but you might get the idea, even if you have never seen the movie. <S> Frau <S> Blücher: <S> Would the doctor care for a... brandy before retiring? <S> Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: <S> No. <S> Thank you. <S> Frau Blücher: <S> [suggestively] Some varm milk... perhaps Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: <S> No... thank you very much. <S> No thanks. <S> Frau Blücher: <S> [suggestively] Ovaltine? <S> Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: NOTHING! <S> Thank you! <S> I'm a little - tired! <S> Of course, there's a horse whinny after "Goodnight, Frau Blücher." <A> A way of saying no that leaves open the door to future invitations of the same type, rather than a blanket refusal. <S> Used when one is just not interested at that particular point in time, vs. never being interested. <A> Primarily, Bob cannot answer the question raised by Alice as " <S> No Thanks," it would be grammatically incorrect to say so. <S> The correct response by Bob would be <S> "No, Thanks" - which means <S> "no, but thanks for the offer" <A> It means, "I appreciate the offer, but I decline"; "No, but thank you for asking".
| When somebody offers you something that you do not need or want, you just say "No, thanks!", thus showing that you are grateful for the offer.
|
Where does "funk" and/or "funky" come from and why the musical reference? Free your mind and your ass will follow - The Mothership has landed!! Why 'funk', of all words to describe such bootilicious music? <Q> As the Wikipedia entry on Funk indicates, Yale art historian Robert Farris Thompson has posited an African origin to the musical use of funky . <S> Here is an expanded quote from his 1984 work, Flash of the Spirit: African and Afro-American Art and Philosophy : <S> The slang term 'funky' in black communities originally referred to strong body odor, and not to 'funk,' meaning fear or panic. <S> The black nuance seems to derive from the Ki-Kongo lu-fuki , 'bad body odor,' and is perhaps reinforced by contact with fumet , 'aroma of food and wine,' in French Louisiana. <S> But the Ki-Kongo word is closer to the jazz word 'funky' in form and meaning, as both jazzmen and Bakongo use 'funky' and lu-fuki to praise persons for the integrity of their art, for having 'worked out' to achieve their aims. <S> In Kongo today it is possible to hear an elder lauded in this way: 'like, there is a really funky person!--my soul advances toward him to receive his blessing (yati, nkwa lu-fuki! <S> Ve miela miami ikwenda baki) <S> Fu-Kiau Bunseki, a leading native authority on Kongo culture, explains: 'Someone who is very old, I go sit with him, in order to feel his lu-fuki , meaning, I would like to be blessed by him.' <S> For in Kongo the smell of a hardworking elder carries luck. <S> This Kongo sign of exertion is identified with the positive energy of a person. <A> Funk is actually quite interesting, because it is a back formation from funky , which in turn was formed from funk . <S> As in, funk didn't just go from "bad smell" to "music genre" all by itself; it took a detour via the adjective form. <S> Confusing, huh? <S> Etymonline explains it thus : funky "old, musty," in reference to cheeses, then "repulsive," from funk ["bad smell," 1620s, from dialectal Fr. <S> funkière "smoke"]. <S> It began to develop an approving sense in jazz slang c.1900, probably on the notion of "earthy, strong, deeply felt." <S> Funky also was used early 20c. <S> by white writers in reference to body odor allegedly peculiar to blacks. <S> The word reached wider popularity c.1954 [...] <S> and in the 1960s acquired a broad slang sense of "fine, stylish, excellent." <A> funky originally meant pungent / earthy , with relatively positive associations to "passive" qualities such as the smell of a cheese, which just sits there mouldering away. <S> Since being co-opted into jazz slang <S> it's acquired the more "active" overtones of actual movement in the sense of lively , <S> rootsy , etc. <S> (funky music encourages dancing & foot-tapping).
| Hence, 'funk' in black American jazz parlance can mean earthiness, a return to fundamentals.
|
Synonym for "It is easy to acknowledge accuracy to be a very important feature" What is an alternative expression for : "It is easy to acknowledge accuracy to be a very important feature" . The word Accuracy should remain in the sentence. In an academic context. <Q> You could try Accuracy is essential. <S> Three words. <A> <A> "easy to acknowledge" could be replaced by "obvious", or "clear", or a similar idiom. <S> For example, It's clear that accuracy is an important feature. <S> or, It stands without reason that accuracy is of utmost importance. <S> Also I am not sure that "accuracy" should be listed as a feature for anything. <S> Accuracy means something like "without faults". <S> Should "lack of faults" really be described as a feature? <A> Accuracy is acknowledged as an essential feature would be a good way of writing it as I think stating it as Robusto said in the above post might be read as you asserting the fact that "accuracy is essential", whereas using "accuracy is acknowledged" seems more like it is a fact acknowledged by a group of people. <S> Also tenfour mentioned that maybe accuracy shouldn't be described as a feature. <S> I would argue that in some cases accuracy isn't essential, for example when gathering quantitative data rather than qualitative, it might be more important to focus on gathering large amounts of data rather than ensuring 100% accuracy on every piece of data collected.
| Accuracy is readily acknowledged as a salient feature (characteristic;facet).
|
What's a word for "widespread," but not so wide? I want to say that something is trying to attain widespread use. However, when I say widespread use , I really want to say that it is trying to be used by a few people (not necessarily that widespread). Is there a word, or an expression for this? <Q> Maybe you could use “ gaining traction ” (which implies that it is getting more and more users, though maybe not widespread yet), or common , broadly used , or well adopted . <S> 9 votes for this short answer <S> , I feel you deserve more! <S> So here’s some addition information: <S> In “gaining traction”, the word traction is used figuratively, as “motive power provided for the action of drawing a thing over a surface”. <S> In this use, it is thus synonymous with momentum . <A> Possibilities: trying to attain extended popularity trying to augment its user base trying to attain increased popularity trying to become a staple amongst the community trying to become a household name <A> <A> Maybe Gain widespread use within a group / community? <S> For example "My website has widespread use within the UK Airsoft Community"Whist <S> the UK Airsoft community is only a fraction of a percent of the entire population and almost everyone you ask will never have heard of the site, it is still in widespread use within the specified group. <S> I think this really depends on what is being used and who is using it. <A> If the few people are passionate or enthusiastic, perhaps: " has reached cult status " or " has a cult following " <A> It sounds like mainstream would fit. <S> Something that is mainstream is acceptable to most people, but not necessarily adopted by many. <S> Basically something is mainstream if when its use is not considered odd, when it is not specific to a fringe group. <A> To be clear, you might want to separate the thing from the producers or promoters of the thing. <S> It is the company behind the toothpaste that is pushing for wider adoption of the product, rather than the thing itself "trying to attain widespread use" . <S> Another way to say this is a company striving for great market-share, or pushing for increased use among such-and-such demographic, for instance. <S> If your case is less about market-share, you might use [the people behind ProjectX are trying to] increase its user base, to widen adoption, promote its use, evangelize the product[icky marketing speak], spread the word about the product, etc..
| You could also say that the thing in question is "catching on", which is to say, it's in the early stages of (presumably) a lasting surge in usage.
|
"It stands without reason" or "it stands to reason" This question appeared in a previous question . Should I write " it stands without reason that accuracy is of utmost importance" or " it stands to reason that accuracy is of utmost importance?" The latter is the only I can find in online dictionaries. <Q> The common idiom is "It stands to reason", meaning "It makes sense" or "It is expected". <S> I've never seen any other variant, and at least some internet resources show the same. <A> There is a confusion in this question, over possible meanings of “reason”. <S> Your suggested usage <S> “it stands without reason” implies the meaning of “it stands without requiring a reason”. <S> This is the colloquial use of “reason” as an excuse or apologetic defense of some factual claim. <S> I agree with other answers that this is uncommon and unclear usage : “without reason” would imply the claim is indefensible , because it has no reason supporting it. <S> This is pretty much the opposite of your intended meaning. <S> The common idiom <S> “it stands to reason” <S> implies the meaning <S> “it stands when challenged by reason”. <S> This is the primary use of “reason” as the process of critical inquiry and rational thinking about claims. <S> So this usage connotes a factual claim that, when others challenge it using the process of critical inquiry and demand for supporting one's claims – that is, when others use reason to interrogate it – the claim stands (does not fall) to this challenge. <A> For example, He treated you like dirt! <S> It stands to reason that you're having second thoughts! <S> "It stands without reason that ... <S> " I have always understood to mean, "It needs no explanation that ...". <S> For example, It stands without reason that he should treat you like a princess. <S> But as we have seen, this idiom doesn't appear in any significant usage on the Internet <S> so it could be a regionalism or just my own mistake. <S> If it were my paper, I would use "it needs no explanation".
| "It stands to reason that ..." Is basically a synonym for "Based on the reasoning provided, ...".
|
"Help save the planet with your mobile phone" Does "help save the planet with your mobile phone" have a different meaning or connotation than "help save the planet using your mobile phone?" <Q> Slightly. <S> The first could be interpreted that your phone will be "used up" by the process or used physically (e.g. plugging the gap in the ozone layer by throwing your phone into it). <S> The second sentence does not have this implication. <S> Ergo, I prefer the second although I'd add a word. <S> Help save the planet by using your mobile phone <A> In this case, "using" can be seen as a more explicit description of what to do with the phone. <S> "Using" more or less encases "with" but it doesn't work the other way around: <S> Stand over there with your phone. <S> Stand over there using your phone. <S> In the context of a phone and saving the world, the options of doing something with the phone is small and it can be implied that the intention was to use it. <S> Other words have more options: Help save the planet with your donation Help save the planet using your donation <S> Help save the planet by spending your donation <S> There are also plenty of other things we can do that completely muck around with the implications: <S> Help save the planet while using your mobile phone Help save the planet by using your mobile phone <S> Help save the (planet with your mobile phone) <S> Help save the (planet using your mobile phone) <S> The context makes the latter two silly but it shows the importance of choosing your words carefully: Attack the man using your phone <S> This could mean all sorts of things and reminds me of the classic: <S> Fruit flies like a banana <A> One interpretation could be "have your phone with you while you help save the planet", an implication that the phone itself is incidental to the process. <S> This doesn't make sense, at least not the sense you wish to convey. <S> Consider: " <S> Use your phone to help save the planet" or similar. <S> Also, "help save the planet" is a little clumsy as it has two verbs together; consider "help to save" (i.e. use the infinitive) in future instances of this.
| Help save the planet by giving your donation
|
What's the meaning of "a staple amongst the community"? In this context: trying to become a staple amongst the community <Q> <A> It's not a very good word choice. <S> "Staple" is most commonly associated with basic foodstuffs. <S> Flour, oil, and eggs are all "staples". <S> The meaning of the word has stretched somewhat, so anything that is considered to be necessary, central, or key can be described as a staple, but the food connotation usually restricts the usage. <A> It is hard to tell without context, but I think maybe there is some confusion here between the concepts of "staple" foods, as outlined by Satanicpuppy and Kelly C Hess, and the phrase pillar of the community , which means a prominent and respected member of the community. <A> This is metaphorical. <S> Being a "staple amongst the community" is a valuable attribute. <S> This person is a pillar in the community. <S> Some would also refer to the person as a rock. <S> I just call them leaders, haha. <S> The word "amongst" is heard in British, Canadian, or Australian English. <S> It is rarely heard in American English. <S> Usually this is used when referring to person who is or has been a powerful influence in your life. <S> My mother is a staple in my life. <S> I can always count on her being there for me and holding things together.
| Something that has become both common and expected in the same sense that bread and milk are staple foods: a necessary commodity for which demand is constant A "staple in your life" is a person, place, or thing holding your life together.
|
Are "come round" and "visit" interchangeable? Some friends will come round for dinner. Some friends will visit for dinner. Some friends will visit me. These are OK, but "some friends will come round me" isn't OK. The answer is simple, but it needs some thought. <Q> The two have very similar meanings <S> but there are different connotations. <S> Someone coming "around" subtlety implies that they will be coming around again or have been here in the past. <S> It also implies a much less formal happening as if there is little reason to make a fuss about the event. <S> The watchman will be coming around about 6. <S> The watchman will be visiting about 6. <S> In addition to this, "around" or "round" have other meanings that separate them from "visit. <S> " <S> Robusto's example is good. <S> Others are: <S> The watchman will be coming around 6. <S> The watchman will be coming around the corner. <A> When you use visit , that the friends are visiting you <S> is implied: <S> Some friends will visit [me] for dinner. <S> You can replace visit me with <S> come around : <S> Some friends will come around. <S> However, you can't use come around instead of visit me for all places: <S> Some friends will visit me in prison. <A> Round is a "chiefly British" <S> [NOAD] <S> variant of around . <S> It can be substituted freely. <S> Come, gather round me, and I'll tell you. <S> — W. S. Gilbert, "A Wandering Minstrel I" from <S> The Mikado <S> You can see that this quote exactly parallels your <S> "Some friends will come round me," so I would say from a usage standpoint that it is acceptable, at least in British English.
| The expressions doesn't have the exact same meaning always, but in this case they are interchangeable.
|
What is the plural form of "iPad 2"? With the introduction of the iPad 2, I find myself hesitating when trying to refer to several of them. Is it iPads 2 or iPad 2's? <Q> According to Apple all their product names are adjectives and not nouns <S> and so they cannot be plural or possessive. <S> Here is an excerpt from their document Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights Rules for Proper Use of Apple Trademarks <S> Trademarks are adjectives used to modify nouns; the noun is the generic name of a product or service. <S> As adjectives, trademarks may not be used in the plural or possessive form. <S> Correct: I bought two Macintosh computers. <S> Not Correct <S> : I bought two Macintoshes. <S> I guess iPad 2 tablets is correct. <S> boo. :( <A> A search for "iPad 2s" reveals over 500 hits while "iPads 2" yields only 80. <S> Normally I don't care much for Google search results as an indicator for grammar, but in this case it appears that many of the "iPad 2s" hits are from official vendors and reviewers. <S> However, there is enough room for doubt that you are probably fine spelling it how you like. <A> In speech I would say "iPad [tu:z]", pluralizing after the numeral. <S> However, I find all of the possible written representations of that to be somewhat unsatisfactory, so I would reword to avoid it. <S> Simply say "iPads" if the context makes it clear that you're talking about generation 2, or use a circumlocution like "iPad 2 devices" or "iPad 2 tablets". <A> Not Google but general intuition will make you realize that it should be iPad 2s and not iPad 2's (with the apostrophe) . <A> Or you could go for: Second edition iPads. <A> People often pluralise "unusual" words with 's instead of plain s . <S> Technically speaking it's considered incorrect (see "grocers' apostophe") , but I personally don't endorse that position. <S> A common example is when referring to decades/centuries. <S> A lot of people write the 70's , for example (although even more write the 70s ). <S> That particular example may be influenced by the fact that people also write the '70s to indicate the missing century component, and no-one ever wants to put two apostrophes in that single "word". <S> In short, although some may say the usage is ungrammatical, I think it's just a matter of style. <A> The answer will be determined by popular usage, but it is likely to be iPad 2's . <S> The reason has been elegantly explained by Steven Pinker in his book, The Language Instinct (ISBN 0060976519). <S> In one part of our brain, we store all the irregular plurals we know. <S> When that fails, we apply a general rule we have stored elsewhere: for a plural noun, add -s . <S> This is why many people tend to use mouses rather than mice for the computer pointing device. <S> To these people, it seems like a new word, so they automatically apply the general rule instead of recalling the irregular plural for the name of the furry creature. <S> Furthermore, when a person conceptualizes a compound word as a proper name for a thing, such as iPad 2 , that person will add -s to the end of it and get iPad 2's , just as we would say Bill Clintons , never Bills Clinton . <S> Thus, because of the way our brains work, the plural form of any new proper name, even a compound name, will almost always follow the simple rule add -s to the end . <S> Let me also address the point made elsewhere about trademarks. <S> Trademarks which function as brand names are adjectives: Ivory soap , IBM PC . <S> But a brand name can enter the language as a noun when people begin speaking of the thing itself using the trade name. <S> For example, kleenex for a facial tissue was originally the trademark Kleenex tissue . <S> When this occurs, the trademark office actually does the reasonable thing and withdraws trademark protection for the term. <S> It does this by the logic that you cannot have exclusive use of an ordinary word. <S> Companies are well aware of this. <S> This is why their public relations offices will plead with the public to use their trademark as an adjective. <S> They hope to influence the public to do so, because otherwise they will lose their trademark. <S> And that is why Apple is on record stating that their trademarks are adjectives.
| Since iPad 2 is the brand name, the plural form would be "iPad 2s".
|
How to express "to look at more or all sides" and "consider more or all views" for a thing? One commonly looks at something from his own viewpoint.Sometimes, we suggest somebody look at something from another view or in an overall view. I hope this could make it clearly. I want some opposites of 'one-sided'. or something like this. one side -> on the other hand -> all sides one view -> multiple view -> all views <Q> Former American Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, once said: As we know, there are known knowns. <S> There are things we know we know. <S> We also know there are known unknowns. <S> That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. <S> But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know. <S> You can express the need to look at additional 'parameters' or 'options' in many ways. <S> here are a few that come to mind: <S> Have you explored all options? <S> What other input parameters does this system accept? <S> Have you considered all the alternatives? <S> Are there any other choices? <S> Do you account for unknowns? <S> Have you explored all avenues? <S> Have you viewed the problem from all angles? <S> Are there more inputs that we haven't covered yet? <S> Have all the terms been defined? <A> I would choose a word like "analysis" and throw an adjective such as "unbiased" before it. <S> This was an unbiased analysis. <S> His was a multifaceted viewpoint. <S> We need an impartial outlook. <S> Look at this more abstractly. <A> open-minded <S> If you describe someone as open-minded, you approve of them because they are willing to listen to and consider other people's ideas and suggestions. <S> He was very open-minded about other people's work. <S> Collins Dictionary
| Basically, take just about any verb that means 'searching', 'exploring', or 'viewing', and pair it with just about any noun that means 'option', 'path', 'route', 'input', or 'choice'.
|
Nuances between "stoic" and "stolid" The words "stoic" and "stolid" seem quite similar to me: stoic : seeming unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive [ cite ] stolid : having or revealing little emotion or sensibility; not easily aroused or excited [ cite ] When would you use one versus the other? Under what circumstances would you not use one of them? <Q> When describing people, stoic has a particularly heroic connotation. <S> A stoic person really braves everything that man, nature, and God throws at him without complaint. <S> Stolid , on the other hand, is not so: You might use it to describe someone who showcases a simple faithfulness, a "friend through thick and thin," but you might also use the word to describe someone who's plodding and utterly unadaptable to change. <S> Job, of the Book of Job, is stoic. <S> Watson, of Sherlock Holmes, is stolid. <A> There is, of course a significant difference in the etymology of the two words, i.e. stolid cite , which derives from a Latin word meaning foolish or stupid, and stoic cite , which ultimately derives from the Greek for a painted porch (referring to the location where Zeno is said to have taught). <S> From a usage point of view, I'm of the opinion that stolid means "unfeeling" in the sense of lacking feeling all together (or lacking a particular sensibility), whereas stoic implies bearing up under the weight of one's emotions (the goal of Stoic practice being apatheia , the cultivation of a state of being unaffected by the emotions). <A> The part about pleasure in your definition of stoic sounds weird to me, because it is one of the things that differentiate the two words for me:
| stoic is all about withstanding pain and suffering (will and strentgh), while stolid is more about minor character traits.
|
Confusion about a stanza from Rudyard Kipling Following is the stanza: Teach us delight in simple things, And mirth that has no bitter springs; Forgiveness free of evil done, And Love to all men 'neath the sun! What does second line and third line mean?And does the last line mean love to all people who work hard under the harsh sun? A brief explanation will suffice. (I hope that this is not a subjective question!Also, please change the tag; my reputation is not quite enough to create new one.) <Q> "Bitter springs" means, basically, "springing from something bitter. <S> " <S> So the second line means: may we learn to not be happy because of others' misfortunes. <S> "Forgiveness free of evil done" means that we'll forgive those who wrong us, and never remember again the evil they did. <S> (Sort of the opposite of "I may forgive, but I'll never forget.") <S> In the last line, "under the sun" means "everyone in the world" - the expression is borrowed from Ecclesiastes (1:3). <A> Teach us delight in [...] mirth that has no bitter springs <S> I believe this means "Teach us to enjoy humor that is <S> does not have a basis in (buoyed up by) cruelty or unkindness. <S> Teach us delight in [...] <S> forgiveness free of evil done <S> (I am not convinced of this, though, as I do not know why this would be suggested as either unlikely or desirable.) <S> I do not think that there is any implication that they must be outdoor laborers. <A> A lot of poetry is will mean different things to different people. <S> Much of this poem is a prayer. <S> Here's how I interpret the lines you ask about: <S> And Mirth that has no bitter springs <S> We wish for joy without accompanying pain. <S> Forgiveness free of evil <S> done <S> Allow mankind to be able to express love and forgiveness to each other without first suffering the offenses that would need to be forgiven. <S> And Love to all men 'neath the sun. <S> This is love for everyone, not just those that work in a field, for the sun shines on all the earth. <S> It's a lovely poem. <A> "Mirth that has no bitter springs." Teach us to delight in happiness that is not derived from others' unhappiness. <S> "Forgiveness free of evil done. <S> "Teach <S> us to forgive others for the evil they do, without retribution or restitution (free, not earned). <S> Free is modifying forgiveness, so it is "free forgiveness", not "free of evil". <S> "All men 'neath the sun. <S> "Every person on the earth - common idiom. <S> Not relating to laborers. <A> Yes, the question is subjective, but only because all poetry is so it's fine. <S> Here are my two cents which may or may not disagree with everyone else, all defensible interpretations are valid. <S> "Teach us delight in simple things,"Teach us to enjoy the little things in life so that we are always happy And mirth that has no bitter springs;and give us the gift of being able to laugh whole-heartedly without interference from the "bitter springs" of grief and trouble that bubble beneath the surface Forgiveness free of evil done,and forgive people freely, not bearing grudges And Love to all men 'neath the sun!And love everyone on earth. <S> As Alex pointed out, "'neath the sun" is borrowed from Ecclesiastes. <S> It's a motif that appears many times throughout the book. <S> A close reading shows that the phrase refers to the mundane, prosaic, aspects of life that people tend to view as unimportant. <S> I think that this line means "to love everyone and everything because the ordinary is also extraordinary."
| I believe that this means "Teach us to forgive others even of the most trivial grievances". I believe the last line, "love to all men 'neath the sun" is simply saying to love everyone, as we are all underneath the sun (even when indoors).
|
"Influence of media in our lives," or "influence of media on our lives?" Which one is correct, "influence of media in our lives," or "influence of media on our lives?" <Q> You can change the grammar to remove the proposition, for example "how media influences our lives", providing that you are happy using a singular verb with a Latin plural noun. <A> They're both correct, with a slight distinction in meaning. <S> If you speak of the influence of media in our lives, then I feel there's an implication that the media is just one of several things influencing us. <S> If you speak of the influence of media on our lives, then I expect the media to be the only influence under discussion. <S> I don't know whether this distinction is specific to "the media", so let me posit some new phrases: <S> The influence of religion in modern life <S> The influence of religion on modern life <S> Yup, the distinction's still there: to me, "in" implies one of many influences, while "on" implies a more all-encompassing influence. <A> When I read the two sentences I distinguish the meanings of the two as such: (Influence of) (media in our lives) (Influence of media) (on our lives) <S> A rewording to make it more clear: <S> This is the influence that the media in our lives has on [something]. <S> This is the influence that the media has on our lives. <S> This is not a necessary distinction, however, and you can legitimately say: This is the influence that the media has in our lives. <S> There is another difference between using "in" and "on" in this context. <S> " <S> In" implies that something is happening within our lives or that something is affecting our lives from the inside. "On" implies a more distant, abstract influence: Something is happen to our lives from the outside or to our lives as a whole. <S> I worked in that building. <S> I worked on that building.
| Both in and on are correct and used in this case. There is no absolute rule but it seems that for some people there may be a slight distinction between "influence of media on people " and "influence of media in things " which would incline me toward "influence of media in our lives".
|
Analyzing Will Ferrell's "I Thought" joke I'm reading Will Ferrell's Twitter where he wrote Just thought a thought but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I thought. Does the sentence still have the same meaning if you remove the last "I thought"? Is this grammatical word play possible with other words? Is there a name for this other than a play on words? <Q> The best way to understand something like this is to replace each occurrence of the repeated word with either a synonym, or something that matches its part of speech: <S> Just came up with an idea , but the idea <S> I came up with <S> wasn't the idea <S> I believed <S> I came up with . <S> As you can see, removing the last "I thought" either changes the meaning, or results in a contradiction: Just came up with an idea, but the idea I came up with wasn't the idea I believed – inventing an idea you don't believe is quite different from misremembering what idea you invented. <S> Just came up with an idea, but the idea I came up with wasn't the idea I came up with <S> – this is a contradiction, and doesn't make a lot of sense. <S> (Well, not that the original makes a whole lot of sense, either.) <S> I don't know if there's an official term for this sort of phrase. <S> Depending on the repeated word, it could be considered a tongue-twister . <S> For the famous buffalo example mentioned by MrHen in the comments, Wikipedia just says it's "an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic constructs." <A> the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought <S> R D Laing called this sort of thing Knots . <S> One example is <S> He is devoured by his devouring fear of being devoured by her devouring desire for him to devour her. <A> If you remove the last 'I thought' you get a contradiction. <S> Consider the central phrase, "The thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought." <S> Replacing all instances of 'thought' with a different noun and verb we get, "The car I drive wasn't the car I drove." <S> If we put the 'I thought' back into our car/drove example we get, "The car I drove wasn't the car I thought I drove." <S> This grammatical word play is possible with any words that have can be taken as multiple parts of speech, especially noun/verb. <S> An example from a book of puzzles I have asks: "Who could make the following statement? ' <S> We eat what we can and can what we can't.'" <S> The answer is a farmer or a fisherman. <S> During a meeting at the [fictional] local diet club, the chairperson exclaimed, "We have to fast, FAST!" <S> I'm not aware of any official name for these kinds of wordplay. <A> Just thought a (1)[thought] but the (2)[thought I thought] wasn't the (3)[thought] <S> I thought I (4)[thought]. <S> In my opinion at least three or maybe four of the parts surrounded in brackets and numbered do not need to contain the word "thought". <S> Assuming that when he writes "I thought a thought" he means "I had a thought", and not "I contemplated a thought, then the whole thing is conveyed more clearly and more idiomatically like this: Just had a thought but <S> [it] wasn't [the one] <S> I thought [it] was. <S> He's basically avoiding the use of all pronouns so he can repeat the same thing. <S> You can get away with this because basically the verb and the object of it are the same word. <S> You can think a thought, and the past tense of think is thought, and so you can "thought a thought". <S> Think of how it would sound with some other words. <S> I saw a sight but the sight I saw wasn't the sight I thought I saw. <S> I jumped a jump but <S> the jump I jumped wasn't the jump I thought I jumped. <S> The first is alliterative with all the s-initial sounds, the second is alliterative and assonant, with all the ju-initial sounds. <S> But the verb and the verb object aren't the same as is the case with thought . <A> This depends to a degree on your interpretation of "same meaning". <S> Two different sentences will almost invariably have slightly different implications. <S> Even substituting a synonym or alternate spelling can alter the meaning read into a sentence, if not the meaning written into it. <S> "I like the colour red" is not the same as "I like the color red". <S> One might read "I'm British <S> and I like red", while the other might read "I'm American <S> and I like red". <S> That said, it's probably safe to assume most people will interpret "same meaning" as either "same intent" or "similar enough meaning". <S> Contrary to the other answers, I don't feel that there would necessarily be a contradiction - <S> the more natural reading would be to assume ellipsis . <S> First, let's look at the original sentence and try to understand it by imagining what the thoughts might have been. <S> Let's imagine that Will thought "apple", but thought that he thought "potato". <S> Let's also mark the verb "thought" with "[v] <S> ": <S> Just thought[v] <S> a thought[apple] <S> but the thought[apple] <S> I thought[v <S> ] wasn't the thought[potato] <S> I thought[v] <S> I thought[v]. <S> Clear enough. <S> Now let's write the sentence again, minus the final "I thought": <S> Just thought[v] a thought[apple] <S> but the thought[apple] <S> I thought[v <S> ] wasn't the thought[potato] <S> I thought[v]. <S> This sounds clumsy, and to some it will sound like a paradox: " <S> [the thought I thought] wasn't [the thought I thought]". <S> However, the sentence is not as paradoxical as you might think it is . <S> Most people will read an implicit word or phrase beyond what has actually been written. <S> This is ellipsis. <S> Interpreting the shortened sentence in this way is a little ambiguous. <S> We can either recover the original sentence exactly or perhaps more naturally: <S> Just thought a thought but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought <S> it was . <S> Whether you think this has the same meaning as the original sentence is up to you. <S> Both sentences describe a situation in which Will thought "apple", but imagined that he had thought "potato".
| If you remove the last "I thought", you get a contradiction in
|
What does ‘Long on looks, short on spirit’ mean? I found the phrase ‘Long on looks, short on spirit’ in the Washington Post article written by Ann Hornaday ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/jane-eyre,1164774/critic-review.html#reviewNum1 ). What does ‘ Long on looks, short on spirit ’ mean? To me it sounds like saying ‘Have a big picture, but be realistic’, but I don’t know. Is this a well-worn English cliché or Charlotte Bronte’s coinage? In what occasion can I use this phrase? <Q> My guess is that the character in question is physically attractive, but isn't passionate enough (emotional enough, emotive enough) for the role. <S> Which is why the reviewer talks about missing the "the spark of rebellion" in the heroine. <S> Come to think of it, the phrase could also refer to the work (or a work) as a whole. <S> Handsomely staged, but without a subversive spirit. <S> Beautiful sets and costumes, but lacking heart. <S> Stunning but superficial. <S> Or something similar to similar effect. <A> The article explains exactly what the title means: <S> And it’s just that spark that’s fatally missing from Mia Wasikowska’s elegant but inert portrayal in “Jane Eyre,” which while qualifying as the most gorgeously appointed and finely detailed version of the novel so far, still lacks the element of essential fire to make it come fully, even subversively, to life. <S> The "long on [x], short on [y]" construction is a fairly common trope. <S> It means basically "has plenty of [x], but not enough [y]". <S> Thus, "elegant but inert" - the reviewer thought the movie was gorgeous to look at, but she thought the heroine didn't show enough of the emotions she would have liked to see. <A> I wouldn't say that this exact phrase is a well-worn cliche, but the format is well known. <S> I've also heard 'Long on style, short on substance', as well as other variations. <S> The meaning of each of these types of statements is to compare traits of a larger subject, especially when one trait is vastly overrepresented compared to the other, "Long on [trait A], short on [trait B]." <S> (This is also true if one trait is vastly under-represented.) <A> I believe that several of the answers are close but not quite right. <S> So someone who is "long on intelligence, but short on initiative" is someone who is quite smart but doesn't follow through on their ideas, thus failing to accomplish them. <S> So the primary implication is that the overall effort was insufficient and failed because of the shortcoming, and the secondary implication is that those in charge over-emphasized the strength in a failed attempt to overcome the weakness.
| The phrase is referring to two attributes, both of which are necessary for something to succeed.
|
Is there any suffix expressing “demand a lot”? For example, a job that demands a lot of effort is effort-*** ? Or a program costs lots of money is money-*** ? Or a task needs high patience is patience-*** ? <Q> -Intensive would be one of those. <S> The pertinent definition, according to the Oxford Dictionaries is concentrating on or making much use of a specified thing <S> Thus, labor-intensive , cost-intensive , etc. <S> I'm not sure this would work for patience , though! <A> You might try "-intensive", at least with regards to effort. <A> Some nouns can take the suffix -some to indicate propensity or demand. <S> Examples include: <S> Bothersome Worrisome <S> Winsome <S> Troublesome <S> Fearsome <S> Loathsome <S> Lonesome <S> Other suffixes with a similar meaning are -ful, -ive, and -ly. <S> These tend to describe a property of an object more than describing a demand for something. <S> In the three examples given in the question, none take on any of these suffixes. <S> However, you could replace money--- with costly , effort--- with intensive , and patience--- with peaceful . <S> These aren't exactly the same, but they're pretty close. <A> <A> Something that absorbs a lot of a given commodity is often referred to as a sink. <S> For example A project which absorbs a lot of my time could be referred to as a time sink . <S> World of Warcraft has been referred to as a life-sink . <A> A job that demands a lot of effort is 'hard' or 'demanding' or 'exhausting' or ... <S> A program that costs a lot of money is 'expensive'. <S> A task that requires a lot of patience is 'exasperating' or 'demanding' or ... <A> I would use 'sapping' money-sapping hobby time-sapping <S> Sapping is the action of extracting sap from a tree, so these things sap your energy, time, money, etc.
| You could say: effort intensive money hungry time consuming resource draining I don't think there's a single suffix that would fit the examples.
|
"Is there any proof" versus "are there any proofs" The stack exchange question "Is there any concrete-solid proofs of this space odyssey?" made me want to edit it to remove the s in proofs (someone with enough flair did), however it made me wonder about the plurality of any and proofs . So please enlighten me about which one is correct. Is there any concrete-solid proof of this space odyssey? Are there any concrete-solid proofs of this space odyssey? If the asker wants to hear about at least one proof, the first one is OK, but what is correct if he wants at least two pieces of evidence? <Q> If you begin the sentence with the singular copula (is) you are expected to make the object agree in number. <S> Breaking down the SO sentence to its essentials, we have: <S> Is there any proofs? <S> This is grammatically incorrect. <S> We can make these agree in number in two ways (as your own examples do): <S> Is there any proof? <S> Are there any proofs? <S> Either is correct. " <S> Proof" or "proofs" doesn't matter as long as the number agrees with the number of the copula. <A> "I have proof that ... " <S> "There is no proof that ... " <S> "You haven't any proof that ... " <S> It can be used as a count noun, but usually only in special senses, such as a formal (mathematical or logical) proof: <S> "His book contains several new proofs of these theorems". <S> I would find it strange to read <S> "They produced several proofs of his innocence". <A> My grammar book ( English Grammar , David Daniels and Barbara Daniels) reports that the indefinite pronoun any is either singular or plural. <S> Someone asked him for a match, but Joe didn't have any. <S> Do you have any tips to pass on? <S> I don't have any choice. <S> In your example, I would use " <S> Is there any concrete-solid proof of this space odyssey?" <S> because if there isn't a single proof, then there aren't two proofs either. <A> You're more likely to encounter the plural in formal logic, maths, etc., where a given proposition may have multiple proofs . <S> In other contexts it's more common to lump all the supporting evidence together as (singular) proof . <A> 'Is there any proof?' <S> sounds better, but proofs is OK because you can say 'evidences' 'Present your evidences to the court.'
| "Proof" is usually treated as a mass noun, and so has no plural:
|
Why does "I got 'busted' for smoking weed" mean 'caught'? How did the word 'busted' morph into a synonym for 'caught'? Busted, down on Bourbon Street,Set up, like a bowling pin.Knocked down, it gets to wearin' thinThey just won't let you be.... <Q> Although it is often used interchangeably with the term raid , I would suggest that the physical act of gaining forced entry by " busting the door down" led to its becoming known as such. <A> Green's Slang Dictionary has bust meaning a break in or a raid dating from 1865, but the earliest reference to a police raid is from 1938. <S> Later the word came to mean any arrest or criminal charge. <S> This usage probably derives from burst meaning a burglary, which it dates from 1834. <S> I can recall Philip K. Dick using the word <S> burst as a typically Dickian substitution for bust in one of his novels (sadly I forget which one), which would have required commendable self-discipline in the days before word processors. <A> Etymonline tends to back up MrHen's guess: <S> variant of burst, 1764, Amer. <S> Eng. <S> The verb sense of [...] "arrest" is from 1953 (earlier "to raid" from Prohibition). <S> Unfortunately this doesn't give us a lot of insight into how that meaning evolved, but "bu[r]sting in" to places where criminal activity is going on is as good a guess as any. <A> I think it originated in the 1930s in Chicago during the rise of the Italian mafia. <S> Busted was used by cops when they arrested a mob member, referring to Italian basta — "enough, no more".
| I would have thought that it has its origins in the law enforcement term '[To carry out a drug] bust' .
|
How are artificial constructions such as l33t classified with regards to English? L33t or its various other titles* is a derivation of English but I have no idea what term should be used to describe it. Other examples of these things would include lolspeak and the massive alterations involved in commonplace texting. Wikipedia suggests that l33t is an alternative "alphabet" but that only covers the letter/number conversions. "Alphabet" doesn't address the lingo and structure ( *cough* ) that l33t employs. Perhaps this question is too far outside of the scope of this site. L33t itself suggests a culture of its own but no one over there can agree on anything and any popular lingo today will be forgotten or replaced by tomorrow. Its worthiness is totally debatable but I still want to know what to call it. * Included here for future searches: leet, leetspeak, l33tspeak, l33tsp34k, 1337, 13375p34k <Q> argot <S> — An argot is a secret language used by various groups — e.g. schoolmates, outlaws, colleagues, among many others — to prevent outsiders from understanding their conversations. <S> The term argot is also used to refer to the informal specialized vocabulary from a particular field of study, occupation, or hobby, in which sense it overlaps with jargon. <S> jargon — specialist language: language that is used by a group, profession, or culture, especially when the words and phrases are not understood or used by other people lingo — set of specialized terms: a specialized set of terms requiring to be learned like a language <A> I'd just say l33t is an informal dialectal transcription format, not dissimilar to txtese, chatspeak, etc. <A> It should be appropriately grouped in with simplistic encryption methodologies, along the same lines as Pig Latin. <S> The wording is rarely dissimilar to standard English, albeit poorly written. <A> It's almost more of an orthography than argot. <S> It has characteristics of both, but if you think about its spoken form it's really not much more than slang. <S> The written form is very different, though, so that suggests that it's primarily a way of writing. <S> DivinusVox is correct in relating it to Pig Latin and other forms of light obfuscation.
| It's a kind of argot, jargon, or insider's lingo.
|
What is the difference between “prophecy” and “fortune telling”? Maybe a week, maybe a month; you will meet a tall dark stranger; the next few weeks are going to be hard on your energy levels.... What are the real/inferred differences between “prophecy” and “fortune telling”? <Q> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy <S> A prophecy is a process in which one or more messages that have been communicated to a true prophet are then communicated to others by this true prophet. <S> Such messages typically involve divine inspiration, interpretation, or revelation of <S> conditioned events to come (cf. <S> divine knowledge) as well as testimonies or repeated revelations that the world is divine <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_telling <S> The scope of fortune-telling is in principle identical with the practice of divination. <S> The difference is that divination is the term used for predictions considered part of a religious ritual, invoking deities or spirits, while the term fortune-telling implies a less serious or formal setting, even one of popular culture, where belief in occult workings behind the prediction is less prominent than the concept of suggestion, spiritual or practical advisory or affirmation. <S> Historically, fortune-telling grows out of folkloristic reception of Renaissance magic, specifically associated with gypsies. <A> Fortunetelling more strictly means perceiving someone's good or bad fortune. <S> Your future will be happy. <S> Your future looks cloudy. <S> A prophecy is more likely to go into much more detail: <S> The king will return on May 31st. <S> You will die before your brother. <S> That being said, the two can be used interchangeably with regards to specific prophecies and fortunes told. <S> The choice between them probably reflects a particular business, marketing or publicity strategy. <S> A fortuneteller is more likely to give you vague but generally happy news about your love life and can be found at carnivals and gypsy conventions. <S> Prophets are more likely to be found in religious environments that include churches and temples. <S> This probably stems from an implication of the source of the prediction: Fortunetelling is a mystical or psychic ability while prophesies are typically considered divine knowledge imparted to a chosen few. <S> Of note: Time travelers are warning of impending doom are generally considered to "predict the future" and, therefore, dodge both of the titles. <S> When they must be given a title it is usually a "prophet" <S> but even then it tends to be a label proffered by the stupid people of the past because they cannot understand the magic technology of time travel. <S> "Predictions" or "predictors" also apply to pundits, investors or bookies. <S> I am also under the impression that most written predictions are considered "prophesies" unless being recorded as a tale of a particular fortune telling experience. <S> This is more of a hunch than my other points, however. <S> More thoughts on the subject include the idea of a "false prophet" as opposed to a fortune teller merely being wrong. <S> In terms of practical applications, most fortune tellers or prophets are deliberately vague on account of the, er, difficulty of being more accurate. <S> A more abstract term for this entire discussion would be " divinations " which encompasses activities such as dowsing and tarot cards. <A> Well, at its roots, the function of prophecy is not about foretelling the future, really, it's about haranguing the populace about how they need to quit being drunken sluts or whatever because $DEITY is getting pissed. <S> Originally, the stuff about the future was warning people about the bad shit that was going to go down if they didn't shape up. <S> But, on the one hand, people never shape up, so the bad shit always went down, and on the other hand, everybody loves a good apocalypse, so over time the predictive orientation became more and more a part of the gig until prophet started meaning someone who foretells the future. <S> Kinda hilarious if you ask me. <A> The difference between prophecy and fortune telling is that fortune telling is just a prediction about the future, and prophecy is a message from God on what God is going to do for us. <S> It might also be for people to know and realize the power and purpose of God in our lives. <S> Prophecy is hinged on God, while fortune telling is just a prediction without even the glorification of God.
| Fortune-telling is the practice of predicting information about a person's life, often commercially.
|
More on 'who should she see': what part of speech is 'should' in this phrase? Prompted by What does 'should' mean in this sentence? , instead of asking what it means, I'm interested in what part of speech it is. The sentence is: She walked through the forest, and who should she see, but the Big Bad Wolf Should is being used to mean did in this sentence, which is an unusual use for should . The general form seems to be: [Interrogative] should [event] but [...] ( But is replaceable by except , only , etc.) Is this a subjunctive? Is it a vestige from Old English? <Q> <A> This seems to be OED sense 17 for "shall": 17. <S> In questions introduced by who, whom, what, and followed by but, serving to express the unexpectedness of some past occurrence. <S> 1626 <S> Bp. <S> J. Hall Contempl. <S> VIII. <S> O.T. xxi. <S> 459 <S> Whiles <S> his hart is taken vp with these thoughts, who should come ruffling by him, but‥Haman. 1832 <S> Tennyson <S> May <S> Queen iv, in Poems (new ed.) <S> 91 <S> As I came up the valley whom think ye should I see, But Robin? <S> 1842 <S> R. Browning Pied Piper iv, <S> Just as he said this, what should hap At the chamber door but a gentle tap? <S> 1945 <S> R. Gibbings Lovely is Lee xxvii. <S> 133 <S> On the 23rd of March 1889 who should be born in Cork but myself? <S> Since the earliest citation is 1626, it does not seem to be a vestige from Old English. <S> The answer to "what is the part of speech?" is "modal". <A> Yes, it's an alternative use of the word "should". <S> You might read "Who should she see but the Big Bad Wolf" as "She was surprised to see the Big Bad Wolf". <A> Short answer <S> Here, should is a modal auxiliary verb. <S> Explanation English word order is normally SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) . <S> Under some circumstances (including that phrase), the order changes to VSO , in a syntactic phenomenon called inversion . <S> In this case, it seems to be triggered by wh <S> -movement of <S> who , the object of see , to the start of the phrase. <S> Note that it is the subject and the auxiliary verb that get flipped; the main verb will not move. <S> To see why, I find it simplest to treat the auxiliary as the syntactic head , and analyze the main semantic verb "see..." as the object of should . <S> (Aside: this phenomenon of verb-initial word order in questions is common to many European languages. <S> However, it is no longer productive in English, and is now used almost exclusively with auxiliary verbs!) <S> The original phrase is: who should she see but <S> the Big Bad Wolf <S> Now find the underlying phrase that generates this using that transformation : <S> *she should (see (who but the Big Bad Wolf)) <S> Now, to determine the lexical class of should , let's look at the un-transformed phrase. <S> If the ungrammaticality of the untransformed phrase bothers you, it may help to replace some of the words: <S> she did (see (someone like the Big Bad Wolf)) <S> In this case, should is in precisely the same lexical class as did would be. <S> Both are auxiliary verbs . <S> Specifically, should is a modal auxiliary verb , because it is used to indicate modality .
| It is used here as an auxiliary verb.
|
"In the nick of time" or "in a nick of time?" They both sound right and I've found examples of both. <Q> Definitely "the" nick of time. <S> It is a specific thing - one chance. <S> You don't get nicks of time. <A> In which case, to do something at the last possible moment would be "in THE nick of time" or "in THE LAST nick of time", whereas to do something QUICKLY would be to do it "in A nick of time" <A> I've always seen it as "the nick of time" <S> Could you give any examples of where 'a nick of time' has been used? <S> EDIT: <S> After some more thought I have always understood a nick to be a small piece of something, for example if I were to say I took a nick out of my penknife blade In which case using 'a nick' would be valid if you were to say say There is a nick in my penknife blade <S> When referring to time you wouldn't be able to use 'a nick' in the same way as 'the nick' though <A> I suspect that if "in a nick of time" was valid, it would have a different use case than "in the nick of time" <S> but I've never seen it used. <S> It doesn't really sound right either, since there are no "nicks" of time. <S> I know, I'm a Nick! <S> He finished his drink in a nick of time, so they could leave as soon as possible. <S> He jumped in the nick of time to avoid the train.
| I believe the "in the nick of time" (the popular usage) is short for "In the last nick of time", with nick being a unit of measure.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.