source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
How to pronounce "halcyon"? I grew up thinking this word was pronounced HALK-YON, having learned it from books and never hearing someone speak it. I recently heard somebody mention it for the first time, and they pronounced it HAL-SEE-ON. Any insights? Wiktionary says maybe it is Latin for kingfisher . <Q> Merriam-Webster: <S> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halcyon <S> It may have been anglicized from the Greek αλκυόνα, but it doesn't seem to have retained the 'k' pronunciation. <A> The IPA phonetic pronunciation is /ˈhælsiən/ , which roughly translates to HAL-see-un or HAL-see-in , depending on your regional variation of schwa . <S> If IPA isn't your thing, Forvo is a great resource for audible pronunciation help. <A> Looks like I'm 2 years and 6 months late, but here you go: <S> Halcyon is indeed "kingfisher," as per the other more learned respondents. <S> Just found an interesting quote: "This beautiful bird's floating nest was fabled to calm winds and seas while the bird sat. <S> This occurring in winter gave rise to the expression 'halcyon days.' <S> "-- Admiral William Smyth's Sailor's Word-book, 1867
| I've only ever heard it pronounced hal-see-uhn in English, and according to most dictionaries, it seems to be the only pronunciation option.
|
Does the word 'God' with a capital G have a plural form? Does the word 'God' with a capital G have a plural form? <Q> This is not a problem of monotheistic preference. <S> So from the pure grammatical point of view, it can have a plural form in the same way as John or Peter (credits to jgelacqua's comments) <S> It's like Yahweh or Elohim <S> (actually this is a plural I believe - which shows that monotheism in the bible is a fuzzy notion). <A> "God" is a proper noun. <S> While proper nouns can be pluralized in some cases, it is not very common, and especially not so with "God". <S> However, I can think of an example. <S> Here is an example with the proper noun, "Bob": <S> How many Bobs would it take to beat up Charlie? <S> That is, if Bob could be copied and the copies could fight Charlie, how many would it take to beat up <S> Charlie?This example can be revisited with the proper noun, "God": <S> How many Gods would it take to beat up Satan? <A> Sure, why not? <S> If I don't presuppose that the term refers to one Supreme Being, I can imagine that there are more Supreme Beings. <S> Gods and Goddesses. <S> Unsurprisingly, the word "Gods" does appear in writing. <S> What about the Fates, the Graces, the Norns? <S> Burger Kings or Targets or KwikMarts? <S> What about Egyptians or Armenians, Tudors and Plantagenets, or Kochs or Kardashians? <S> An interesting construction I discovered on a Hindu information site is "Forms of God" (as well as "Forms of Goddess"). <S> This is an interesting plural, for a presumably (but not necessarily) different God-concept. <S> I suppose it a philosophical, religious, and/or metaphysical question whether the capitalized "God" is a name, a description, an honorary label, or something else. <S> The different possibilities don't change the fact that mechanically, you can pluralize God. <S> Whether one does so or not will depend on the meaning of the of the name/symbol/label to that person or group. <A> Interesting question. <S> My intuition suggests that the convention is the capital 'G' is singular and reserved for monotheistic, Abrahamic religions and the lower-case usage is used in conjunction with other faiths which, it is of course assumed are polytheistic and therefore wrong . <S> I think of the sentence 'worshiping false gods <S> so it sort of depends on the context. <S> You'd never write '... <S> our Gods' unless of course you were writing the speech for a heathen character. <A> It might be illustrative to compare it to something more unique than a person's proper name. <S> While we expect there to be many Bobs and Johns, talking about "Gods" may be more like talking about "Englands" or "Swedens". <S> Or "Princes" or "Madonnas"… Grammatically sound, semantically a little strange, but possible. <S> I suppose you could say things like "Traffic-wise, there aren't many Englands in this world" and "Stricture-wise, there aren't many Gods in religion". <S> Then again, people use "God" to refer to quite different concepts. <S> I'm sure you could argue that two different persons' Gods (!) are as different as two different Bobs. <A> No.
| There are no known religions whose translation(s) of their scripturs or theology into English or tradition in English allow a plural and capitalized name 'Gods'. When capitalised, the word god is a proper name.
|
"Please advise" -- why is this a common turn of phrase for foreign speakers of English? I was just browsing through StackOverflow just now, and randomly hit on this question , where the question-asker signed off his request with a "please advise." Certain I'd heard this turn of phrase before from foreign speakers, I searched "please advise" in quotes and received about 25,000 hits, from what seemed to be many non-native speakers, which was enough to be intriguing. Now, pardon me if I'm wrong, but this isn't common in American English is it? If I'd ever heard it, I'd expect the phrase to be please advise me , where advise takes an object. Moreover, "advise" as an ending pleasantry seems a bit stilted and formal to my ear. Perhaps this is U-English, that I've read is commonly taught to foreign speakers in ESL courses? Or is it a kind of a direct translation of a common construction in many languages? Does anyone know where it comes from? I'd appreciate any enlightenment. Incidentally, it seems that I'm not the only person to have noticed this . EDIT : So, to be clear, constructions such as "please advise if...", "please advise on...[XX topic]", "please advise for..." are commonly used in business emails? <Q> "Please advise" is quickly becoming common place in email conversations where one person asks a question and then makes it extremely clear that the other side now has responsibility for doing something next. <S> Essentially, it means "I am now done doing things; you go do something and get back to me. <S> " <S> I do not know of its use outside of emails or other text-based mediums nor do I know its origin <S> but I can emphatically confirm native speakers using it and using it frequently. <A> In the United States, please advise is very common in business and legal writing, both paper and electronic. <S> I have never heard it spoken. <S> While it is understood that the object is dropped for the sake of brevity ( please advise me ), advise is a transitive verb and technically must have an object. <S> Therefore the phrase is grammatically unsound, and should be considered a bad habit. <A> Advise means "offer suggestions about the best course of action to someone," in both American and British English. <S> It can be used as a transitive and non-transitive verb. <S> I advised her to go home. <S> She advised caution. <S> We advise against sending cash by post. <S> Looking for please advise in the Corpus of Contemporary American English <S> , I get the following result. <S> [pp*] matches any personal pronoun. <S> spoken fiction magazine newspaper academicplease advise 1 11 9 3 <S> 0please advise [pp <S> *] <S> 1 <S> 3 <S> 0 <S> 2 0 <A> I think "please advise" used to be a relatively common phrase and may stem from the days of the telegraph. <S> Brevity and clarity were key with telegrams. <S> This phrase appears in versions of a joke telegram attributed to Robert Blenchley, a reporter assigned to a story in Venice, in which he telegraphs his editor "Streets flooded. <S> Please advise." <S> (there are variants on the exact phrase, see Quote Investigator for more on the phrase). <A> I like the “ball is in your court” reference … it fits. <S> I think it may come from CB radio or ham radio communications. <S> I have also heard “please be advised”, meaning pay attention – important information following. <S> Slang or jargon often finds its way into spoken English.
| When putting “please advise” in an email, basically you are asking how to proceed on the issue you are addressing in the email. Including the object and even supplementary information provides a clearer message: Please advise me on this issue. I would hazard a guess that this turn of phrase has fallen out of favour along with the telegraph. I have heard it used on the radio asking for clarification on the subject.
|
Meaning of "I feel so helpless" What is the phrase "I feel so helpless" supposed to mean? Is it "I feel as though I am unable to offer help" or "I feel as though no one could help me?" I saw it in a movie, and always thought it was the latter, but it was clearly used in the context of the first. <Q> OP's first suggested meaning would be correct if we just discard the word "offer"... <S> I feel helpless = <S> I feel as though I am unable to help <S> [ myself , or another , depending on context]. <S> OED's first two definitions are... Destitute of help; having no assistance from others; needy. <S> (Of persons, their condition, etc.) <S> Having no resources in oneself; unable to help oneself; shiftless. <S> (The ordinary current sense.) <S> ...from which you might reasonably suppose that feeling helpless is always and only concerned with your inability to resolve your own problems . <S> But in practice if you're with someone else who has a problem, and you can't resolve that problem for them, it's natural to perceive yourself as having a problem of your own (that of being unable to deliver the help someone else needs) . <S> In short, helpless means powerless to do anything helpful - in respect of your own or someone else's problem, according to context. <A> Actually neither of your suggestions is very close. <S> It's more like "I feel like I can't do anything on my own." <S> or "I feel as if no one is helping me". <S> Note that second example is different from the one you offered of "no one could help me". <S> The phrase helpless doesn't mean you cannot be helped, only that nobody is. <S> However the real meaning is closer to just feeling like you can't do anything unless somebody helps you. <S> Edit : Your first suggested meaning is not correct, but there is a sense where that is a logical outcome of the real meaning. <S> If being helpless is a state of being incapable, unable to help yourself, unprotected, vulnerable etc ... then someone who is themselves helpless is probably not in a state where they could offer help to somebody else. <S> Therefore it is possible to see a meaning like you describe, but it is a secondary outcome not the primary meaning of the word. <A> " <S> The sentence "I feel so helpless" doesn't mean "I feel as though I am unable to offer help." <A> helpless = need help = <S> unable to do things on one's own. <S> I feel so helpless = <S> I need help = <S> I can't do things on my own
| The meaning of helpless is "unable to defend oneself or to act without help.
|
What is a good word between 'slave' and 'servant'? The word 'slave' suggests someone is owned and serves but brings to mind meanings of oppression. 'Servant' suggests someone is not owned but is merely employed to serve. Can anyone give me a word that may mean someone that is owned, serves, and is not oppressed by their owner, but is in fact taken care of and protected by him? <Q> Sorry, but there really isn't a good general purpose word for this in English. <S> There are some different words you can use for specific situations such as 'indentured servant', or 'serf', but it's a hard void to fill. <S> One solution used in some bible translations from older English usage is 'bondservant'. <A> A serf has a status in between that of a slave and that of a servant. <S> A serf cannot be sold but he is boundto a plot of land owned by hislord. <S> Serfdom was a common conditionin feudal Europe during the Middle ages until the plagueepidemics and abolished in Russia bythe liberal tsar Alexander II in the19th century . <S> A serf is not paid,instead he is required to work on his master's land and this takes precedence over his own plot. <S> A servant, in contrast, has wages andcan theoretically choose his master. <S> A slave <S> —there are many variations depending on the place and times—is bought and owned for life. <S> His emancipation depends entirely on his master's goodwill. <A> vassal (noun) 1.(in the feudal system) <S> a person granted the use of land, in return for rendering homage, fealty, and usually military service or its equivalent to a lord or other superior; feudal tenant. <S> 2.a person holding some similar relation to a superior; a subject, subordinate, follower, or retainer. <S> 3.a servant or slave. <S> vassal c.1300 (implied in vassalage ) <S> "tenant who pledges fealty to a lord," from O.Fr. <S> vassal, from M.L. vassallus "manservant, domestic, retainer," from vassus "servant," from O.Celt. <S> *wasso- <S> "young man, squire" (cf. <S> Welsh gwas "youth, servant," Bret. <S> goaz "servant, vassal, man," Ir. <S> foss "servant"). <S> The adj. is recorded from 1593. <A> You should use slave itself. <S> Slaves aren't always treated badly. <S> Slaves, like servants, are people who work for someone, but without wages. <S> How you treat them is up to you. <A> Two somewhat regional terms that might qualify here are peon and sharecropper . <S> On peonage : The origin of this form of involuntary servitude goes back to the Spanish conquest of Mexico when conquistadors forced poor Natives to work for Spanish planters and mine operators. <S> Wikipedia <S> On sharecropping : Sharecropping became widespread as a response to economic upheaval caused by the emancipation of slaves and disenfranchisement of poor whites in the agricultural South during Reconstruction. <S> Plantations had first relied on slaves for cheap labor. <S> Prior to emancipation, sharecropping was limited to poor landless whites, usually working marginal lands for absentee landlords. <S> Following emancipation, sharecropping came to be an economic arrangement that largely maintained the status quo between black and white through legal means. <S> Wikipedia
| Socially, yes, slaves is used for those who serve and yet receive bad treatment.
|
What is the difference between ‘discover’ and ‘uncover’? What is the difference between ‘discover’ and ‘uncover’? <Q> One generally "discovers" something that is unknown (or at least, unknown to the demographic being referred to), but they "uncover" something that has been deliberately hidden. <S> Essentially, to dis-cover something is to make it no longer covered. <S> To un-cover something it to remove a cover that was intentionally placed. <A> There are many cases where either word could be used. <S> However uncover carries the implication that something was covered or hidden, often on purpose or perhaps with the passing of time. <S> Something that was previously known is being re-discovered. <A> "uncover" emphasizes the preexistence of the truth, while "discover" does the creative work of the one who discovers. <S> The old truth unveils itself according to its own time, while a creative scientist disovers a new truth. <S> Thus,"uncover" attributes its credit to the truth itself, while "discover" does its credit to the work of man. <A> I discovered that he had been having an affair. <S> (I found out somehow) <S> I uncovered that he had been having an affair. <S> (I looked into it and found out, and I have exposed/will expose it to others) <S> "Discover" is more likely to go with words like "island" "path" "species of animals" "galaxy" or something concrete and finite. <S> "Uncover" is more likely to go with words like "mystery" "history" "scandal" "truth" or something that is abstract containing further detail.
| "Discover" is to find new objects or new information yourself, whereas "uncover" is to reveal something that has been hidden or unknown for long periods of time, often to the public.
|
What is the grammatical function of the word ‘ever’ in this example? What is the grammatical function of the word ever in this example? Police found the country's biggest ever drugs plantation. <Q> "Ever" is an adverb, it gives to "biggest" the connotation of "absoluteness", meaning that it was the biggest that the police could find. <S> It's adopted to indicate a temporal dimension, since ever usually means at any time . <A> Ever is used in comparisons for emphasis. <S> They felt better than ever before. <S> Our biggest ever range. <A> Like other such adverbs, it doesn't belong between the adjective and noun as in "biggest ever drugs plantation." <S> Broadcasters have started doing this for reasons of their own. <S> They are always trying to sound as emphatic as possible. " <S> Single biggest-ever", "huuuuuuge", "every single," "the actual game itself", etc. <S> They are putting on airs. <S> Feel free to speak the way people have for centuries, and the way you did when young, and say "biggest plantation ever. <S> " <S> "Ever" means "in history" or "in all time." <S> Would you say, "that was the biggest in history plantation" or "that was the biggest this year football game"? <S> Of course not. <S> So there is no reason to make an exception to this rule for "ever," unless perhaps you are taking an exam in broadcast school and have to accept their bizarre grammar rules to graduate.
| "Ever" is an adverb of time.
|
Sources say English was rhotic in the 17th century -- how do they know that? Sources say English was rhotic in most places in the 17th century. How do they know that? Obviously, we don't have any samples of recorded speech from that time. <Q> For one thing, there are dictionaries from that time that indicate pronunciation, and we can learn from how they write down pronunciation. <S> For example, I have heard Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary cited as a source on that matter. <A> The Wikipedia article about Rhotic and non-rhotic accents cites <S> the Oxford English Dictionary reports <S> bace for earlier barse (today "bass", the fish) in 1440 and passel for parcel in 1468. <S> which is more or less the time frame in the question. <S> This shows, assuming the spelling evolution follows the pronunciation shift, that in this words the rhotic pronunciation had disappeared as well. <S> Also have a look to a contemporary phenomenon named " The Great vowel shift ". <A> Well for one thing if it wasn't people would not write it <S> down(but <S> then again that's not always true because of influence from other language orthography)second the english left in the US that was left far before the one in australia has the r in many of it's variants and most importantly people wrote that the r sound was pronounced in pronunciation books or else when describing the way someone speaks also some extremists in the high classes in britian wanted the king to ban the dropping of r when it started picking up in their circle groups showing that it was pronounced ,definitely in some people!
| In addition to rhymes and dictionaries already noted, you can cite spelling shifts in which the "r" letter positioned after a vowel disappears from certain words.
|
What's an eloquent way to say "The secret is out?" What is a good way to say 'the secret is out'? <Q> The cat is out of the bag. <A> I think F’x has nailed the best one, with <S> But also: All is revealed! <S> (A classic phrase, in eg this urban legend .) <S> We’ve been rumbled! <S> (If it was “our” secret.) <S> The game is up! <S> (Works well as a confrontational one, e.g. detective collaring suspect.) <S> The beans are spilled! <S> (Better with an agent: Jacques spilled the beans. ) <A> Depending on the context, a secret can be uncovered, exposed, revealed, let out, disclosed, blabbed, discovered, manifested, unveiled, unmasked, divulged, confessed, unbosomed, dismasked, uncloaked, undraped, unshrouded, made known, confided, published, tattled, blurted, leaked, admitted, or squealed. <S> Other phrases: <S> the beans have been spilled, it has been brought to light, show one's hand (or cards), draw the veil, take out from under wraps, break the news, come out with, turn state's evidence, let slip, get off one's chest, blow one's cover, see its true colors. <S> (Thanks to Roget's ) <A> Apart from the cat quote, "the s--t has hit the fan" might apply, especially if there is heavy (media, legal, etc) fallout starting to occur from said uncovering. <A> Usually, when a secret is out, either an activity is brought to a halt, or consequences follow. <S> For such events, some pertinent phrases are: <S> The game is up <S> The burble has burst <S> The honeymoon is over <S> The whistle has been blown (not usually in the passive, though) <S> The skeleton is out <A> One that I use sometimes is: "The jig is up" <A> I don't know how popular this is <S> but I often hear and the earth is round . <S> When someone is holding a secret and it seems like everyone else knows and that person reveals it, one might say "and the earth is round" sarcastically. <A> The kimono has been opened gets some exposure, maybe too much. <A> The pickle is out of the jar. <S> I told my friends <S> I was gay and one of them shouted this out loudly.
| The cat’s out of the bag. The dirty linen/laundry has been exposed
|
What is a feminine version of "dude"? OK . . . another one similar to "What is a feminine version of 'guys'?" "Dude" is masculine; what is the feminine version? The usage I'm thinking of is that "dude" nowadays is used primarily as a way to address a person very colloquially, e.g.: "Dude, why are you squirting rubbing alcohol on the grill to start it up?" "Dude, pass me a brew." Again as in the other "guys" case, it might be culturally acceptable to say "dude" to a female, but I'm not sure, and it feels a little wrong (and has for 30 years). So what are some suggestions for acceptable female-gendered alternatives? babe: might work, but sounds a little too diminutive (or does it?) dudette: cute, but hasn't caught on (but could it?) Australians have "bruce" and "sheila" (I hear from the movies) but that just doesn't fly in AmE (and maybe that's already out of fashion). What do Californians say (as "dude" in my description seems to come from there)? What do the surfers say? Any suggestions? It may be the suggestion is that there is no perfect parallel. <Q> Among many of my friends (mostly 20-somethings, geeky, scattered throughout UK/US/Canada, including a couple of Californians), dude as a form of address is completely gender-neutral. <S> So I often greet some of my female friends with “Dude, how’s things going?” or similar. <S> As a noun referring to other people, though, it’s usually still male-specific for me: “We passed a bunch of crazy dudes in the street…” would imply an all-male group, or at least predominantly male. <S> Of course, though, this is all hugely subculture-dependent! <A> There's always " dudette ", but that's seldom used when talking to someone. <S> IME, it's more used in phrasing like "Dudes and dudettes, listen up!" <A> I'm from california and am a teenager. <S> We still use dude to refer to girls. <S> I'm a girl <S> and i would say to my other female friends " <S> dude <S> I found a gnarly trail yesterday, we should for sure scope it out <S> yeah? <S> " Or else if you're trying to summon a group then we just say the typical "guys, look!" <S> ya know? <S> Oh and never ever say dudette. <S> You'll get the worst look for trying to be a surfer poser. <S> And no one really says 'chica' either in cali <S> so i wouldn't suggest that. <S> But i mean if you visit norcal, at least, just stick with your native slang, we love people's phrases from other places, especially if you're from England, its a mutual love for each other <S> yeah? <S> California loves England, England loves California. <S> Or else don't use any name, just say <S> "pass me the sauce" instead of "dude or brah <S> pass me the brew". <S> Brah is also super commonly used, typically between bros but some stoner chicks use it too. <A> According to a 1901 article quoted in this answer to the question, Etymology of “dude” and progression in language , the original feminine version of dude was dud . <S> (Just adding this as a historical curiosity, not a present-day suggestion.) <A> I've used chick (or chica on ocassion) for this purpose. <S> Lately if it's someone I know extremely well and am close to I'll use hooker <S> but I think that won't last too long before it gets old. <S> Here in the south we also use girrrrrrrrrrrl with a drawl when you want to engage someone for further conversation as opposed to a casual greeting/acknowledgment. <A> It's also somewhat familiar. <S> Jon Stewart called the President "dude" during an interview on The Daily Show . <S> That tells me dude is rather common, relatively. <S> The people who thought Stewart was being too familiar were largely older, or more formal generally, or in the press and found it a breach of etiquette. <S> I am so used to hearing people address each other as dude, I didn't even notice! <S> The first time I was addressed as dude, I was an adult, and this was about fifteen years ago. <S> Since I am female, it hit my ear wrong. <S> The guy (yes, guy) who called me "dude" said it was a term of endearment, so that put me at ease. <S> Then I heard it more often and from other people. <S> Like I said, I don't think about it anymore. <S> If you've been hearing it for thirty years and it still hits your ear as exclusively male, maybe that will never change. <S> But the kids these days, they pretty much use it as gender-neutral. <S> A female equivalent would have to be both familiar and common. <S> I don't think there is a word that perfectly fits that. <S> Sometimes I say/hear "chick", but that's very familiar. <S> Don't say it to someone you don't know. <S> " <S> Babe" is extremely familiar. <S> Don't even think of saying that to a stranger. <S> Sometimes I say/hear "chica", which is also familiar, but I live in New York and hear it a lot. <S> I would never call a guy "chico". <S> Dudette? <S> Really, dude? <S> No one says dudette, unless they're being self-conscious about it. <S> So, sorry, I think you'll have to get used to calling women "dude". <S> But hey, I did, so there's hope. <A> Most recently it's "Dude". <S> I've heard it mostly between females but frequently enough to consider it current slang. <S> It's always said with a bit of irony, usually as an exclamation; "Dude!" <S> It's meant to be funny and a little edgy. <S> Just a personal observation. <A> Why not just "girl?" <S> "Chica" is probably specific to areas with large Hispanic populations, and "dudette" is almost never used except as a parody of California slang. <S> "Girl" seems a quite close match for "dude;" it's colloquial and highly familiar, but it doesn't have the vaguely rude connotation of "guy." <S> Girl, pass me a brew. <A> For me, the most natural female replacement for dude would be hon (short for 'honey', used rather sarcastically): <S> Look, dude, I'm not interested. <S> Look, hon, I'm not interested. <A> The problem's that most of the female alternatives given come off as either infantializing (girl, sis, babe, chick), belittling, or otherwise chock full of male gaze (hon, sweetie). <S> Dudette doesn't have these problems, but is clunky and feels like a PC afterthought of "dude". <S> "Gal" might be the best female-specific option, but I'm thinking we're just gonna have to stick with "dude" until a better female or gender-neutral term arises. <A> It depends upon your cultural background: <S> Girlfriend is certainly used amongst some sets, it is particularly popular amongst African Americans, but had been gaining in popularity amongst other groups. <S> I frequently use girlie or toots with my close female friends. <S> If you don't know the person well enough, this may come off as misogynistic. <S> My friends know me well enough to know I like speaking like a 1930s gangster at times, and find it cute. <S> And, of course as many before me have pointed out: dude has become androgynous. <A> I've heard the Spanish chica increasingly used this way by English speakers: chica <S> noun a female friend. <S> Also used endearingly as "chiquita". <S> What's up, chica? <S> The Online Slang Dictionary
| Dude, as a colloquial term of address, is gender-neutral.
|
How derogatory is “chicks” when used to refer to women? A comment in “What is a feminine version of guys ?” got me wondering: how derogatory is the use of chicks to refer to women (either in general, or to a specific group). To me (I'm a man), it was quite disrespectful, so that it may be some slang term you use with male buddies (“See the hot chick over there?”), but I would not use the term in presence of women: neither in direct address (“Hi chicks!”, as I would say “Hi gals!” to a group of friends) nor when referring to other women. How derogatory is chick ? In what contexts would you use it, as a man? And when used by a woman? <Q> As normally derogatory as "chicks" is, there are many specific contexts where it isn't derogatory at all. <S> While I would never walk into a room full of girls and say, "Hey chicks," because it would be disrespectful, in the same room I wouldn't hesitate to use a phrase like "chicks dig scars" or mention some climbing group like "Chicks with Picks". <A> As a man, I still consider it derogatory and would not use it in any normal conversation. <S> (Thus, young woman = "chick".) <S> It was almost invariably used between men, with the "bird" being a form of quarry to be hunted, and the term still has that connotation. <S> It is definitely dismissive; the person referred to that way is not on an even status with the speaker. <S> As far as groups that refer to themselves with it, such as the cited "Dixie Chicks" and "Chicks with Picks", I consider them to have understood the connotations and intentionally used it ironically. <S> I'll refer to the organization as they prefer, but personally I still wouldn't walk up to a random member of "Chicks with Picks" and say, "Hey chick, come over here. <S> " <S> At least, if I did I wouldn't expect a positive reaction. :) <A> NOAD claims chick is derogatory, but I would dispute that claim. <S> For one thing, it's not too derogatory if women themselves use it about themselves. <S> Think of the country music group <S> The Dixie Chicks , who, according to Wikipedia, "took their band name from the song "Dixie Chicken" by Lowell George of Little Feat. <S> Presumably they would have refused to convert chicken to chick if they felt it disrespected women. <S> And if you've ever seen the group (which sings songs like "Thank Heavens for Dale Evans"), you realize they're not making the same kind of statement with their name as, say, the rap group <S> N.W.A. <S> Then think of terms like "chick flicks" and "chick lit" — men may use them to express their disaffection with such subjects, but women equally embrace them. <S> My wife and her friends, for example, use those terms enthusiastically and without reservation. <S> Indeed, this points up a contradiction in NOAD's characterization, since it defines "chick flick" this way: <S> chick <S> flick <S> noun informal a movie that appeals mainly to women. <S> What was claimed to be derogatory is now merely informal. <S> How's that for consistency? <S> If it's derogatory as a noun, certainly it ought to be derogatory as an adjective or attributive noun. <S> And if it's derogatory at all, it's certainly not on the same level as calling a gay man a "fag" or a Lesbian a "dyke" or a black man a — <S> well, you get the idea. <S> Chick is pretty mild stuff, and pretty well accepted in informal conversation. <A> Found an interesting, though possibly dated, discussion of the term at Green Left . <S> It's a feminist argument against the growing popularity of the term and the idea that once derogatory terms can be "reclaimed. <S> " It's full of zingers like this: Even if the generally understood meaning of some words used to describe women does change, this doesn't in itself alter capitalist society's reliance on (and constant efforts to reinforce) the oppression of women. <A> Lighten up, everyone. <S> Friendly <S> , on a double date: "Let's see this movie. <S> What do the chicks think about it?" <S> Appreciative: " <S> That's a real cool chick." <S> Informal: " <S> Chick flick" Sneering: <S> "Think you're some kind of really hot chick?" <S> It's a diminutive but not offensive per se . <S> Substitute "cutie" for "chick" and it doesn't change the intended meaning. <S> This is unlike other words, always offensive, like "cunt", where an impolite body term stands for the person, like calling a guy a "dick". <S> Always negative. <A> Context and intent are enormous - they preceded language as we know it now, and without them language is a sad, lost servant with no master. <S> When I use a word, am I speaking in a mean or a simply thoughtless tone, or am I speaking with a loving smile? <S> I have good friends (married for over 30 years). <S> He always addresses her as "chick". <S> It no doubt started out as a tease decades ago, but it is said and quite clearly heard as affectionate, and I think it was then. <S> If he stopped calling her "chick" she'd probably start to worry. <S> If I call my best buddy, "hey, old fart", does he think our relationship has done a 180 degree turn? <S> Although his example may not be the best, I have to agree with Noah's take on this. <S> While "chick" may frequently be taken as offensive, and is therefor not a word to use lightly with strangers, it is by no means automatically and always offensive. <S> I find it much further from the "automatically offensive" end of the continuum than many words are. <S> I notice also that up to this point (as far as one can tell by Internet handles and avatars) no members of the feminine persuasion have weighed in on this. <S> So maybe we're all just blowing hot air.
| I will agree that it's quite mild as a term, not a major insult, but it's still derogatory. It's originally a slang term, derived (if I'm not mistaken) from the older British slang of "bird" for a woman. It's all in the tone and intent, not in the word.
|
What's the meaning of “in virtue of itself”? Therefore, as Aristotle expressed it, things are what they are only relative to other things, and nothing is what it is simply in virtue of itself <Q> What you are asking about concerns philosophical relativism, of which Aristotle was an early critic. <S> He felt that if such a concept were applied only to appearances, contradictions would occur if those apparent qualities were applied indiscriminately to all things. <S> The solution to this paradox was his notion of essentialism : <S> In simple terms, essentialism is a generalization stating that certain properties possessed by a group (e.g. people, things, ideas) are universal, and not dependent on context. <S> The fragment that you cite in your example is actually Aristotle framing his opponents' argument so that he might reject it. <A> The New Oxford American Dictionary has by (or in ) <S> virtue of : <S> because or as a result of which here means “by being itself”, “by existing” or, at Caleb put it, “on its own”. <A> This is a strange way to make a statement and not in common usage, but in this case you could replace "simply in virtue of itself" with "on its own".
| Basically the statement is saying that things do not have any intrinsic identity , they are defined by their relation to other things.
|
Is the usage of the idiom "Move Over" in this passage clear on what side to move over to? Consider this passage in the Georgia DDS 2010 Driver’s Manual : on page 40: The Georgia Move-Over Law requiresdrivers to move over one lane whenpossible if an emergency vehicle withflashing lights is parked on theshoulder of the highway. If traffic istoo heavy to move over safely, the lawrequires drivers to slow down belowthe posted speed limit AND to beprepared to stop. Without knowing why to move over, does the "Move-Over" usage above make it clear to where ? This law is a safety law, but if someone doesn't know that, is there a grammatical support to it? If instead of "Emergency vehicle... of the highway" it was "an Emergency vehicle is flashing its lights behind you" it might have been understood as move to the left, Therefore the only clue to the understanding of where to move to is common sense and meaning and not sentence grammar. Note that it is phrased "Move-Over ... if an emergency vehicle ..." and not "Move-Over ... for " one So can it be understood by any reader, that it requires to Move Over to the right and not the left? <Q> When reading the passage, I assumed it referred to travel on a multi-lane highway where the shoulder would usually refer to the far right hand side of the road <S> (the far left being considered the median ). <S> Given this, I assumed that it meant move over to the left , away from the shoulder where emergency vehicles (particularly police cars issuing tickets to speeders) are usually parked. <S> In looking at the actual Georgia law , by the way, I noticed that it does not even use the phrase move over —or the word shoulder for that matter. <S> Instead it says make a lane change and seems to be written to allow for a lane change in either direction as long as it is to a lane not adjacent to the parked emergency vehicle. <A> Can it be understood by any reader? <S> At least one person was confused so clearly the answer is 'no' :) <S> But I think the context would make it clear to "most" readers. <S> Even if you didn't understand that it was a safety law, what sense is there in telling people to crowd over toward a stopped emergency vehicle on the side of the road? <A> In the passage you cited, there is no indication whatsoever as to which -direction- to move over. <S> There is no real semantic difference between ' <S> if' and 'for' here (other than 'for' is not grammatical in place of the 'if'). <S> I would presume that such a manual would have general rules like 'Carry out further rules in the safest manner possible', and 'safest' would involve some judgement and common sense (yes, the rule book is sort of a list of common sense things). <S> For example, a general rule might be 'Do not pass on the right' but an unstated common sense exception would be 'unless you're passing a stopped vehicle in the left most lane'. <S> For the instance you're thinking of, maybe if you're in a multi-lane traffic, the default is to move over/pull over to the right, but if you're closer to the left side you might be expected to pullover to the left. <S> This is pure speculation, and I have no idea of the particulars of your situation. <A> The purpose of this law (which isn't limited to Georgia) is to ensure the safety of police officers performing traffic stops. <S> Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous aspects of a police officer's job and this law is an attempt to mitigate the inherent dangers associated. <S> The Move-Over Law requires drivers to move away from the vehicle with the flashing lights so as to give them a physical buffer. <S> Generally, the stopped vehicle will be to the right of the road, but in some instances it could be on the left and the implication (in this case) <S> would be that drivers should move to the right.
| As others have said, grammatically the sentence does not specify which way to move.
|
Is there a better way to say: "My question is, is..." (e.g. "The question is, is it the right time") It feels a little weird for me (or should I say to me?) to say: So my question is, is having two 'Is' correct? And also this seems to me incorrect grammatically: So my question is, is having two 'Is' is correct? Are any of the above grammatically correct? Is there a better way to ask the question in the examples? <Q> It's ok to repeat words sometimes. <S> The sentence makes sense. <S> My question is: Is having two "is"es correct? <S> is grammatically equivalent to <S> My question is: Are two "is"es allowable? <S> the first part introduces the second part and it's pretty clear which words belong to which parts. <S> But if you're uncomfortable with it, re-word it. <A> I'd just get rid of the "So my question is," and simply state the question. <S> This removes unnecessary words, makes it more direct (which is good, unless you're [unconsciously] trying to avoid asking the question), and generally doesn't irritate impatient people who love to say, "Spit it out already!". <A> I assume you are using <S> My questions is... to emphasise your point after someone has misunderstood your question. <S> If that is the case, you could go for <S> I am asking if... <S> This would need further rewording for the remainder of the sentence. <S> Observe below: <S> A: <S> Is the monkey related to the panda? <S> B: <S> The panda eats Bamboo whereas the Monkey eats Bananas. <S> A: I am asking if the monkey is related to the panda. <S> (My question is, is the monkey related to the panda) you can see how the verb 'to be' has moved from the beginning of the clause - where it would be placed in a direct question - to follow the subject as it is now a reported/indirect question. <S> A: <S> Oh, I'm sorry. <S> The answer is no. <S> I hope this helps. <A> Well, a grammatically valid form would probably be ... <S> Is having two "is"'s correct? , or in writing, with font control, maybe ... <S> Is having two <S> is 's correct? <S> But anything like that is always going to sound ungainly. <S> I'd just ask Is it ok to have 'is' twice?
| If you're writing then you can re-word it to eliminate any chance of confusion or any semblance of impropriety, but for speaking it's fine.
|
Why do we say "[expletive] ALL" for "nothing"? Damn all , Bugger all , Sod all etc., etc. What does all mean here? How did the expression originate? Was there a single original term (expletive or not) preceding all in this usage? At the risk of overbroadening the question, does the underlying linguistic mechanism that gives rise to this expression generate others that are very similar? And are there close parallels in other languages? <Q> As in, "Nothing works, damn everything." <S> The fuck or damn emphatically negates the <S> all to say, "fuck all choices." <S> Less explicit ways to use the phrase do exist. <S> The first that comes to mind: "Hang all." <A> Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English leads us on this wild goose chase: bugger all : (see damn all ) <S> damn all : (bowdlerization of fuck all ) <S> fuck all : a low variant of damn all : nothing: late C. 19-20. <S> There is no explanation of why this is used. <S> Perhaps the reason is lost to us. <A> It is widely accepted that the others are all variations of F**ck All. <S> It is further thought that F**k All is in fact a misunderstanding of the phrase 'sweet F.A.', meaning 'nothing at all'. <S> The story: <S> The phrase 'Sweet F.A.' is of British military origin and refers to Fanny Adams, a girl who was murdered quite gruesomely in the mid-1800s. <S> British naval soldiers likened their unpleasant meat rations to the remains of Fanny Adams. ' <S> Sweet Fanny Adams' or 'Sweet F.A.' was then applied as a slang term for mutton and eventually for anything worthless. <S> Later, F.A. was assumed, by those not knowing the origin, to mean 'F**k All'. <S> Finally, with the 'F word' being as harsh as it is, it is often replaced by euphemism or lesser expletives, which has given rise to the variations you mentioned. <S> Hope this helps. <A> Not to make things worse... <S> but...I've begun to wonder if there was at one time (since the meanings/usage seem to have diverged) a link between F.A. (as Fuck All) and <S> Fucking A.Nothing particular suggests this but <S> the obsurity of origin of both FA and F'n A give me an itch. <S> If FA and Fanny Adams can be linked, with Fanny being pretty well documented to have military origin, I note F'n A seems to be believed to have military origin. <S> Here we have a reason to get rid of censorship... <S> it interferes with the studdy of words.
| I have always taken the "all" here to mean "everyone" or "everything".
|
What is the meaning of P.S. in a name? I have a project to parse names and there's a thing called title (mr. dr.), suffix (esq. ph.d.) and generation (ii, iii, jr.), but I don't have the faintest idea what "p.s." is. It's in the following format and it's a lawyer: Sunde, Kit T. P.S. <Q> P.S. Stands for Professional Service Corporation <S> it's a legal designation like Inc. or LLC. <A> For instance, a name listed as John Smith, MD tells you that John Smith is a doctor of medicine (MD is originally from the Latin “Medicinæ Doctor”). <S> So, that’s what I would expect them to be here. <S> There’s no qualification abbreviated as P.S. <S> that’s well-known as MD or PhD , but googling suggests it can sometimes represent either Professional Surveyor or Police Sergeant . <S> For a lawyer, I guess Professional Surveyor is more likely. <S> Alternatively, the way you write it, Sunde, Kit T. P.S. , it looks perhaps like those are middle initials — <S> some very prolix parents named him “Kit Thomas Percival Snyder Sunde” — and the space separating the T. and the P.S. comes just from careless typing. <S> Could that be the case in your source data? <A> Professional Surveyor. <S> sometimes you will see it as P.S. and sometimes as PS. <S> I am a Professional Surveyor. <S> some lawyers are surveyors also. <A> It can be several things, depending on the person's profession, e.g. professional service, personal service, public servant…
| Capitalised initials following a name often represent a professional qualification , falling within your suffix category.
|
What is the female version of "phallic"? What is the female version of "phallic"? phal·lic/ˈfalik/Adjective Of, relating to, or resembling a phallus or erect penis. It would have a definition as: Of, relating to, or resembling a vagina. <Q> I think @canadiancreed/Merriam-webster's yonic is a bit quaint. <S> It certainly has a longer history, but that may be because its ancient Sanskrit origins give it a certain air of respectability. <S> Vulvic is more common today , perhaps because we live in an age that doesn't pussy-foot around delicate subjects quite so much (if you'll pardon the double-entendres ). <S> But if we were to allow whimsical neologisms, I'd have to go for male: <S> phallic = female: <A> According to Merriam-webster, that would be the term yonic . <A> Pudendal is the adjective version of pudenda , which means the external genital organs, especially of a woman. <A> Lingam is Sanskrit and so is Yoni. <S> Besides meaning male and female genitals, they represent represent spiritual concepts such as 'male' and 'female' aspect of godhead. <S> If 'yonic' is female, then 'lingamic' if I can say so, is the male version. <S> We have to look for or coin one for phallic. <A> The word labial might work, depending on what you are trying to convey. <A> A quick stop by anatomy informs that the female homologue to the male phallus (penis) is the clitoris . <S> Phallic comes from the Ancient Greek phallos by way of Late Latin phallus . <S> Conveniently, clitoral comes from the Ancient Greek kleitoris , also by way of Late Latin . <S> By this deduction, the female analog to phallic is clitoral .
| phannic (which works better for Brits, since our fanny is always a front bottom , not a backside).
|
Proper usage of "Dreaded" "X is dreaded by Y", who is the one causing the dread - and who is on the receiving end? <Q> But it sounds a bit odd. <S> Y dreads <S> X is shorter and easier to grasp. <S> Y is really scared of X is longer but actually more likely to used, I think. <A> X is causing the dread, and Y is affected by it. <S> The verb means "to fear": <S> X is feared by Y, i.e. Y fears X. <S> If you are dreaded, you cause dread. <S> If you have dread, you dread something dreadful. <S> I know, <S> dreadful (causing dread) isn't entirely logical. <S> The suffix <S> -ful <S> is to blame, because it is used in different ways; consider "hopeful" (person experiencing hope, or thing causing hope) and "painful" (thing causing pain). <S> The King dreaded his mother's arrival. <S> His face turned pale when the dreaded silhouette appeared in the entrance to the throne room. <S> She was dreaded by all for her lashing tongue and dominating character. <S> The verb to dread was once also used in the opposite sense "to cause fear", but this sense is now obsolete; the Oxford English Dictionary's latest quotation of this sense is from 1681. <A> It seems that it could read either way. <S> Using dreaded as a transitive verb it reads <S> X fears <S> Y. Using it as an adjective Y fears X. I do agree with the others that i's unclear and probably a new construction is probably best. <S> I vote for just 'X dreads Y'. <A> If I were to say He dreads the test tomorrow <S> It means that 'he' is feeling worry or fear regarding the test tomorrow. <S> I could also apply the passive voice The test tomorrow is dreaded by him While I am not one who pushes for limitation of passive, as many do, I would probably avoid it in this case. <S> Therefore, in your example (X is dreaded Y), X is the scary thing, though I would probably opt instead for the construction <S> Y dreads <S> X <S> If you are looking for a more comfortable usage of the word 'dreaded', it is most often applied as an adjective: <S> The dreaded demon walked towards her. <S> where 'dreaded' means 'very scary'. <A> The clause is in passive voice, so the noun before the verb is the direct object of the verb, and the one following the word "by" is the ablative object (which is essentially the same as being the subject of the verb). <S> The passive-voice "X is dreaded by Y" has the same meaning as the active-voice "Y dreads X".
| Well, you could say X is dreaded by Y (where Y is the frightened one).
|
Why is news said to be "breaking"? I was just wondering what the origins of " breaking news" or "we broke the story" are. <Q> The word breaking in this context means to undergo a change or enter a new state, in particular ... of news or a scandal [NOAD] <S> Etymonline has this interesting tidbit to offer about break : Meaning "to disclose" is from mid-13c. <S> That meaning is the flip side of the way you used it, and it is a transitive verb: "He broke the news to me that .." I believe that got modified to "breaking news" by extension. <A> I worked in the Radio and TV industry as an engineer for over 30 years and have followed the evolution of the term "breaking". <S> This is how I see it. <S> The term "breaking" refers to a technical procedure used inside a broadcasting studio. <S> Also, it's used by CB radio operators when one keys open the microphone and says, "breaker, breaker or 10-50" to announce their entrance on the channel. <S> In the early days of radio broadcasting, some affiliate stations could interrupt a closed-circuit network feed by "Breaking In", using an electronic video/audio switching system. <S> During normal operation, a station would be feeding out programs, either produced in-house or pulled in from the network main center. <S> Prior to CNN, three major network centers (ABC, CBS, NBC) managed the network feeds, sending out programming like The Nightly News, Sitcoms and movies. <S> When there's a major disaster, for example, the nearest affiliate feeds their story to their network headquarters who would, then, send it back out for distribution. <S> All the affiliates would have access to the disaster story. <S> The "ABC Special Report" is an example of a true a break in. <S> The announcer would say, "We interrupt our regularly scheduled program...". <S> They don't have to say, "... <S> breaking news" because it would be redundant. <S> Interrupt means the same. <S> As TV stations grew in number, so did the competition for viewers. <S> Around the late 70's, a new generation of broadcasters had no knowledge of what Breaking meant and some "bean-counter" thought that it would be a great word for alerting the audience. <S> So, it went from being studio engineer jargon to an on-air declaration, so overused that it has lost its sting. <S> Now, we can receive a 24-hour feed, directly from FOX, CNN and other production centers. <S> When a FOX News host says, "We now bring you breaking news.... <S> ", it's all gratuitous because they are already on the network! <S> In the traditional definition, they can't break into themselves! <A> We can say 'the breaking of day' or <S> 'morning broke' meaning that it is the start of this event. <S> ' <S> We broke the story' means we caused it to become a new event by being the first to spread it. <A> "Breaking" news, is "fresh" news that is happening AS WE SPEAK. <S> We "broke" the story, means, we caught "it as it was happening" <S> (Think of "breaking new ground.") <S> In English grammar, it is a reference to the "present progressive" tense. <A> To break the news to someone most probably is the image of the medieval messenger who bears his message as a roll of parchment, rolled together and sealed. <S> When he comes to the king he breaks the seal and reads the message to the king. <S> He breaks the news to him, actually he breaks the seal and reads the news to him. <S> This two-part expression was shortened, with to break from the first part and news from the second part. <S> Astonishing that etymonline does not mention to break the news to someone. <A> Perhaps they're called " breaking news" because they break the normal, scheduled programming? <A> I believe it derives from the newspaper industry. <S> Before the invention of movable type, a page of news print was printed from a single plate which contained all the text for the page. <S> If, after the plate was cast, an error was found, or a new important story came in, a new plate would have to be created. <S> The old plate, now useless, would be broken up. <S> Hence, breaking news.
| Breaking news here means that it is new.
|
Difference in pronunciation between "your" and "you're"? I'm a native English speaker (Texas counts, I suppose), and I pronounce "your" to rhyme with "core", and "you're" to rhyme with "cure". Is it just me or did I pick this up somewhere? <Q> The American English pronunciation for <S> you're <S> is /jʊ(ə)r/, /jər/ <S> ; the pronunciation for your is /jʊ(ə)r/, /jər/. <S> In British English, the pronunciation are respectively /jɔː/, /jə/, /jʊə/; and /jɔː/, /jʊə/. <A> I looked up the dictionary, since I'm not a native speaker and <S> the IPA gives the same pronunciation, even though there are two possible pronunciations. <S> your |yôr <S> ; yoŏr| - possessive adjective <S> 1. <S> belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing : what is your name? <S> and you're |yoŏr <S> ; yôr| - contraction of you are : you're an angel, Deb! <S> So I suppose that what you referred to was about the accent ? <S> Considering <S> you said you are from Texas and not, for example, from England or another English speaking country. <A> UPDATE: <S> The American Heritage Dictionary agrees with you. <S> They list /yôr/ <S> as an acceptable variant pronunciation for <S> your but not for you're . <S> However, since they don't say what dialects this pronunciation is found in, I don't know whether the speculation in my original post below is correct. <S> ORIGINAL POST: <S> In the U.S., there are a number of accents which don't have the phoneme /ʊɹ/ in moor . <S> (My mother, from rural Illinois, had one of these accents, and I used this accent's pronunciation for many of these words when I was young.) <S> In these accents, the phoneme is replaced by either /ɝ/ <S> as in purr or /ɔɹ/ <S> as in pore ; the rule is that generally, words that are pronounced with /jʊɹ/ <S> (pure, cure) <S> the phoneme is replaced by /jɝ/, and words that are pronounced with no /j/ <S> ( poor , moor , sure ), the phoneme is replaced by /ɔɹ/. 1 <S> It may be that in some of these accents, you're and your get disambiguated by having you're rhyme with purr , and your rhyme with pore . <S> I do know that pronouncing <S> you're with /ɔɹ/ <S> sounds wrong to me, whereas pronouncing your either way sounds fine. <S> I'm just guessing, but it's possible that one of these accents influenced your pronunciation of your and <S> you're . <S> 1 <S> This rule only works for the final syllable of words. <S> Otherwise, the sound generally changes to /ɝ/. <A> In the U.K. we are taught that they all sound the same (at least I was). <S> Its this that gives the words their difficulty for native speakers. <S> When you learn to write you realize that one spoken word is written in different ways that depends upon the context. <S> It could be that in some schools they give slightly different pronunciations to the words, so that when children learn to speak they realize that they are different words from an earlier age - ready for when they learn to write. <S> A German speaking friend remarked once that he found the mistake very funny. <S> But he learnt to write English at the same time as he learnt to speak, so they were always different words. <S> There was never the confusion. <S> Its similar to their, there and they're - for me they are all said the same. <A> This is intriguing. <S> That said, I am a from England and there are indeed many pronunciation variations without even travelling to the other Eng speaking countries (America, Canada, Australia - even India and Singapore). <S> What makes this even more difficult to comment on is that I don't know how you pronounce the words 'core' and 'cure' as there are places in England <S> where these words would 'rhyme' with each other - of course 'cure' has a diphthong (the inclusion of the 'y' sound at the beginning of the vowel sound) but they could both end with the same sound (like the word 'or'). <S> c - or c <S> - y - or <S> So... <S> Your - you're <S> There is no real reason that one person should pronounce these two words differently; they are homophones, which means they sound identical. <S> However, dialectical variations are innumerable and <S> so we can't really tell you you are wrong. <A> I tend to pronounce your/you're differently. <S> However in fast speech, you're can become [jɻ̩] as well. <S> I typically say you're as 2 syllables, because I almost always pronounce "'re" as /ɻ̩/ except in fast speech. <S> Similarly, I differentiate between there <S> /their/they're. <S> "There" becomes [ðɛ˞], "their" [ðeɻ], and "they're" [ðe.ɻ̩]. <S> However the distinction is lost in fast speech when they all become [ðɛ˞].
| In theory, they should sound the same; though one person might pronounce the words differently from another person, they should only have one pronunciation for both words. I pronounce "your" as [jɔ˞] or [jɻ̩] and "you're" as [ju.ɻ̩] or [jʊ˞].
|
Answer or solution to an exercise? In the context of the word exercise , e.g. in a textbook, is it more common to say answer or solution ? <Q> It would depend what the exercise was; if it is a question such as "What is the capital of Mongolia?", the response is an answer . <S> If the question were something like "find the length of the hypotenuse of this triangle", you could use either word; the workings would be part of the solution but not part of the answer . <S> I'd also suggest that an incorrect response to either question could be called an answer , but wouldn't be a solution . <A> Answer is the word you are looking for. <S> My dictionary says: Answer • a thing written or said in reaction to a question in a test or quiz : <S> write your answers on a postcard. <S> Like the definition says, it is what you say in response to the exercise's question, being it an actual question or a fill-in-the-gap type, such as: <S> Mary _ __ _ _ (go) to the Mall yesterday. <S> Your answer would be " went " in this case. <S> What you call solution reminds me of the solutions section at the end of the Textbook, but it is rather called Key than "solution". <S> Plus solution meant as "answer" is too general, since solution can be the "answer" to a problem and not just to an exercise. <A> Interesting question. <S> Your choice of 'answer' or 'solution' would lie in what the exercise was. <S> The verb for exercise would most likely be 'complete' or simply do. <S> Answer the question. <S> -or- <S> Provide an answer to the question. <S> Solve the problem. <S> -or- provide a solution to the problem.
| 'Answer' would be used with a question and'solution' with a problem.
|
"Like fun, but dangerous" That looks like fun, but dangerous. Is that sentence grammatically correct? Is there anything wrong with it? I think it might be grammatically incorrect because if you remove the word "fun," then it becomes That looks like dangerous. which is obviously incorrect. I think to be grammatically correct, it should be something like That looks like fun, but it's dangerous. or That looks like fun, but it also looks dangerous. <Q> Well, I see nothing wrong with it. <S> It is a rhetorical device known as ellipsis , which involves the removing of expected words for effect. <S> Why is it not only correct but actually good? <S> Ward Farnsworth ascribes these traits to ellipsis: a. <S> An ellipsis involves the audience in an utterance; the reader or listener fills in the missing language, consciously or not. <S> b. <S> Missing words sometimes are a small surprise. <S> The result may be a moment of emphasis on whatever was omitted. <S> c. <S> The omission of words can create a sense of brevity, energy, and elegance. <S> d. <S> Often an ellipsis occurs because a later phrase borrows a word from an earlier one. <S> The effect of this can be to tie two phrases together more snugly and strengthen the link between them. <S> I submit that <S> That looks like fun, but dangerous. <S> at least employs the effects described in (c) and <S> (d) above, and probably (a) as well. <S> And as the meaning is understood immediately by all but the slowest or most obstinate minds, there is no harm done to the sense of the communication. <S> What else could "dangerous" possibly refer to but <S> "That"? <S> Also, it's much better than filling in the missing words: <S> That looks like fun, but looks dangerous. <S> or, because now fussiness has taken over, the left brain will cry for more words to be added to nail it all down even more: <S> That looks like fun, but it also looks dangerous. <S> Neither of these improves the original. <S> One might say the latter slowly, using extra words to make sure someone (a child perhaps) got the meaning crystal clear, but in most cases such over-emphasis would not be necessary. <S> Making something longer does not necessarily make it better. <S> As Pascal once wrote to a friend, "I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter." <A> Nicholas Ainsworth refers to ellipsis, which is where we can remove words from a sentence that are already understood by the reader/listener. <S> In the case of ellipsis, the grammatical structure set out in the first part must be conformed to by the latter. <S> In the example given, That looks like fun, but dangerous Would have to become <S> That looks like fun <S> but that looks like dangerous. <S> Therefore, to correct this you should choose: That looks fun but dangerous. <S> That looks fun but (that looks) dangerous. <S> You could also go for: <S> That looks like it's fun but dangerous. <S> That looks like fun but also looks dangerous. <A> Your suggestions would work, but I would be inclined to just remove the "like" from the sentence instead, to make it "That looks fun, but dangerous". <S> The "like" in the sentence only weakens it, and isn't necessary. <A> It is grammatical: In English certain parts of a sentence may be removed but understood. <S> This is an example. <S> So the 'grammatical' version you wrote just includes those missing parts. <S> I can say: 'I ate apples and (I ate) oranges.' <S> I can remove ' <S> I ate' <S> Also I can say: 'I saw the killer - and (I saw) Jack.' <S> Also: 'I slept and <S> (I) missed my appointment.' <S> Some grammarians call the process of removing these elements 'elipsis'.
| You are correct, "That looks like fun, but dangerous" is not right.
|
Is there a single word for "money-mindedness"? I'm looking for a single word for describing a person "whose motive is dictated by money"...I seem to recall there was an elegant word for this, but I can't remember it now...can someone help? <Q> Mercenary comes to mind <S> But there are more: <S> acquisitive, avaricious, bribable, corrupt, covetous, grabby, grasping, <S> miserly, money-grubbing, selfish, sordid, stingy, unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous, venal <A> pecunious Etymology: <S> < Middle French <S> pécunieux <S> (c1370 as peccunieux in sense 1, 1498 as pecunieulx (plural) in the passage translated in quot. <S> 1509 at sense 2; French pécunieux , now rare) and its etymon classical Latin pecūniōsus well provided with money, moneyed < pecūnia money (see pecunial adj.) <S> + -ōsus <S> -ous suffix. <S> The negative impecunious adj. <S> is much more used. <S> Well provided with money; moneyed, wealthy. <S> Money-loving, avaricious; miserly, ungenerous; (also) frugal, thrifty. <A> " stingy " or " miserly " might be appropriate if the context refers to a motive not to spend money. <S> I'd use " greedy " if the motive was to acquire more money when the individual was already rich (and clearly didn't need the money). <S> " mercenary " would perhaps be better if the person was doing something only for the purpose of money, and not caring about other consequences. <A> See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chrematistic?qsrc=2446 <A> How about just plain greedy? <S> They say the love of money is the root of all evil. <A> Materialistic describes a person who is markedly more concerned with material things (such as money and possessions) <A> I can't tell whether you are talking about a person who tries to save money or to earn/acquire it. <S> If you are after the former, then some great examples have already been given: Thrifty, Miserly, Parsimonious <S> and I would also suggest frugal as a slightly less negative option. <S> If you want the latter, I would suggest avaricious . <S> Almost everything I can think of seems to have negative connotation, so if you are trying to sound positive, you might need to use a word like ambitious or enterprising , which are not really dedicated to the money element, but do hint at it. <A> Mercenary , grasping , venal and other synonyms already suggested are good, but they all are derogatory. <S> If you want to put a neutral or positive spin on it, I would rather suggest money-oriented or money-driven . <A> While 'pecunious' suggested by @tchrist sounds like the most technically accurate, in casual conversation <S> the terms: ' penny pincher ', for someone always checking they don't overspend; or ' bean counter ', for someone always concerned with amounts of money spent or available to be spent; or ' scrooge ', for someone who goes to great lengths to avoid even fair expenses <S> , may well be what you're after. <A> I just realised the word you are trying to think of: avarice , the kind of word that is used in the Bible and by 19th century street-corner preachers. <S> A person whose every action is dictated by money is thus avaricious. <A> You may be looking for <S> parsimonious or its more obsessive cousin, miserly . <A> A positive take on one whose motivation is to save money is to call them economical . <S> (of a person or lifestyle) careful not to waste money or resources. <A> Capitalist ? <A> What about a curmudgeon meaning a miserly cantankerous person? <S> Or a more positive take on the question like someone had offered up above (ie economical) would be frugal - to be good with one's resources. <A> moolah python ; paisa pig ; dabbudabba
| A single word for a person whose motive is dictated by money would be greed or greedy but that is a description of the person. Perhaps chrematistic is the word you have in mind; I've heard it used this way although I don't think it's strictly correct.
|
Meaning of " ‘Western’ world" and alternative terms The discussion on the meaning and connotations of the world 'Oriental' got me thinking along similar lines on the usage of 'Western' world or 'the West' to denote North America and Europe. I find it interesting how in many situations Africa and Latin America aren't considered belonging to the 'West', even though in a strictly longitudinal sense they are to the west of 'the East' / 'Orient'. Has anyone come across situations where using 'the West' is considered pejorative, and, if yes, what alternative terms are / can be used? <Q> 'Western' is often used to refer to the developed world, but even then tends to limit itself to countries populated by white people. <S> You have mentioned North America, the UK and Europe. <S> You might be interested to know that usually, Australia and New Zealand are considered a part of 'Western' culture and society regardless of their proximity to East Asia. <S> You asked if it is used pejoratively. <S> In some cases, yes. <S> For example, it is often used to refer to decadent culture. <S> I now live in Indonesia, a Muslim country. <S> Here, a lot of people use the term 'Western culture' to encompass what they consider negative practices (such as sex before marriage, gambling, etc.) <S> that they see as being normal behaviour in 'the West'. <S> Therefore, Westerners are often seen as being of low moral fibre. <S> Unfortunately, in some areas, it has even become almost interchangeable with the term infidel . <A> Western is much clearer than the West . <S> From the New Oxford American Dictionary : <S> Western : living in or originating from the west, in particular Europe or the U.S. while there are many possible definitions for the West : the West : <S> Europe and its culture seen in contrast to other civilizations. <S> historical the noncommunist states of Europe and North America, contrasted with the former communist states of eastern Europe. <S> the western part of the U.S., esp. <S> the states west of the Mississippi. <S> Apart from the Occident , I can't think of any single-word alternative. <A> As the Wikipedia article on western culture states: <S> The concept of Western culture is generally linked to the classical definition of the Western world . <S> In this definition, Western culture is the set of literary, scientific, political, artistic and philosophical principles which set it apart from other cultural spheres. <S> Much of this set of traditions and knowledge is collected in the Western canon. <S> The link in the quote includes this description of the Western World: <S> The concept of the Western world has its roots in Greco-Roman civilization in Europe, the advent of Christianity, and the Great Schism in the 11th Century which divided the religion into Eastern and Western halves. <S> In the modern era, Western culture has been heavily influenced by the traditions of The Renaissance and The Enlightenment, and shaped by expansive colonialism in the 18th-19th Century. <S> Its political usage was temporarily informed by mutual antagonism with the Soviet bloc during the Cold War in the mid to late 20th Century. <S> In the contemporary political and cultural context, the Western World generally refers to the nations of the Americas, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.
| The "Western world" is a term used to denote the descendants of and adherents to "Western culture".
|
Which saying is correct? I've been having a small argument with a family member. She insists "It's no skin off my teeth" is the correct saying, though I've only heard "It's no skin off my nose" before. Which saying is more "correct" than the other? By this, I mean which came first, which is more commonly used, and which is more acceptable to use. <Q> Writing in Google I got these results: <S> "It's no skin off my teeth" -> <S> About 36,300 results <S> "It's no skin off my nose" -> <S> About 449,000 results <S> But on the dictionary I found both <S> and they seem to have different meanings, even if the first one uses by the skin of and not no skin off : by the skin of one's teeth by a very narrow margin ; barely : <S> I only got away by the skin of my teeth. <S> [ORIGIN: from a misquotation of Job 19:20: “I am escaped with the skin of my teeth” (i.e., and nothing else). <S> Current use reflects a different sense.] <S> it's no skin off my nose (or off my back <S> ) informal (usually spoken with emphasis on “my”) used to indicate that one is not offended or adversely affected by something <S> : it's no skin off my nose if you don't want dessert. <A> You are correct. <S> By the skin of your teeth, means very close. <S> It missed me by the skin of my teeth. <S> Your relative seems to be confusing metaphors. <S> Some similar confused metaphors that someone in my family uses: Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth and <S> it's six of one seven of the other. <A> As a Brit, I've never come across no skin off my teeth before (unsurprisingly, considering this ). <S> But certainly exists as an 'also-ran' in American English . <S> Personally I've always assumed America has a higher percentage of speakers who are less than perfectly fluent in English (for whatever reasons). <S> In a case like this the rarer alternative could simply arise through confusion with by the skin of one's teeth (idiomatic phrase meaning 'by the narrowest of margins'). <A> Both are commonly used. <S> If the number of results on a google search is a reliable result, <S> it's no skin off my nose <S> is slightly more common than <S> it's no skin off my teeth . <S> Personally, I prefer the nose version, because your nose has skin, but your teeth do not. <S> In fact, the teeth version probably originated, like Alenanno suggest, by a mixture of idioms. <S> The nose version is more canonical, that is, it is the original expression. <S> There are also other similar alternatives to the idiom: <S> It's no skin off my back <S> (and there are several others you can find easily in a google search that I will not mention here.) <S> You could use any other part of body and the meaning would probably still be understood. <S> no skin off my elbow is very rare, but attested. <S> If you wanted to be different than everybody else, you could say, it's no skin off my thumb web . <A> The first expression of this form I can find in Google books is no skin off my shins from 1891 in Puck , a magazine published in New York. <S> Google Ngrams shows the four most common expressions currently are: no skin off my nose, no skin off my back, <S> no skin off my ass, <S> no skin off my teeth. <S> I wouldn't be all that surprised if <S> "no skin off my ass <S> " was the first of these forms to be spoken <S> but the last to be written down. <A> In my mind; "No skin off my nose" appears to indicate that the speaker nervously assumes that s/he will remain unaffected (reservations), but "no skin off my teeth" seems to indicate that the speaker absolutely knows that it is utterly impossible to even be affected, since teeth skin is every bit as rare as frog fur or chicken lips. <A> "No skin off my nose/ass" is the "canonical" metaphor. <S> However, as is the case with many such, there is a tendency to replace "nose" with other terms. <S> Eg, one might easily say "no skin off my iPhone" if discussing some sort of social media scenario. <S> The meaning is "It's no concern of mine", or "It doesn't bother me at all." <S> "By the skin of my teeth/ass" is an entirely different metaphor with an unrelated meaning. <S> It means "I just barely managed to survive/succeed/ <S> whatever in the situation being discussed. <S> " <S> It's not surprising to find the metaphors mixed, either intentionally (for reasons only discernible in context) or accidentally ( <S> by people unfamiliar with the etymologies).
| Worldwide and over time, no skin off my nose is overwhelmingly more common for this particular context.
|
Positive-sounding substitute for "dull"/"boring"? I was recently writing a testimonial, and I wanted a positive substitute for those words. The adjective is for describing the guy in question (i.e. He is a _ ____ guy ). Any ideas? <Q> You might use "reliable" or "dependable", but if "dull" and "boring" do not interfere with other virtues, perhaps you might simply not mention them. <A> How about steady , or perhaps predictable ? <A> What about straitlaced ? <S> It's a good word for a conventional fellow. <A> If you actually want a positive-sounding synonym for dull or boring, about the most positive-sounding word you could use might be unvaried . <S> Remember, though, that "dull" and "boring" are two words people never want to hear used to describe them. <S> NOAD takes boring to task pretty severely: <S> Just as sexy (q.v.) is the ultimate compliment, so <S> boring is the most dreaded pejorative. <S> Yet in most cases this distressing judgment comes as a surprise. <S> Consider an all too common case. <S> You work hard on a speech, and then realize—within five minutes—that you've misjudged the audience: The tuxedoed salesmen want laughs while they chow down on chicken marsala, not a reconsideration of Plato's theory of epistemology. <S> Your address — were it presented to Oxford dons — might be showered with plaudits and huzzahs, but the overstuffed and half drunk listeners of Amalgmated Business Machines merely shuffle restlessly and glance at their Timex watches and hope that their tormentor — you — will just stop talking as soon as possible. <S> Nonetheless, you doggedly soldier on, while secretly wishing you were dead. <S> Therefore, when your turn comes to describe a performer, book, piece of music, weekly meeting, what have you, be kind and think twice: <S> A man may excuse almost any criticism or insult, but he will never forget and never forgive being called boring. <S> [Emphasis added.] <S> No matter how you dress it up with a synonym, you may wish to avoid even a euphemism for this word. <A> Another possibility is a negated antonym: not overexciting not overstimulating <S> not busy <S> not stressful <S> not loud <S> not aggressive <S> not too complicated <A> Maybe ' uneventful '? <S> It is the only word I can think of that has managed to remain truly descriptive and stay free of negative connotation. <S> It was an uneventful afternoon <S> does not suggest that you had a problem with it, while It was a boring/dull/tedious/monotonous/ <S> etc. <S> afternoon all seem to carry with them a little more negativity. <A> Some additional alternatives to consider: He is a solid guy. <S> He is a stable guy. <S> He is a straight shooter. <S> The following is overused in American parlance to the point of dilute impotence. <S> But a writer might still decide to use it for the purposes set out by OP. <S> He is a laid back guy. <S> This one may have a (probably undeserved and slight) connotation of criminality because of the way it has been frequently used in movies about gangsters.
| Depending on how far you are willing to go with bending things into compliments: smooth even keel relaxing easy to understand peaceful graceful quiet passive plain He is a stand up guy.
|
How was 'Sundae' derived from 'Sunday'? On Sunday, April 3,2011, Google displayed a commemorative graphic for the 119th anniversary of the first documented case of the Ice Cream Sunday . (Image comes from: http://www.google.com/logos/2011/icecreamsundae11-hp.jpg ) The Wiktionary entry for 'Sundae' says only that it is a modification of 'Sunday' and contains a link to the Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia entry for 'Sundae' contains a bit of history of the ice cream sundae, including competing claims for the origin of the ice cream sundae, but does not detail how 'Sunday' was changed to 'Sundae'. One origin story claims that the sundae was created to comply with Blue Laws in that locality, and the name 'Sunday soda' was changed to 'sundae' after demand caused the owners of a soda shop to serve the treat on days other than Sunday. The first documented case of the sundae used the 'Sunday' spelling. How did the spelling officially change from 'Sunday' to 'Sundae'? <Q> According to the OED: Origin uncertain. <S> There exist a number of differing accounts both of the invention of the dish and of the coinage of its name. <S> The name is generally explained as an alteration of Sunday, either because the dish originally included leftover ice-cream sold cheaply on Monday, or because it was at first sold only on Sunday, having, according to some accounts, been devised to circumvent Sunday legislation. <S> I'm not sure it's possible to get a definitive etymology. <A> I may just have the answer you've been looking for... <S> At an old drive-in/curbside style diner in Norfolk, Virginia, called "Doumar's. <S> " There's documentation about church goers in an uproar over the perils of sin and the "Ice Cream Sunday." <S> Along with mention of the most terrifying concoction of all, soda, there's disgust over the association of the Lord's day with the apparently sinful gateway drug, ice cream. <S> In an effort to calm the church, Doumar's claims that the spelling was altered to the spelling we now recognize, "sundae. <S> " The original sunday was not actually related to the day of the week, but was the English version of ice cream pioneer, Mr. Sontag's surname. <S> You can still go to Doumars and read about the scandal there. <S> Have a sundae while you're there and ponder all the sin you've avoided. <S> ;-) <A> There are other words where ay/ae alternate as spellings (one that comes to mind is the personal name May/Mae ), so that might have suggested the respelling of sundae .
| The alteration of the spelling is sometimes said to be out of deference to religious people's feelings about the word Sunday.
|
What is it called when the word "sorry" is not used for apologizing? When I use the word "sorry" for something I did wrong I'm sorry I bumped into you. I would be apologizing. However, when I used the word "sorry" to express pity for something that is not actually my fault, I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out. I'm sorry for your loss. is it still called an "apology" in English? In Chinese, we wouldn't use the same word in these different sentences. I would love to know what this type of sentence is called. <Q> "I'm sorry for your loss" is condolence . <S> However, that's too strong for "I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out", which is an expression of empathy . <S> Neither is an apology , which means either an expression of regret for harm you caused, or a defence of your actions. <A> These are expressions of empathy, sympathy, or a combination of both: <S> empathy <S> the ability to understand and share the feelings of another sympathy feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune New Oxford American Dictionary <A> Besides being commiserating , as suggested earlier the sentence “I'm sorry for your loss” is indeed a condolence , or “An expression of comfort, support, or sympathy offered to the family and friends of somebody who has died”. <S> While “I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out” <S> may express empathy , whether it actually does so depends on text and tone of voice. <S> It is empathetic if the speaker understands and sympathizes with the listener. <S> It is regrets <S> (expresses a feeling of sorrow) if the speaker is sorry that the listener didn't figure something out; for example, if a test-taker does badly on several questions, a teacher might be sorry but not sympathetic or empathetic. <S> It may be sarcasm if the speaker thinks the problem is trivial or obvious and could have been figured out easily. <A> Literally, sorry means "sad", so if somebody says I am sorry for your loss then he is empathizing with you. <S> The correct expression for an apology is "I apologize" rather than "I am sorry." <S> So next time somebody bumps into you <S> and he says "I am sorry," remember these words! <A> I remember having found somewhere " her hair was a sorry mess ". <S> Not sure if this really relates to the question as here the use of " sorry " looks rather atypical.
| Both sentences can be called commiserations , a noun that means “The act of commiserating; sorrow for the wants, afflictions, or distresses of another; pity; compassion”, or may be described as sentences.
|
Use "or" or "nor"? I've always wondered this but never asked. Given this statement: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Should it be or or nor ? This is on Wikipedia so they are probably correct in saying nor but why is this so? In my opinion it sounds like it should be or . The more I think of it the more I think it can be left up to interpretation or emphasis. For example, it could be interpreted to mean: Energy = ¬Created ∨ ¬Destroyed or Energy = ¬(Created ∨ Destroyed) Some help here? <Q> Neither always goes with nor and either always goes with or , without exception. <S> Thus, your notations would be translated into complete sentences thus: Energy = <S> ¬Created ∨ ¬Destroyed ⇒ <S> Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. <S> Energy = <S> ¬(Created ∨ Destroyed) <S> ⇒ <S> Energy can not be created or destroyed. <A> As far as I know, nor should be used if your phrase is already inherently negative, i.e.: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. <S> If you had either there, then or would be used, e.g.: <S> Energy can be either kinetic or potential. <A> You use " or " when listing 2 or more elements, usually in positive statements: <S> It can take 2 or 3 hours to get there by car. <S> Or you can use it together with " either ": <S> You can have either tea or coffee. <S> While you use " nor " when you're denying, therefore used in a sentence giving it a negative connotation and is used together with <S> neither : <S> Neither Jack nor Carl wanted to come to the Stadium. <S> Jimi gave you the exact examples from your question, and another way of using "or" in negative statements, but at least now you will understand the general rule about this.
| You certainly can retain or in the negative sense, but not in conjunction with neither .
|
Are there commonly used words to denote different gradations of friendship in English? In English there is only one word for grade of friendship: friends. All of you agree that friends are different: with some of them you just drank beer few times, other you know for many years and you build strong bonds to them. There should be different words for that! In Russian there are three words for different grades of friendship: You met few times. You meet regularly, spend time, but don't have strong bonds. You are important to each other, bonds are strong. (Usually people have 1-10 friends of that sort) So I am interested, are there commonly used words to denote different gradations of friendship in English? <Q> I think they might be:1. <S> Acquaintance2. <S> Friend/buddy/mate3. <S> Best friend <S> I know the last one may not be a true synonym, but it's the best I've got. <A> Here's a few colloquialisms to add to the spectrum: Friends with benefits : <S> A sexual or near-sexual and emotional relationship between two people who don't expect or demand to share a formal romantic relationship. <S> Frenemy : <S> A portmanteau of the words fr(iend) and enemy, the term frenemy refers to someone who pretends to be a friend but actually is an enemy—a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing in the world of friendships. <S> BFF : (Best Friend Forever) <S> Slang used primarily in the USA by teenage and young adult women to describe a girl friend or close best friend. <S> Wingman : a friend (male) who helps you find a sexual partner for the night by speaking highly of you. <S> sources: Wikipedia and The Online Slang Dictionary Plus a whole host of nuanced urban slang words used for friends such as cuz, homey, dawg, peeps , etc. <A> Here is my list of generic words (possibly colloquial but not so recently mainstream) in the friend/enemy scale: <S> enemy adversary stranger passing acquaintance <S> acquaintance <S> associate colleague <S> ally <S> comrade <S> companion friend <S> pal/buddy/mate/chum <S> (very colloquial/somewhat male directed) good friend best friend <S> Of course, some of those in the middle have connotations that are not necessarily 'friend-like', but they fill out the interior of the scale. <A> As I think Denis Leary once said, A friend is someone who will help you move. <S> A true friend is someone who will help you move a body. <S> Despite what others have said, an acquaintance is not really a friend. <A> acquaintances associates <S> buddy <S> friends <S> close friends <S> best friends "brother in all but blood"/"brother from another mother"/"foster brother"/"soul brother" (and feminine forms using sister, instead) <S> I'll note that, at least in my group of associates, buddy is LESS than friend. <S> it's someone that one willingly associates with regularly, often weekly, for some purpose, but is not actually up to friend. <S> Associate is of similar scope to buddy, but is work related in most connotations; in a non-work situation, it implies that they are an acquaintance with whom one has some shared activity. <S> Best friends isn't limited to 1 per person; its those friends with whom one shares emotional intimacy. <S> On the sexual score... <S> one night stand - a one-off sexual liaison, often with a stranger. <S> Fucktoy - crass term for for an associate with whom the relationship is exclusively sexual Bedbuddy - an associate with whom the relationship is almost exclusively sexual; little emotional intimacy. <S> Often friends or buddies before the sex. <S> friend with benefits - a friend, or even close friend, with whom a non-romantic sexual relationship exists. <S> boyfriend/girlfriend - usually sexually and romantically exclusive relationship with building emotional intimacy. <S> May also be non-sexual. <S> partner - long term sexual &/or romantic exclusivity. <S> spouse, husband, wife - legally, religiously, or socially long term pairbonded. <S> Usually emotionally intimate, usually sexually intimate. <S> mistress - sexual relationship or deeply intimate emotional relationship contrasted against an existing partner or spouse. <S> other man - male equivalent to mistress, but having more negative connotations <A> Acquaintance Friend <S> /Good friend depending on the depth Best friend <A> The ambiguity in English is nice, you can go out with a friend without having to specify their gender - something French speaking friends have said would be quite useful.
| Brother from another mother : a good friend that is more like a brother.
|
Is there a word for someone who is a lover of the incidental or coincidence? Bit of a weird one. I'm trying to write a song at the moment and I have the subject sorted but now I want to find out if there is a word for it. I find myself tending to like melodies and lyrics that I come up with by accident or through coincidence than through actual structured song writing and was wondering if there was a word for this. If so I have a song title and also a bit more background to work with for the lyrics. <Q> Are you thinking of serendipitous ? <S> serendipity <S> |ˌserənˈdipitē| noun <S> the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way : a fortunate stroke of serendipity <S> | <S> a series of small Otherwise, maybe you are thinking of aleatoric composition? <S> aleatory |ˈālēəˌtôrē; ˈal-| <S> adjective <S> depending on the throw of a die or on chance; random. <S> • relating to or denoting music or other forms of art involving elements of random choice (sometimes using statistical or computer techniques) during their composition, production, or performance. <S> I suspect <S> you mean the former, but it's not entirely clear to me from your question. <S> [Source: New Oxford American Dictionary] <A> Frankly, for a song title, I think you will be better off looking for an allegory rather than a word that means literally what you describe. <S> Now I suppose if a person enjoys the ups and downs of being blown by the wind then tumbleweed might fit the bill. <S> If one indiscriminately filters everything through their body looking for edible protein then they might be a whale . <S> But now this is getting ridiculous, and I hardly think I've helped you. <A> "Happy-go-lucky" or "Devil-may-care" <A> Something in your question brought to mind the concept of The Muse . <S> This led me to the concept of the Muse-poet . <S> It may be not quite right, but perhaps you could use something muse -like: <S> muse : a woman, or a force personified as a woman, who is the source of inspiration for a creative artist. <S> -NOAD <A> I would start with this list: chancy <S> organic chaotic <S> random <S> unstructured unrestrained loose untethered <S> Of these, I think organic is the best. <A> Merriam-Webster says: 1: an admirer or lover of the arts 2: a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge : dabbler <S> Wiktionary is a bit less flattering: <S> An amateur, someone who dabbles in a field out of casual interest rather than as a profession or serious interest. <S> A person with a general but superficial interest in any art or a branch of knowledge. <S> (Sometimes derogatory.) <S> Two options for your question: a. Serendipitous dilettante <S> b. <S> A dilettante of serendipity.
| If the person sails the ocean in hope of floating delights then treasure hunter or pirate might work. Depending on which dictionary you use, ' Dilettante ' might fit the bill.
|
Is it correct to write "is done fully automatically" or "is done fully automatic"? Google gives me support from 19,200 on "is done fully automatically" and 35,200 on "is done fully automatic". <Q> Since you're modifying a verb (the verb to do ), then you should use the adverb automatically , not automatic . <S> What your research shows is that correct is not always the same as usual . <A> Note that Google's numbers of hits are usually NOT AT ALL reliable. <S> They have become pretty much meaningless over the years, except to establish whether a phrase is used at all, and to find pages with context to study the use of the phrase. <S> If I go to page 10 of the results for your first link, the number changes from 19k to 48k . <S> If I do the same for your second link, the number of hits changes from 35k to 84 [sic]. <S> Fully automatic doesn't even have ten pages of results. <S> This would indicate that fully automatically was used five thousand times more often; however, Google's result numbers being as unreliable as they are, I'd not use them to support anything at all. <S> It is better to look for well-written pages using one phrase or the other. <S> That said, Damcrumb is absolutely right: <S> automatic is not an adverb, and the phrase needs to be adverbial, which makes fully automatically the right choice. <A> It is done fully automatically. <S> If you want to use the adjective automatic , then say: It is fully automatic. <S> However, I would suggest the more idiomatic construction, fully automated : <S> It is fully automated. <S> And, of course, you can replace it in all these examples with the specific action you are trying to describe.
| Although it sounds awkward, it should be fully automatically , as fully acts as a sub-modifier to the adverb automatically .
|
What are the guidelines for usage of "will" and "is/are going to"? I use them interchangeably, however I'd like to know when one is better or more appropriate than the other. <Q> There is more of a sense of immediacy to "is/are going to" in most cases. <S> For example, if talking about an overheating boiler, you might say: It's going to blow! <S> This means get out of the building now. <S> It will blow. <S> This means get a team in there to fix the situation. <A> We use them both to refer to future events. <S> Will is used to refer to a spontaneous decision. <S> If the phone rings, you would say I'll get it <S> -not- <S> I'm going to get it as the latter would suggest that you had plans to answer the phone, even though it has only just started ringing. <S> If someone asks about your plans for the summer holiday which begins next week, you would answer <S> I'm going to tour Europe <S> -not- <S> I'll tour Europe as the latter would suggest that you have just decided on the spot that you are going to travel around Europe, a fairly large decision that requires considerably more planning. <S> With regards to @Rbustos answer above, which at first glance seems like it might contradict mine: <S> It's going to blow <S> is correct. <S> Here we can clearly see from the situation that an explosion is imminent (a ticking clock or a bubbling chemical, for example). <S> So our observation is based on a calculation, hence 'going to' even though it was a relatively on the spot deduction. <S> It will blow <S> suggests a consequence, i.e. 'it will blow if...' <S> or in answer to the question 'what will happen if I...?' - here we are dealing with a prediction, not a clear observation. <S> Hope that helps. <A> I created the following method to help understanding, might be not precise but works as a guideline. <S> Past <S> ( decision ) Present ( Decision ) <S> Immediate Future ( action ) <S> Near Future ( Action ) <S> Future <S> Here ' decision ' and ' action ' belongs to usage " be going to " <S> while " Decision " and " Action " fall in the usage of " will ".
| Going to is used to refer to a planned or previously considered decision
|
Plural of "A good night's sleep" Is it possible to have a plural of "A good night's sleep"? Would "Some good nights' sleep" be correct? Edit: I'm thinking specifically in the sentence: "I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep" <Q> Yes. <S> Some good nights' sleep is grammatically correct. <A> It would lose its idiomatic nature. <S> The trope "a good [noun]" is used in many other expressions, and this particular version depends on that, not on the object "night's sleep". <S> Consider these parallel constructions <S> : I must have had a good two gallons of beer that night. <S> It was a good three weeks before we ever saw a dime of the money. <S> We were a good mile and a half from home when the care gave out. <A> I'd avoid some , since it would usually be heard as "some (good night's sleep), <S> " i.e. some quality sleeping time in one night. <S> To avoid tying myself in knots like that, I'd usually rephrase: <S> or even "I had a good night's sleep for several nights."
| "I slept well for several nights."
|
Is "so" a pronoun? Reminded by What is the grammatical function of so in this sentence , something that has always bothered me is that the word "so" can be used as a pronoun: It looks like rain Responding with: No, I don't think so. (Where "so" refers to the statement about rain "that it looks like rain".) Definition of 'so' - see items 21, 22, where they say it is a pronoun: –pronoun such as has been stated: to be good and stay so . something that is about or near the persons or things in question, as in number or amount: Of the original twelve, five or so remain . Rather, I am not bothered that it might function as a pronoun (weird things happen). I am perfectly fine with it being a pronoun and using it...so. But it never seems to be mentioned in a list of pronouns (as much as memory can serve). It is not in the set of canonical pronouns. "Thus" seems to share this use. So...(clears throat), what is the provenance and history of this usage? Do other languages have a similar use of a word that introduces a deduction as also a pronoun for a sentence? (And are there any other such non-canonical pronouns?) <Q> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language has three pages on anaphoric so . <S> It concludes: ... <S> its properties are unquestionably unique, and we do not believe that anything is gained by forcing it into one or more of our general part-of-speech categories. <S> Consider that <S> so can stand for a noun ( We are doctors. <S> So are they. ), an adjective ( I’m sleepy. <S> So is she. ), a verb ( Mine broke. <S> So did hers. ), a content clause ( I thought that salamanders were amphibians. <S> She thought so too. ), a whole sentence or idea ( The best things in life are free. <S> I’ve always said so. ) <S> etc. <S> Yet it can’t be the subject of a sentence. <S> (In So am I , subject-verb agreement shows that I is subject, not so .) <A> In sentences like "I think so", so is an adverb . <S> This is not surprising if you think that the word <S> yes is also an adverb. <A> No. " <S> So" is never a pronoun in English. <S> In the case you cite it is an adverb, modifying "think". <A> See here and here . <S> (Of course, the internet has much more to offer than that, as you should know.) <S> In these cases, the specific referent must be mentioned previously in the text for 'so' to work in such a way. ' <S> This' and 'that', among other demonstrative pronouns, work in a similar way as well. <S> Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong since I've only been a student of linguistics for about a year and a half now. <A> We need to be careful with the idea of a demonstrative pronoun. <S> Consider if we are standing in a store <S> and I say, "I don't like that. <S> " You have no idea <S> what I don't like and the sentence is meaningless unless I point to something. <S> In this case, my communication includes a gesture; the gesture is the noun, and "that" is a demonstrative adjective modifying my gesture. <S> Generally what we call demonstrative pronouns are really adjectives that would modify a noun, but the noun has been dropped because the sentence is part of a chain of conversation and is understood. <S> This is similar to a one word sentence, "Yes. <S> " The main part of the sentence has been dropped. <S> This does not mean that "Yes" is both a subject and verb simultaneously forming a grammatically complete sentence, nor that it is a demonstrative pronoun. <S> It means that in conversation complete sentences are not needed in order to be understood. <S> Demonstrative pronouns, if they actually exist, should not be used in legal contracts or legislation because it results in ambiguity. <S> In conversation they are fine, but then, a lot of things are. <A> 1 <S> It looks like rain. <S> -- <S> No, I don't think so <S> (I don't think that it is so/in such a way). <S> 2 <S> We are doctors. <S> -- So are we. <S> (We are doctors as well. <S> Compare German ebenso: One might say in German: <S> Ebenso sind wir Ärzte. <S> It is not idiomatic today, but everybody would understand it. <S> Today one would say: Wir auch.) <S> The use of "so" in "So are we" for " <S> We too/We as well" is a bit curious. <S> But it is a common manner of answer. <S> It is a bit cumbersome to reconstruct a longer formula with "so". <S> One would have to make two sentences: <S> So/in the same way it is true for us. <S> We are doctors too. <S> Please take all this as a hypothesis of mine. <S> An attempt to make such uses of "so" better understandable and to show that we actually have the normal use of "so" meaning "in such a way".
| I believe it is a demonstrative pronoun.
|
Is "a wide range of features" singular or plural? In the office, we've been having a discussion about the grammar in a sentence and have differing opinions about what is right and what is wrong... It is a very minor issue but is still bugging me :) The sentence in question is: A wide range of features is available. Which sounds more natural to me if it is written as: A wide range of features are available. The justification for it is that the "is" is referring to the "wide range of features" as a whole rather than just the "features". I was just about getting used to it when I decided to substitute a different word instead of "features". I just can't get my head around something like: A wide range of sausages is available. Further to this, if I substitute "a wide range of" with "various" then it has to be are . Which one is right? Edit: Thanks for all of the responses. I didn't expect to open up such a can of worms but now I understand the technicalities. I still prefer are in this case though :) <Q> “A wide range of features is available” is more ‘technically correct’ according to traditional prescriptive grammar, and arguably more logical. <S> Both forms are completely idiomatically acceptable, though; Google n-grams suggests that as of the 90’s, they were roughly equally common: <S> That shows just this specific example, which appears only in recent decades, but there are a host of other similar constructions, going back for centuries, and in many levels of writing, not just casual speech. <S> So well-informed modern grammars agree, both forms are completely correct; go with whatever you feel flows best! <S> Edit: <S> Actually, in contexts like yours, are <S> is probably rather more common than that graph might suggest. <S> Looking more closely, of the results for “range of features is”, quite a lot are in contexts like “The range of features is typically quite large…”, where “are” wouldn’t make sense — <S> the predicate unambiguously applies to the range , not to the individual features . <S> I can’t think of a corpus search that would weed out such cases; on a very rough perusal of Google Books results, I’d guesstimate that in contexts like yours where either is idiomatic (eg “…a remarkable range of features is/are visible…”), the are form <S> is maybe about twice as common as the is . <S> (Thanks to @FumbleFingers for pointing this out in comments.) <S> Edit: as comments on other answers show, the two versions aren’t always interchangeable; one can certainly come up with examples where only one or the other is idiomatic. <S> But in this specific example, both are quite fine, as the n-grams search above and more in-depth searching along similar lines illustrate. <A> I can't go with the mavens on this one. <S> By strict rules of grammar <S> it's obviously right to say is <S> is correct. <S> But I'm sure we all know that nearly everyone uses <S> are in this context without giving it a second thought. <S> And of the one's that don't , I bet many do so with misgivings. <S> So it really depends on your definition of 'right'. <S> Assuming we're not interested in any moral overtones of righteousness, I would say it's 'right' in linguistic terms to fall into line with the overwhelmingly more prevalent usage. <S> On the grounds that language itself couldn't really work as a means of communication if we didn't normally honour that principle. <A> The verb should match the noun without the prepositional phrase. <S> In this case, drop "of features" and you have " <S> A wide range is/are available." <S> Since range is singular, you would go with is, not are. <A> As others note, the correct form is: "a wide range of features is available" Some speakers will use "are" here due to the proximity of "features" to the verb. <S> That is an error (and an extremely common one). <S> The subject of the sentence is "range," which is singular and thus takes a singular verb. <A> The correct sentence would read: A wide range of features is available. <S> This is because the verb must modify the subject of the sentence. <S> Removing the prepositional phrase of features makes this rule more apparent: <S> A wide range is available. <A> 'is' would be the correct choice for this sentence as, like your colleagues say, the word 'range' is the head word and it is singular. <S> You have here <S> a Noun Phrase, the words before the head (a wide) being pre-modifiers and the words after it (of features) being post modifiers. <S> A noun phrase is a group of words that represent one noun; the head word could stand alone in the sentence as a noun, structurally speaking. <S> Therefore, any other elements of the sentence are applied to this head and not the rest of the phrase. <S> range is ... a wide range of features is ... <A> It depends on whether the subject of the sentence is the range or the features . <S> Put another, consider what is actually available. <S> Is it a single range that people can elect to have or have not? <S> Is it a selection of features, from which people can choose as many as they desire? <S> If it is the former, I would suggest that range is your subject and you should use is . <S> If it is the latter - if you could replace A wide range of... with Numerous... <S> then you should use are . <S> With this specific example, I would lean towards <S> are , since it's unlikely that it's a single range <S> that people can have or have not. <S> However, the general question of subject/verb agreement with regards to plural phrases is not as simple as some answers would suggest. <S> If in doubt, there will invariably be an alternative phrasing that makes the answer obvious. <S> Just go with that one instead. <A> The first step in solving a subject/verb agreement question is to determine the subject of the sentence. <S> In doing so, remember this rule: <S> The subject of a sentence never appears in a prepositional phrase (in this case, of [the preposition] <S> features <S> [the object of the preposition]). <S> So, in this case, the subject of the sentence is range . <A> "A vast/wide range of" is the head phrase, with range as the head word. <S> plus,look at the letter "A". <S> As you have correctly mentioned in your description in your statement of the problem, the head phrase is considered as a whole and simply we have to use the singular form of the verb.
| Range is singular, and it calls for a singular verb: A wide range of features is available. Without wanting to get too many bum splinters, I think the honest answer is that both are correct.
|
Does sympathy necessarily mean pity? This one has bugged me for a while. I've always been under the impression that sympathy doesn't have to mean pity. But everyone else tells me I'm dead wrong. So does sympathy always mean pity? <Q> Sympathy and pity have a synonymous convergence, but also diverge in some respects. <S> In addition to its meaning of pity , sympathy can refer to a special kind of understanding that two or more people share. <S> I had a special sympathy for Martha's desire to excel in math, since I too loved math and wanted to see someone from our family do well. <S> See? <S> No pity involved. <S> The word actually comes from the Greek for "with feeling". <S> It means to resonate emotionally with someone else. <S> It can also be an acoustic term. <S> Push down the sostenuto pedal on a piano and make a loud shout, preferably singing. <S> You will hear the piano strings resonate faintly. <S> This is called "sympathetic vibration. <S> " That is a direct physical analogue to the emotional resonance I'm talking about. <A> You are correct. <S> In fact sympathy doesn't mean pity at all. <S> It means a shared pain or close emotional feeling. <S> I feel bad because you feel bad. <S> You can pity someone who doesn't feel bad at all and for varied reasons. <S> For instance, I might pity the fool. <S> Sympathy requires a similar feeling in the person I'm sympathizing with. <A> No... Tell your friends to look in a dictionary! <S> That's what I tell mine... <S> With a fair bit of grumbling... <S> Which they deserve! :) <S> Just a sample of the different definitions from http://www.Merriam-Webster.com <S> From the definitions, it's obvious that "pity" can't be considered as more than a specific type of sympathy. <S> "Sympathy" literally means "feeling with" someone, or something, in certain, usually more artistic, contexts. <S> If you feel really bad over a friend's loss, you sympathise, and, in that case, possibly pity them. <S> However, if you get really happy and excited hearing that a friend won the lottery, you're sympathising again, but you obviously don't "pity" them. <S> I, personally, wouldn't call pity some subset of sympathy. <S> I would say you can pity starving children, even if you don't know any starving child personally and have never been hungry in your life. <S> I would not use sympathy in that context. <S> Still, that's a nitpick if ever there was one. <S> In real life, "feeling bad" can be described as sympathy or pity more or less interchangeably, but only in that one sense. <S> If you're interested, the etymologies also show that they don't even come from the same root-word or anything: <S> Sympathy's etymology: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sympathy <S> And pity's: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pity <A> Sympathy and pity are different words, so inevitably they will have or acquire some subtle differences in meaning, connotations, and usage. <S> But so far as I'm concerned the differences are so small the choice of one or the other rarely affects any speaker's utterance or hearer's understanding. <S> The big difference is between both those words and empathy . <S> To be honest it seems to me other answers seem to be redefining sympathy to mean empathy , simply so they can contrast this with pity . <A> Several acquaintances who spent time in the US military make liberal use of the phrase "sucks to be you" , when they hear of some modest difficulty in another persons life. <S> It gets used in both laughing with you and laughing at you senses, but in the former seems to convey exactly sympathy without pity. <S> They recognize that you are in for a hard time, have the empathy to comprehend your misfortune, and don't feel the least bit sorry for you because they know that life is like that and everyone gets the short end of the stick sometimes. <A> Look at Hume's Treatise of Human Nature and Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality.
| Sympathy: an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other versus Pity: sympathetic sorrow for one suffering, distressed, or unhappy
|
"pseudo-", "quasi-" "semi-" and I was wondering about the meaning of "pseudo-", "quasi-" "semi-" and possibly other related prefixes, in general cases. Particularly, in engineering and science, there are quite a few terms named with these prefixes. For example, "quasi-integrable", "pseudo-Newton method", "semigroup". But I never get to understand their differences in usage. <Q> Pseudo- comes from the Greek for false/lie and refers particularly to something not genuine. <S> Quasi- comes from the Latin for almost and refers to something that is almost something else. <S> Semi- is the Latin for half and refers to something that is half-something else <S> In late usage, however, all three have been used to mean sort-of- <A> As others have said, <S> pseudo = false, quasi = almost, semi = half. <S> In engineering and science, these tend to have fairly technical meanings. <S> That is, a pseudopod is something that looks like a foot but is not, semiannually means twice a year ( <S> and I can't really think of an accepted repeatable term that begins with 'quasi'). <S> In mathematics, however, all bets are off. <S> A semigroup is like a group and has fewer defining properties than a group, but in no way is it anything like half of a group. <S> Similarly a quasigroup. <S> (this is a general notice about mathematical terminology, the inventors of the terminology usually have some metaphor in mind when the technical term is chosen, but that metaphor hardly ever translates to anything meaningful). <A> <A> In civil engineering the term quasi-permanent is used for actions (loadings). <S> It has more the meaning of equivalent <S> that almost . <S> This in practice means that we load the structure with the equivalent of a permanent load. <S> What permanent means in civil-engineering context is another question!
| Quasi - almost Pseudo - fake or impersonating Semi - half In very simple words, we suppose that the action is permanent although it's true nature is quite different.
|
What does the phrase "Fee-fi-fo-fum" actually mean? Fee-fi-fo-fum; I smell the blood of an Englishman. Be he alive or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread. Joseph Jacobs , Jack and the Beanstalk (1890) I've read about the origin of 'Fee-fi-fo-fum' but what does it actually mean? <Q> It's a nonsense phrase, developed by the writer of the old English fairytale "Jack and the Beanstalk". <S> and it has no meaning or relevance besides the fact that it makes a neat couplet designed to strike terror into the listener's heart. <S> As a child hearing this story, I always imagined the giant stomping his feet to the beat of fee-fi-fo-fum and making the ground shake and poor Jack's knees tremble. <A> Wikipedia covers the meaning <S> well and has this to say about Jack the Giant Killer : <S> Neither Jack or his tale are referenced in English literature prior to the eighteenth century, and his story did not appear in print until 1711. <S> It is probable an enterprising publisher assembled a number of anecdotes about giants to form the 1711 tale. <S> The article mentions that in William Shakespeare’s play, King Lear (written between 1603 and 1606), Edgar exclaims: <S> Fie, foh, and fum <S> , I smell the blood of a British man. <S> The article goes on to explain: <S> The verse in King Lear makes use of the archaic word "fie", used to express disapproval. <S> This word is used repeatedly in Shakespeare's works, King Lear himself shouting, "Fie, fie, fie! <S> pah, pah!" <S> and the character of Mark Antony (in Antony and Cleopatra) simply exclaiming "O fie, fie, fie!" <S> The word "fum" has sometimes been interpreted as "fume". <S> Formations such as "fo" and "foh" are perhaps related to the expression "pooh!", which is used by one the giants in Jack the Giant-Killer; such conjectures largely indicate that the phrase is of imitative origin, rooted in the sounds of flustering and anger. <S> However, King Lear isn't the first work in which the phrase appears. <S> English dramatist Thomas Nashe in 1596 wrote in Have With You to Saffron-Walden the passage: <S> O, tis a precious apothegmaticall Pedant, who will finde matter inough to dilate a whole daye of the first inuention of Fy, fa, fum, I smell the bloud of an Englishman … <S> So it seems that writers have puzzled over the origins of this chant and what it means for over four centuries! <A> How about Fee , Fye , Pho , ƒum ? <S> Fee being the lesser of the Golden Section (or a value of 0.6180339), Fye being the greater of the Golden Section (or a value of 2.6180339), Pho being a shorthand for Fibonacci or Phyllotaxis , and ƒum being the word sum when written in old script. <S> The giant was studying advanced mathematics, because what else does one do when set upon by society and made an outcast? <S> He was trying to better himself through education. <S> I suspect that he just got frustrated when he was deep inn thought trying to remember or make sense of the equation and one of those people who regularly upbraid him, tresspassed and interrupted his studies yet again. <A> There is a quite similar phrase in Russian fairy-tales. <S> Instead of a giant, it's said by a wicked witch and reads like "Foo-foo-foo, I smell the russian soul!" <S> (or "russian odour". <S> Russian word "дух (dookh)" means both spirit/soul and odour)with various endings: "A russian bone came to my home", "I'll roast you and eat you and roll and wallow in your bones" etc. <S> Here "Foo" is a sound of disgusting and also a sound of someone smelling something (like horse's snorting). <S> Maybe both english and russian phrases have a common origin - from some ancient source? <A> "Fee Fi Fo Fum" is an old English galdr charm based on the rune Fehu. <S> Ettins (Etyn, jotun, etc) where monsterous giants who were well known (in the mythology) to use galdr magic (vocally sung magic chants). <S> The Fehu Galdr in four parts, such as "Fee Fi Fo Fum", is used for finding what is being searched for. <S> As the poem indicates, the ettin was searching for the "Englishman" and using this chant to aid in the search.
| It is usually expressed as fee-fi-fo-fum
|
Is the term "would-be" just an Indian usage or universal? I've noticed that Indians use the term would-be in place of fiancé/fiancée . Usages like "Meet my would-be" and "This is my would-be" are common in introductions. I used to wonder if this is just an Indian usage or if we got it from the British. I have never heard it being used in American movies or on TV. (I also used to wonder if people used "He/she is my would-have-been" if the wedding was called off after the engagement. :-)) <Q> Yup, I believe the background to this is a plain translation of the Hindi "honewala pati / honewali patni" which means " husband-to-be/wife-to-be ". <S> It's definitely not used in the UK or US (except by other Indians ;) <S> - don't know of other nations though. <A> In England we use would-be as a pre-modifying adjective. <S> Used as such, it means something that could have happened if conditions had been different. <S> For example: Jim claims that he designed the iPod but that Steve Jobs beat him to the patent office. <S> These days, the would-be millionaire takes his 40 minute dinner break at the local MacDonalds. <S> Here we can see that Jim could have been a millionaire <S> had he submitted his design sooner. <S> As it is though, he missed out and lives a normal life. <S> With that in mind, we could say would-be husband/would-be wife <S> but the meaning would shift. <S> It would mean somebody that could have been your wife under different circumstances (perhaps they were all set to marry when the guy got drafted) but are not. <S> It certainly is not the same as fiance. <S> Hope this helps. <S> As a point of interest, if you wanted to adapt the phrase to the meaning, grammatically it would have to be <S> will-be wife , but that doesn't exist. <A>
| Would-be in the sense of fiance or fiancee is an Indianism. In UK English, would-be is used only before a noun to describe someone who is hoping to become the type of person mentioned: a would-be actor , advice for would-be parents .
|
Why does this abbreviation "tl;dr" have a punctuation mark in it? The abbreviated form of "Too long; didn't read" is tl;dr . To me it kind of defeats the purpose of typing an abbreviation quickly, if I have to type the ; key too. Why is tl;dr more common than TLDR , and usually used with ";"? I have read the wiki discussion but am not too clear on this. SNAFU comes to mind as one which could be SN-AFU . Are there any other such abbreviations which have punctuations in them? <Q> Punctuation, even though there are regularities in it, is almost entirely a creature of custom and fashion. <S> There is no answer to a question like this other than "that's how people have started writing it". <A> In several programming languages ; is required at the end of every statement. <S> Its usually seen at the end of every line but multiple statements can be put on one line separated only by semicolons. <S> As it originated from a tech literate crowd I suspect the semicolon has been added to separate the two statements too long; didn't read tl;dr - programmers like using semicolons to separate statements edit <S> - A citation has been requested, I originally made this statement based on personal experience of first encountering it only amongst a technically proficient audience before seeing its usage spread. <S> Unfortunately being internet slang its a touch difficult to track down a verifiable origin, however. <S> KnowYourMeme's article on tl;dr states <S> Unknown Origin <S> It’s not entirely clear <S> where and when t;dr first began, but the term has been used on Genmay since at least 2003. <S> Example: <S> On June 19th, 2003, gen[m]ay user waptang created the thread tl;dr asking “what does it mean?” <S> as per this article genmay (General Mayhem) is a spinoff forum from [H]ard|OCP (Hardware Overclockers Comparison Page). <S> Overclocking is a reasonably technically involved process, so I'd feel safe calling them a tech literate crowd. <S> However, essentially this is conjecture on my part. <S> Commenters on a reddit thread on this subject suggests a different theory <S> They are two separate clauses of a related nature. <S> It is correct grammar <S> correct to place a semicolon between them if you did not want them to be individual sentences. <S> but more than that <S> , it shows that the second sentence is a result of the first. <S> "it was too long <S> therefore i didn't read it" <S> Though I'm still inclined to side with a latter comment stating Because it is the only semicolon <S> most of us get to use outside of programming. <S> TL;DR - <S> Because TL;DR pt 2 - I believe this to be the case however ymmv <A> I can think of a handful of ideas but have no references. <S> The phrase "too long; didn't read" actually makes sense with a semi-colon in place of "too long and didn't read." <S> Something feels missing; a semi-colon works. <S> (Why that in place of a colon is what I wonder about. <S> " <S> Too long: didn't read." <S> would work just as well.) <S> Shortening "too long; didn't read" into "tldr" makes sense. <S> My guess is the semi-colon came with because "tldr" was confusable with something else happening at the time or people were not picking up on the abbreviation until the semi-colon was added. <S> That being said, there is something aesthetically cool about having the semi-colon that distinguishes it from other shortened phrases. <S> I am having trouble thinking of another phrase that does this. <S> "tldr" just looks like a serial number or massive typo. <S> "tl;dr" looks like it means something. <S> Instead of wondering if the author made a mistake, you know it means something and are encouraged to ask what it means. <S> The time it takes to add the ; is minimal: The key is one away from l . <S> Tech crowds are used to typing semi-colons frequently and it wouldn't be any more difficult for them to type "tl;dr" than it is to type any other five letter word. <S> Of note, the abbreviate appears to be under quite a bit of meme pressure. <S> The forces of the internet don't seem entirely happy with it yet. <S> I have heard people refer to it as a "tealdeer" or "teal deer" and even spell it out as such. "tldr" is used. <S> Long posts will often have a "tl;dr" segment near the bottom. <S> (Some people like to put it before the content.) <S> Some people capitalize it as "TLDR" or "TL;DR". <S> With the advent of easy to access video you will also see the variation "tl;dw" and audio could conceivably have "tl;dl". <S> This could be another reason the semi-colon is there: Variations are quickly recognizable. " <S> Too long; didn't read/watch/listen" belong to the same family. <S> The phrase is here for now and will probably go through a few more evolutions before it settles in. <S> My generation of internet users knows it well; the kids get to decide whether it stays or dies. <A> There are probably a lot of hyphenated abbreviations. <S> Come to think of it <S> , shouldn't most abbreviations have punctuation in them to denote the fact they're abbreviations? <S> (I've already used the apostrophe several times, and you'd often see things like "etc.", whereas "etc" would be incorrect). <S> Certainly an interesting point in the case of tl;dr though <S> , you'd think punctuation would be one of the first thing to go if you're trying to abbreviate something.
| The short, bursty phrase sounds better (and is shorter) as "too long didn't read." Authors as well as readers use it.
|
Is there any subtle difference between "to study" and "to learn"? I don't know how to phrase my question better, but I just want to know if there will be any little difference if I directly replace one with the other. <Q> I think we can generally divide them like this, although the separation may not always be so clear. <S> To study is the action, (from the dictionary) " the devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject ", so the activity itself. <S> To learn is the result of that action, or as you can see in the Dictionary again, " gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study , experience, or being taught ". <A> Saying "I studied English" means you took classes in English. <S> It does not necessarily mean you learned anything. <S> Saying "I learned how to tie a clove hitch" means you actually acquired a useful skill. <A> To learn is a much broader term than to study . <S> I agree that learning is a result, but it is most often a result of no conscious action on our part. <S> We learn from the moment we exist, taking in the lore (related word) of language and customs of those around us through all of our senses. <S> We learn every moment of our lives, even while sleeping. <S> When we study (from Latin studium ‘zeal, painstaking application’) <S> we make a conscious effort to learn a specific lore. <S> Learning is always the result, even if what we learn is that we can't make heads nor tails of what we are studying. <S> But learning is a given whether we study or not. <A> Learning is gaining knowledge. <S> Studying is pursuing knowledge. <A> In my case, just because I studied chemistry in high school does not mean I learned it. <A> You can study without learning and, yes, you can learn without studying. <S> Studying is the act of trying to gain information. <S> It generally results in learning. <S> Learning is acquiring new information. <S> It can result from study, but also from everyday life and experiences. <A> They are very distinct - study implies some kind of focus, while learning can happen by perhaps a broader mechanism. <S> Usage would depend upon context. <S> Study also can be a verb or a noun, so that might influence using or avoiding it depending upon context. <S> FWIW, the term "study" is not used, for example, when discussing work towards degrees in England (at Oxford or Cambridge) - in that case the term used is "read", as in "I read Maths at Cambridge", or "What is Sally reading at Oxford?" <A> To study, doesn't necessarily mean you'll learn anything. <S> For example, in High School, I was required to study History, and it was very boring <S> and I had trouble paying attention, therefor I did not learn anything.
| Well, you can study without learning, but you can't often learn without studying, at least in academic subjects. I consider the difference more than subtle.
|
Are there synonyms for "love marriage"? I was fascinated by an answer to a comment question I asked under Is the term “would-be” just an Indian usage or universal? about a term for a non-arranged marriage in India. Love marriage was the answer—rife with implications. Are there other English terms or phrases that convey the same meaning as love marriage ? I'm wondering specifically about regional terms that define an engagement or marriage in opposition to those that are arranged. <Q> I've only ever heard "love marriage" in Indian contexts. <S> In the US (I don't know about elsewhere), "marriage" by default is decided on by the couple, and any other method of decision (parents/relatives, church/community, etc (?)) is out of the mainstream, 'unorthodox', and so would would be needed to be marked as "arranged". <S> As to different regional variations on "arranged marriage", I don't know. <S> For "marriage" (which means "love marriage" to Indians), there are some slight variations here. <S> There's "living together" which is an informal arrangement. <A> If I am understanding the term love marriage correctly, the closest English equivalent would be elope or elopement : <S> To elope, most literally, merely means to run away, and to not come back to the point of origination. <S> More specifically, elopement is often used to refer to a marriage conducted in sudden and secretive fashion, usually involving hurried flight away from one's place of residence together with one's beloved with the intention of getting married. <S> ( Wikipedia ) <S> The negative connotations I am hearing for love marriage is similar to the connotations of elopement . <S> The idea of "running off together" is sending a rather strong message to your family and friends and stereotypically occurs when the couple do not have the blessing of their elders. <S> Again stereotypically, the parents of the bride have taken issue with the groom. <S> I do not know how often elopements actually occur or what the circumstances around them are. <S> The exact opposite of an elopement is referred to as a shotgun wedding : <S> A shotgun wedding is a form of forced marriage occasioned by an unplanned pregnancy. <S> Some religions and cultures consider it a moral imperative to marry in such a situation, based on reasoning that premarital sex is sinful and unsafe. <S> The phrase is an American colloquialism, though it is also used in other parts of the world. <S> ( Wikipedia ) <S> As far as forced marriages go in stereotypical American society, a shotgun wedding is a close as it gets outside of extreme emotional or social coercion. <S> When a shotgun wedding occurs, the bad reputation is still placed on the couple. <S> Even the proverbial shotgun wielders are assumed justification for their actions. <A> "Love match" is a not uncommon phrase for a marriage without regard to prospects, money, etc. <S> (The opposite, shown to perfection in Jane Austen, was sometimes called a "suitable marriage", but never an "arranged marriage", even if if had in fact been arranged by others.)
| There's "common-law marriage" which refers to the legal status of a couple who have been living together for long enough time to be considered married.
|
"May not" -- no choice vs. mere restriction This is from the tabletop game Warhammer 40k rulebook: The turn Marines arrive they may not assault. I always assumed it means they are not allowed to assault. But the meaning "they may choose not to assault" (as opposed to "they must always assault") would be perfectly legitimate too, as far as game rules go. So how do you tell whether it limits your choices (not allowed to) or extends them (allowed not to)? How it should be worded if the meaning was "allowed not to"? <Q> 'may not' is only slightly ambiguous in general ("is not allowed" is preferred to "can choose not to"). <S> In this context though, it definitely takes on the "is not allowed" meaning because the negative, "they may assault" was not used. <S> That is, though the literal meaning is ambiguous, the implication (because of not using the negation) forces the interpretation to be "is not allowed". <A> This is a poorly worded rule. <S> You are correct that both interpretations are possible. <S> Possible rewordings are: <S> The turn Marines arrive they are not permitted to assault <S> or The turn Marines arrive, they may choose to assault or not <S> I would imagine that it is the former that is the case; rules in games (especially battle games such as this) tend to place limits on players' actions, rather than enumerate all of their options (which should be many and varied in such games). <A> "May not" is tricky in this context because it is listed in a set of rules. <S> You should always refer to the rulebook itself for its own uses. <S> If the rulebook does not tell you what to do, find a relevant authority on the game itself. <S> The English phrase implies that you should not or cannot do whatever comes after the "may not. <S> " <S> Again, without knowing more about the game or its rules, I cannot help with answering this particular context. <S> Feel free to ask about more specific rules interpretations at boardgames. <S> SE or gaming. <S> SE
| Rulebooks like to use the phrase "may not" to let players opt out of an action because "cannot" can take the place of "not allowed."
|
A polite substitution for "lamer" Is there a polite word that can be used to designate someone who didn't really understand what he or she was doing? Or, in general, someone who is intentionally ignorant of how things work. A "lamer" doesn't fit for being impolite, and seemingly harming some people's ears too much. Edit: Another good definition is It distinguishes between people who are ignorant by chance from those who are ignorant by choice. And it makes me think that there is no polite substitution just because the meaning itself being impolite and abusive. Right? <Q> Novice? <S> Unaware of [whatever]? <S> Edit: A self-appointed expert? <S> The problem is that implying that someone intentionally ignorant of something is inherently discourteous. <S> All of the polite variants you'll find will be implying that the ignorance is unintentional. <A> Shamelessly copied and pasted from NOAD: Someone who knows nothing about growing things might be called ignorant by a farmer who never went to high school but has spent his life in the fields. <S> Although all of these adjectives refer to a lack of knowledge, ignorant refers to a lack of knowledge in general (: a foolish, ignorant person) or to a lack of knowledge of some particular subject (: ignorant of the fine points of financial management). <S> A professor of art history might refer to someone who doesn't know how to look at a painting as uneducated or untutored , both of which refer to a lack of formal education in schools (: <S> she was very bright but basically uneducated, and completely untutored in the fine arts). <S> Someone who cannot read or write is illiterate , a term that may also denote a failure to display civility or cultivated behavior (: the professor routinely referred to his students as illiterate louts). <S> Someone who is unlettered lacks a knowledge of fine literature (: a scientist who was highly trained but unlettered); it also implies being able to read and write, but with no skill in either of these areas. <S> Unlearned is similar to ignorant in that it refers to a lack of learning in general or in a specific subject (: an unlearned man who managed to become a millionaire), but it does not carry the same negative connotations. <S> Uninformed refers to a lack of definite information or data. <S> For example, one can be highly intelligent and well educated but still uninformed about the latest developments in earthquake prediction. <A> If you want to be nice, you can say the person is a neophyte . <S> Less polite would be philistine , which MW defines as "one uninformed in a special area of knowledge. <S> " If this is a technology-related field, luddite might work (though it's not very nice, either). <S> EDIT: <S> Understanding the question better now, I offer another option to describe someone who is arrogantly and intentionally ignorant yet insists on trying to instruct others. <S> insists on [spreading or infecting others with] his deliberate lack of sophistication about _ . <S> This assumes you're just looking for a polite way to describe the problem to third parties. <S> You wouldn't say this to the person's face -- at least not if you expect to get along with him afterward. <S> :) <S> Sorry so many words. <S> I don't think there's a way to say this that is both concise and diplomatic. <A> A polite way to say that a person doesn't know something: <S> [Person] is not familiar with [something]. <S> For example, Mark is not familiar with Java programming. <A> A few words that can mean "ignorant by choice" (with mixed amounts of tactfulness): <S> unenthusiastic <S> unmotivated lackadaisical <S> bored resistant rebellious apathetic <S> uninterested ennui <S> listless passionless indifference <A> my favorite is from "Shawshank Redemption" in which Andy accuses the warden of being obtuse. <A> How about a "specialist"? <S> It's a long shot, but I myself try to avoid learning anything of certain areas, like music and politics. <S> It's not an inherently negative practice (Although perhaps I shouldn't speak being an open practitioner ^.^). <S> At least, it's not if you've read, or admire, your Sherlock Holmes. <S> If you don't remember, this was one of the features <S> Watson found most remarkable about Mr. Holmes in A Study in Scarlet , in the second chapter, if you're interested. <S> Despite his astonishing knowledge in several eclectic and esoteric areas, he remained ignorant of the primacy of the heliocentric theory in astronomy, and would have liked to remain so. <S> As I said, "specialist" is a long shot, but it's not insulting... <S> I admit, that's mainly because it emphasises a hypothetical counterpoint for whatever intentional ignorance. <S> Still, it seems to me that, sometimes, that is exactly what being polite is, ignoring the negative and hyping the positive. <A> Although remaining judgmental and by no means polite, dispatching a lamer as an ignoramus <S> superficially imparts authority in doing so.
| A more neutral way of saying "intentionally ignorant" might be exhibits a deliberate lack of sophistication about _ .
|
What is the formal version of "8 a.m. until"? Is there a formal version of the term "until," used in the context of "The event will run from 8 a.m. until," signifying an indeterminate end time? <Q> You can reword the phrase a few ways to imply no end (or an indeterminate end): <S> The event will begin at 8 a.m. <S> The event starts at 8 a.m. <S> You can also insert a phrase after until : The event will run from 8 a.m. until sundown <S> The event will run from 8 a.m. until supplies run out Across different days: <S> The event will begin each day at 8 a.m. <A> <A> Yes - the standard form in formal invitations is, "8 a.m. till." <S> Note that "'til" is a possibility, but less formal than the much-older "till." <A> EDIT #2 : I gave a bad answer, I apologize. <S> I just checked again my dictionary and if you don't have a specified end time then you can use this way: forward in time : the period from 1969 onward. <S> Previous answer: My Dictionary says that till is less formal than until : <S> USAGE <S> In most contexts, till and until have the same meaning and are interchangeable. <S> The main difference is that till is generally considered to be more informal than until . <S> Interestingly, while it is commonly assumed that till is an abbreviated form of until (the spellings 'till and 'til reflect this), till is in fact the earlier form. <S> Another source confirmed that till is less formal than until. <S> EDIT: <S> Sorry for the edit, but I found another entry. <S> From the OALD (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary): Till is generally felt to be more informal than until and is used much less often in writing. <S> At the beginning of a sentence, until is usually used.
| Until occurs much more frequently than till in writing. You could also use The event will run every day, from 8 a.m. onwards
|
"Would" with a present meaning—is this correct? A great example I can think of: "Please, leave! I would be alone!" With would meaning something like, "I want to be alone." Is this correct, or not? EDIT: To further clarify, I am not aiming for would like to . My original question/sentence is not a typo. <Q> Yes, it is correct; but it is very old fashioned, and you will rarely hear this spoken in modern English. <S> In older English, the verb will used to have a stronger sense of desire, want than it has now. <S> As you have mentioned, this old usage of would to mean would like is now archaic. <A> It is normal and common to use would to refer to a present-tense wish. <S> However, it is very unusual to use <S> would be in the way your example does. <S> A more natural way of stating your sentence would be: <S> I would like to be alone. <S> Edit : Actually, based on your tag it now occurs to me that your use of the archaic would be was deliberate. <S> In which case, leave it as is. <A> "Would" conveys a subjunctive, or conditional, meaning. <S> "I would be alone" implies an unspoken qualification such as "if that was possible" or "if I had my way." <S> "I would be alone" sounds archaic. <S> It recalls Shakespeare's work for many students, and it is sometimes used to suggest an Elizabethan style of diction. <S> In fantasy fiction it is sometimes used to imply the speaker comes from a chivalric or royal court culture, typically English, sometimes French, and, strangely enough, sometimes in shows with supernatural themes (witches, werewolves, demons). <S> As a result, it is a trite construction in popular entertainment, and is a common target for mock usage as well. <S> Modern use isn't that different in meaning, but in application. <S> "I would like a beer," for example, is common. <S> Add in the implied "if you have one" or "with your permission," and it can sound timid or deferential, but most people do not take note of that and consider it synonymous with "I will have a beer. <S> " <S> You'll hear a lot of this form in political rhetoric, as it implies an important prerequisite to the intention. <S> "If elected, I would institute a flat tax. <S> " You'll also hear it, perhaps not coincidently, as a way to avoid lying without actually countering an allegation or circumstantial evidence: "But I would never steal from my boss because stealing is wrong, and I would never do a wrong thing." <S> It's also used to suggest an alternate outcome if the conditions of the moment were somehow different. <S> "I would cap my reputation every day if everyone would just wait for my answers." <A> "I would be alone" is just a slight wording on "I am to be alone", which most have already mentioned is an archaic way of expressing your wishes by describing how you want things to be rather than express what you desire. <S> I can't help but associate such archaic expressions with "snobbishness" such as how a queen might dismiss her servant. <S> Whether that has any truth or not, it's used commonly in films to demonstrate the snobbishness of a character. <S> In all truth, it probably derived from the ruling class's tendency to speak a more archaic form of english in order to preserve it and consequently such usage is strongly associated with the ruling class or high class in general.
| I would is the conditional of will ; in this sense, it indicates a weaker degree of desire.
|
Is there a reason the British omit the article when they "go to hospital"? Why do British speakers omit the article in constructions like "go to hospital" or "go on holiday"? Pretty much all American speakers would rephrase those as "go to the hospital" and "go on a holiday", I think. Is there any good reason, or forgotten sense behind those words that might explain why the articles are ommitted? Are there other common constructions other than those two that the British use that drop the article? EDIT : I just realized per Kosmonaut's comment that Americans do much the same thing with a few nouns, so this isn't all that special. Do grammaticists designate nouns that can have their article dropped with anything, i.e. do they have anything in common? <Q> I can't speak for AmE, but in British English there is a distinction between "to school" and "to the school". <S> If you say: He went to school/church/hospital. <S> you imply that they went there for 'the purpose for which that place is designed'. <S> On the other hand, if you say: Jimmy's parents went to the school to meet the headmaster. <S> He wasn't religious, but he went to the church to help with the flower arranging. <S> With a bottle of arsenic in his pocket, he went to the hospital to visit his sick wealthy mother-in-law. <S> it implies that they went there as a visitor and not for the actual purpose of the building in question. <A> When we omit the article before the noun, we are thinking of a state or condition, not of a specific place: in jail, in love, in hospital, at university, under fire, <A> How we refer to roads is a an example where the reverse is true (in some parts of the US). <S> Brits might say Take the M1 or <S> Take the A1 , while most Americans will say take 95 or take 81 . <S> In Southern California, however, people say, take the 101 or the 1 . <A> There is a distinction. <S> "I went to the hospital" describes the act of physically visiting the physical hospital building. <S> Similarly, "he just got out of the hospital <S> " implies that "he" has stepped out of the building, possibly having popped into the hospital shop for a lottery ticket; "he just got out of hospital" says that "he" has been discharged and is probably feeling much better. <S> "I went to the school <S> " describes the act of physically visiting the physical building, whereas "I went to school" talks about the wider act of having spent the day in an educational institution learning from your teachers. <S> You could mix and match them, but it's quite common to leave out the article in what is the more common case. <A> Wiktionary has an archived discussion on the issue, though it's from a lexicography viewpoint (does the phrase belong in a dictionary?). <S> Also, are there other common constructions other than those two that the British use that drop the article? <S> In hospital and at uni . <S> Also, (I'm pretty sure both Brits and) <S> Americans use in bed , in school , in church , and in class . <A> Incidentally, there is a distinction between going into / in hospital (implies admission, and some length of stay that's pre-planned) and going to hospital (implies only a brief stay, usually to accident and emergency). <A> Yes, the point in your edit, is true. <S> For your main question, the answer is simple. <S> It is not necessary to say "go to the hospital" or "go on the holiday", when talking in a general sense. <S> A reference to one, particular example. " <S> go to the hospital" will mean going to one, particular hospital. <S> If what you mean is going to a hospital generally, for example talking about an injury that happened to you many years ago and an ambulance was called; then saying "the hospital", will have a different meaning. <S> I noticed that it is Americans who will speak like that. <S> This sounds odd and unnecessary to me, as a British person. <S> I have not heard any British people speak like that. <S> This can cause misunderstanding. <S> I remember an example of this, when I was talking to an American friend. <S> They mentioned an incident in which their neighbour had an accident and an ambulance was called. <S> They said the neighbour was taken "to the hospital" and came home the next day. <S> I asked which hospital <S> and they stopped talking for a moment. <S> They looked confused and asked why I would ask that, considering that I don't live near them and therefore would not be familiar with it. <S> After explaining that this not how British people speak, they realised. <S> If what you mean is one, particular example, like going to a particular hospital or a particular school that you have referred to by name; then, saying "going to the hospital" or "going to the school', will make sense. <S> Basically, the word 'the', is not necessary in sentences that are in the general sense. <S> The, is used when referring to something in a particular sense. <A> One facet of this that is confusing in American English is that you can go “to college”, but you are never “at university”, you are “at a university” and also “at college”. <S> I have no idea why this is the case or is acceptable. <S> I’ve seen this with the previously mentioned “at uni”, “at hospital” and “in future”. <S> Since “the future” is a place (like a hospital or a university”and a time, I find this rather odd.
| "I went to hospital" describes the wider act of having been infirmed and gone to the hospital building, possibly with a stay, and having been seen by a nurse/doctor. Use of the word 'the', means that the sentence is in a particular sense.
|
Why do Americans say "tuna fish"? I mean, it's not like there is a tuna vegetable or animal that it can be confused with. <Q> I agree with you that it does seem redundant. <S> However, this is common with other kinds of fish as well. <S> Many people say "codfish" instead of "cod". <S> Here is a recipe for "trout fish" croquets. <S> This convention has important meaning to a huge number of fish names: catfish, lionfish, swordfish, sunfish, cowfish, etc. <S> Also, it provides extra clarification for someone who wouldn't know what a "tuna" or a "cod" is otherwise. <S> Anyone learning English as a second language will probably learn the meaning of "fish" early on, but may not know the more specific names. <A> Tuna or cod is not always fish, just as cheddar is not always cheese. <S> In both cases, it distinguishes the primary item from items merely flavored with the item. <S> Tuna fish is almost always the meat of the Tuna. <S> Seldom is it the fish itself alive and/or whole; for those uses, "tuna" is used without "fish. <S> " <S> Tuna salad is a mixture of tuna and mayonaise, and often some diced pickles and/or onions. <S> Tuna sandwiches are sandwiches using tuna, and can be grilled or tuna salad. <S> Tuna crackers are tuna flavored crackers. <S> Tuna alone also can be a crude aphorism for female genitalia. <S> Cheddar is both the cheese, and the city where the recipe originates. <S> Several cheeses are likewise named for their place of origin, most notably swiss, münster, and berkswell. <S> But cheddar crackers are not made of cheddar, nor do they originate in cheddar, but are flavored with cheddar cheese. <S> Cheddar spread is mostly cheddar cheese, <S> Cod can be the fish, or the meat of the fish; a cod dinner is seldom just codfish, but usually also chips (fries) and/or hushpuppies (corn fritters). <S> The USS Cod is a submarine. <S> Cod is also an extremely common acronym, most commonly for "Cash on Delivery. <S> " Codpiece is a male pubic covering; cod at one point was slang for the scrotum, so codfish was a way of ensuring one was talking about fish and not men's genitals. <S> Speaking of corn fritters, I've never met a fritter that wasn't made with cornmeal; I'm TOLD they exist... <S> Likewise, most have also wheat flour and whole kernel corn. <S> It's another case of a term that at first appears to be redundant, but really isn't. <A> As a fisherman I can tell you that: "Tuna-fish" refers to the stuff in a can that is used to make tuna-fish salads or similar items. <S> It is typically albacore. <S> "Tuna" refers to the the meat in steak form and served raw (as sushi/sashimi), grilled, or pan seared. <S> It is typically yellow-fin or blue-fin. <S> Other fish such as catfish, swordfish, lionfish, etc. <S> obviously need the fish qualifier as a cat, sword, and lion as stand alone words are completely different things. <S> Also, while there is a tuna cactus (it is the fruit part) <S> it most commonly referred to as the prickly pear cactus. <S> Below the first picture is "tuna-fish" and the second picture is "tuna". <S> Tuna is perhaps the only fish where preparations are this vastly different. <A> Tuna is also the edible fruit of a cactus, or the name of that cactus. <A> Just to back up Skooba's correct answer , the OED entry for “ tuna fish ” is precisely tuna fish n. <S> the flesh of the tunny as food. <S> with its earliest citation given as 1917 <S> M[ary] <S> Green Better Meals <S> [ for Less Money ] xvi. <S> 130 <S> ( heading ) <S> Wikipedia's article on tuna similarly glosses <S> When tuna is canned and packaged for sale, the product is sometimes called tuna fish . <S> noting that the US legally restricts “white meat tuna” to referencing albacore and not yellowfin, bluefin, &c. <S> It's also worth noting that Albert Halfhill & his followers completely altered the flavor of tuna while trying to keep his cannery in business through a collapse of the sardine fishery off California in 1903. <S> He tried to reverse engineer some Italian tuna canning methods, removing the fish oil and replacing it with salad oil, but went on to treat the result with compressed steam. <S> The white meat that process produced—the stuff Americans mean when they talk about “tuna fish” and a very different thing from tuna steak or sashimi—had such a chicken-like consistency that tuna exploded in popularity in the US and even a century later still famously got confused with chicken on national television . <A> I think of tuna fish as the chopped up stuff in a can. <S> Tuna , on the other hand, I think of as whole fish. <A> I think the reason cheese gets appended to Cheddar much more often than to Double Gloucester , Brie , Camembert , <S> Wensleydale etc. is because it's the most common type. <S> The archetypal cheese, as cod is the archetypal fish. <S> (and I've heard codfish , but not haddockfish or salmonfish ). <S> And in UK at least, tuna is the most common canned fish. <S> As an archetype, it often thus gets to represent not just <S> it's own particular type, but <S> all cheeses. <S> After a restaurant meal I might ask for some Cheddar Cheese - I may not really care which cheese I get, but most likely if they have any , they'll have that. <S> If they do have alternatives I'll doubtless be offered them, but I'd be irritated by a waiter who included cheesecake in the offerings after I'd asked for Cheddar Cheese.
| Tuna is used to mean the fish, and the flesh of that fish (which is also called tuna fish ).
|
"Insecure" or "unsecure" when dealing with security? Which is the appropriate word to be used in the sentence: The system we were testing was determined to be insecure/unsecure. The usage is in the context of security, specifically a lack thereof. I've always said insecure , because I didn't believe unsecure was a word (although unsecured is). Even as I type this, I'm getting a spell check complaint about it. However, I was laughed at once when I called a particular device "insecure." <Q> I agree with Wayne Johnston, but will add some examples. <S> Insecurity has always meant to me a lack or deficiency of security (in whatever context it is used), as opposed to a potentially secure system not being secure at this present time. <S> Though, I don't think it's black and white. <S> Here are some examples of how I might use in/un-secure . <S> He was insecure and felt anxious when he went out with his friends. <S> On the other hand: Your bike is unsecured. <S> Don't you have a lock for it? <S> The rope was unsecured. <S> If he didn't find a hook or tree to secure it soon, the truck would fall into the ravine. <A> Unsecured means not secured , not fastened , or not guaranteed . <S> * <S> Unsecure is not a word as far as I can tell. <S> In your example the correct usage is insecure , meaning that the security of the system was found to be lacking. <S> The statement, " <S> The system we were testing was determined to be unsecured," would mean that the security was disabled, not that it was deficient. <A> You will find both insecure and unsecure in most dictionaries. <S> Unsecure is generally used for assets, commodities and systems and refers entirely to safety. <S> Insecure is used predominantly for emotional stability but also for safety, particularly in American English. <S> Corpus searches on both words will show you this usage distribution more clearly. <A> Wikipedia offers a fairly lengthy article on computer insecurity , while unsecurity returns results mostly about the United Nations Security Council. <S> Good enough for me. <A> In the context of computer security, I would actually recommend "nonsecure"; a system is secure if it is reasonably well protected against intrusion, and nonsecure if it lacks some or all reasonable measures of protection. <S> (Note that "secure" does not guarantee that a successful intrusion is impossible, only unlikely.) <S> Dictionaries haven't entirely caught up to this usage yet <S> (dictionary.com doesn't have 'nonsecure' but <S> m-w.com does, for example) <S> but it's fairly standard in the computer security field. <A> As other answers have indicated, "insecure" is a much more common word than "unsecure". <S> (The word "unsecured" has an intermediate frequency, but its meaning doesn't seem consistent with what you want.) <S> The most common nouns that occur after "unsecure" do seem relevant to your desired usage, however: the Ngram Viewer indicates that they are things like "unsecure network(s)", "unsecure line", "unsecure environment", "unsecure connection", and "unsecure channel". <S> The word "insecure", when used attributively before a noun, is actually often used with non-human nouns, but the top ones shown by Google are abstract like "insecure position", "insecure footing", "insecure basis", "insecure foundation(s)". <S> So if we chose a random occurence of the word "insecure", it probably won't be related to information security. <S> But this by no means indicates that it would be incorrect to speak of insecure devices. <S> In fact, because "insecure" is so much more frequent than "unsecure", the phrase "insecure network(s)" still seems to be much more common than "unsecure network"; likewise, "insecure channel" and "insecure connection" appear to be more common than "unsecure network" and "unsecure connection". <S> I would say it looks like you could use either word with this meaning. <A> As a system never really is totally secure, you might want to use sufficient/insufficient security instead, which would circumvent the unusual unsecure/insecure phrase: <S> The system we were testing was determined to have sufficient security. <S> The system we were testing was determined to have insufficient secturity. <S> Sufficient security would mean that the system has reasonable security measures given it's specific situation. <A> I am not native speaker, but I found next. <S> The in prefix is used for situations when property is constantly exists for an object: innocent , <S> insecure , incomplete <S> The un prefix is used for situation when you apply some property to an object: unsecure (remove the security); undo <S> (make finished task incomplete); unclean (make it dirty, but it was clean before) <S> Thus if you are going to use unsecure : <S> I unsecure your network and now it is insecureYou network was unsecured by me <S> , it is insecure now Examples above looks reasonable to me.
| Insecure means lacking in security . The system is insecure and needs work before we can roll it out to production. You can use either word, although different audiences will find it more or less strange.
|
Singular or plural following a list Can anyone tell me if I should use inspire or inspires in this phrase? An extraordinary leader whose vision, values, integrity and boundless curiosity inspires all who follow in his footsteps. <Q> You should use "inspire". <S> Don't be distracted by the fact that there's only one leader. <S> The inspiration is being done by that leader's many fine qualities, which are obviously plural. <S> I assume you wouldn't have doubts about Two great leaders whose vision inspires <S> all <S> (if you do , try it again as Two great leaders whose shared vision inspires all ). <A> There is a lot going on in this sentence but part of the problem is that it is a sentence fragment. <S> An extraordinary leader whose vision, values, integrity and boundless curiosity inspires all who follow in his footsteps. <S> If we trim out the list: An extraordinary leader whose [list] inspires all who follow in his footsteps. <S> Then trim the extra clause and adjective: <S> A leader whose [list] inspires all. <S> This isn't a sentence. <S> You need something else: <S> I am a leader whose [list] inspires all. <S> A leader whose [list] inspires all has arrived. <S> Once you have this in place you can ask about the inspiration. <S> Since the inspiration is stemming from the list and not the leader you should follow the plurality of the [list]. <S> If we stick a single word in there we can see why: A leader whose horses inspire all has arrived. <S> A leader whose horse inspires all has arrived. <S> See also: “My apples and orange are wrong” , specifically the accepted answer . <A> User MrHen's superlative answer above decomposes and then anatomises the sentence, so I just focus on the question <S> When can a singular verb be used for multiple subjects separated with 'and' ? <S> I find Brian A. Kelms 's answer herein supernal, so thought to excerpt it here: <S> This kind of thing used to trip me up, too, as a subject with multiple nouns in it seems like it should always be plural. <S> But that isn’t always the case. <S> The way you group the items determines whether it’s a singular subject or a plural subject (and whether you’d use the plural verb 'have' or the singular 'has' ). <S> Let me explain. <S> Sentence subjects that have independent nouns connected by 'and' are plural, thus requiring plural verbs (such as 'have' ). <S> One trick to tell if the nouns are independent from each other is to divide the sentence into two sentences and see if the meaning stays the same.
| So, to actually answer your question, when using a list, always treat it as plural.
|
What is the difference in meaning and usage between the words "topic", "theme", "subject"? I'd like to get a feel for the difference between these words. When are they interchangeable and when is only one of them appropriate or preferable? <Q> I'll define those terms under a Linguistic point of view. <S> Topic <S> In a sentence it's "what we are talking about", the part about which something is said. <S> Theme can be a synonym in this case, and rheme is what is being said about the topic. <S> Theme <S> Like I said, this can be a synonym of Topic in Linguistics. <S> But it can also be the stem of a noun or verb; the part to which inflections are added, the root. <S> Subject <S> The subject in grammar is that part of the discourse that indicates who does the action or who is the target, for example: 1) John eats an apple. <S> 2) <S> The apple was eaten by John. <S> In the first case, "John" is the subject, it's John who eats the apple. <S> But in the second case, the grammatical subject is no longer John but rather "The apple", while "John" is the logical subject ( meaning that even strictly considering the sentence structure, you know that it's John who did the action and not the apple ). <A> Topic and subject are interchangeable when speaking about a written document, discussion, etc. <S> It refers to the main idea being spoken of. <S> Theme would mean a prevalent idea present throughout the message, which is not necessarily the topic/subject, but could be. <A> At least to me, 'topic' and 'subject' refer to something more specific than 'theme'. <S> For example, I might say, "the topic of discussion will be.." <S> but I would never say "the theme of discussion will be..". <S> In this example, saying 'theme' feels wrong because it's impossible to decide what the 'theme' was before the discussion occurs. <S> But we can decide what the topic will be. <S> But afterwards you might say "the general theme was that we should blabla..". ' <S> Theme' generally refers to the dominant/unifying idea behind something. <S> You might talk about themes when discussing literature etc.
| The topic/subject should be a clear idea in the message, whereas not all themes have to be.
|
Origin of "I kid you not" What is the origin of the phrase "I kid you not"? And, on a related note, is the sentence, Can't I kid you? or Can't I kid with you? incorrect? <Q> This link seems ambiguous about the origin, but seems to be popularized by TV show host Jack Parr : : I KID YOU NOT <S> - Catchphrase used by Jack Paar. <S> Paar, host of the Tonight Show from 1957 to 1962, 'invented the talk-show format as we know it: the ability to sit down and make small talk big,' said Merv Griffin. <S> 'Even youngsters sent to bed before Mr. Paar came on parroted his jaunty catchphrase, 'I kid you not.' <S> From "He invented late-night talk, then walked away," an article in the Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., January 28, 2004. <S> Your wording of the question suggests someone is upset about a joke you've played on them, so it's more common to say "Just kidding" rather than pose it as a question. <A> I found a print reference of the phrase as early as 1948 in the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union Journal, Volume 43 : <S> Boy!, <S> Oh Boy! <S> I said I asked for a headache when I volunteered for this job, and I kid you not when I repeat it. <S> But it seems it was given a much wider audience as a phrase spoken several times by Lieutenant Commander Philip Francis Queeg in Herman Wouk's 1951 Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Caine Mutiny : <S> That's the Navy for you. <S> Pass the buck and get a receipt. <S> Act at discretion, hey? <S> Well that's exactly what I'm going to do, and I kid you not. <A> I always thought this phrase originated from young goats. <S> Young goats are called, kids. <S> These creatures are very playful. <S> A joke is playful and fun, as are kids. <S> Hence, "kidding" equates to the act of being playful. <A> Google books shows that I'm not kidding, used in the same sense as it is in America today, appears in the British novel A Daughter of the Philistines by Leonard Merrick (1897) and in the British novel The Story of the Amulet by Edith Nesbit (1906). <S> All Jack Paar did <S> was invert the word order to get <S> I kid you not. <S> Merriam-Webster says that kid (used in this way) is a transitive verb, so the correct American usage is <S> I'm kidding you. <S> or I'm not kidding. <S> Because the verb is transitive, <S> Can't I kid with you. <S> would be incorrect because of the with (and it definitely sounds wrong to me). <S> On the other hand, you can say Can't I kid around with you. <S> According to the other answers, the expression seems to have died out in Britain. <A> Your two sentences would not sound correct in British English - they may be grammatically correct, but would not be used. <S> In fact I can't actually tell what they are supposed to mean. <S> You could kid someone - if you mean to fool someone - but you would use the word 'fool' as kid is not used that way.
| Grammatically both your versions are correct - "kid you" and "kid with you"
|
"If it hadn’t been for the rock, the ship wouldn’t have gone aground" If it hadn’t been for the rock, the ship wouldn’t have gone aground. What does this idiom mean, exactly? From The Economist . <Q> It's a sarcastic way of describing the unjustified shifting of blame. <A> “if it hadn’t been for the rock, the ship wouldn’t have gone aground” <S> Blames the inanimate stationary rock for a ship running aground. <S> The implication is that the ship was poorly navigated, thus crashing into said rock however those in charge of the ship are placing the blame on the rock. <S> While the rock sunk the ship, avoiding this rock would only have bought a temporary reprieve as the disastrous management would almost certainly have found another rock to crash into. <A> There was a foreseeable obstacle. <S> But people without foresight are saying things would have been fine if there were no obstacle. <S> In the literal case, the foreseeable obstacle is the rock, and the people without foresight are the helmsman/captain/owner/etc. <S> In the figurative case, the Economist's MP source is arguing that the foreseeable obstacle is the economic crash (all booms end) and <S> the people without foresight are certain members of Labour.
| It basically suggests that it's not the captain's fault that the ship went aground, it's the rock's fault for being there.
|
Is "New and Improved" an oxymoron? It irritates me that advertisers often claim a product is "New and Improved". Surely, if something is new (ie, has not existed previously), it can't be improved ! And vice versa! <Q> (Image comes from: http://xkcd.com/870/ ) <A> It's advertising-speak, and that means it doesn't have to mean anything literally. <S> (When an ad announces that something is "Free!" does anyone think you don't have to pay money to get it? <S> Dream on!) <S> Basically, some kind of research has determined that using "New! Improved!" <S> (and, especially, "Free!") in an ad headline, copy, or voice-over leads to some percentage of increase in sales. <S> It's about creating an impression. <S> That said, something can be new without being improved . <S> A thing can also be both new and improved : <S> it can be argued that Windows 7, say, was, when it was released, both a new version of Windows and an improvement over the old version (Vista). <S> It was still, for all intents and purposes, a new version of Windows and an improved version of Windows. <S> Vista was a new version of Windows that many people felt was not an improvement over Windows XP. <S> New, but not improved. <S> Therefore, the claim "new and improved" is neither a tautology nor an oxymoron. <S> I wouldn't worry too much about how accurate or honest or grammatical or self-consistent advertising copy is or should be. <S> Most people hold it to a much lower standard than most of the rest of English. <A> There is no rule that says advertising language must adhere to perfect logic; however, in this case you are simply being too restrictive in your definition of new . <S> Definitions 7-11 of new : coming or occurring afresh; further; additional: new gains . <S> fresh or unused: to start a new sheet of paper . <S> (of physical or moral qualities) different and better: The vacation made a new man of him . <S> other than the former or the old: a new era ; in the New world . <S> being the later or latest of two or more things of the same kind: the new testament ; a new edition of Shakespeare . <S> Among these definitions of new , there certainly seems to be a notion of something that is the next iteration, or a refurbished/remade product. <A> On the contrary, it is more like a tautology . <S> That means that both words state the same and therefore one is redundant. <S> While the two words do carry slightly different meanings, they both convey the same general idea: <S> new as compared to old. <S> Here is the new one and there is the old one. <S> ~Shows <S> that this has replaced the older version. <S> improved and thus better than the old one. <S> The old version was unreliable, this new version is much improved. <S> ~Shows <S> that it has been remodeled or somehow made better. <S> Therefore, we could take away either word and essentially have the same concept. <S> The better word to keep would be improved since 'new' can be incorporated in its meaning', while something being new doesn't incorporate 'improvement' (consider new versions of your favourite childhood cartoons/TV shows!) <S> Hope this helps. <S> N.B.: It might be important to note that the word improved can be used for repairing items (like a damaged bicycle), in which case the item in question would not be new. <S> However, in the context of this question that sense is not relevant, since your broken and then fixed bicycle would not likely be the subject of an advertising campaign to sell it back to you. <A> I usually take it to mean that it's a new version of something already in existence <S> and it's improved (as in better than the one before, not worse). <S> That way, it makes sense to me <S> so it's not an oxymoron. <A> The most typical examples of oxymorons are phrases in which the meaning of an adjective contradicts the very nature of the noun with which it is associated. <S> A <S> well know example is a "deafening silence" or its symmetric a "silent scream". <S> In the example you cite, we have two adjectives and they don't have opposite meanings. <S> You possibly meant a pleonasm - a commonly observed phenomenon in advertising slogans [1]. <S> Yet "New and Improved" would not qualify either since, as many have already pointed out, newer things are not necessarily marked improvements on older ones. <S> [1] Celtic (Gaelic) etymology. <S> Hear, hear . <A> Literally, possibly, but I classify it almost as an idiomatic expression and, like (nearly) all idioms, mean something different than the literal meaning of their compotent terms.
| So, "new and improved" could be argued to be redundant, but not an oxymoron (unless you intentionally ignore some meanings of new ). And something can be improved without being new .
|
Is it correct to say "consecutively in time"? I'm writing a technical report and I want to emphasize that each sample that I have stored in a buffer has been collected before the following one. Can I say, The samples from the buffer are known to have been captured consecutively in time? <Q> Sounds redundant to me. <S> I'd put a period after "consecutively". <S> Alternatively, you might try "in chronological order". <A> More formally, you could also say, in succession : <S> The samples from the buffer are known to have been captured one after the other. <S> The samples from the buffer are known to have been captured in succession. <A> I think consecutively should suffice; it's as if the 'in time' is an inelegant hint as to what consecutively actually means, to those who aren't sure. <A> I think you could easily use the word, "sequentially." <S> From dictionary.com <S> se·quen·tial <S> [si-kwen-shuhl] –adjective 1.characterized by regular sequence of parts. <S> 2.following; subsequent; consequent. <A> Well, it could be used to make a distinction if the word were also serving other meanings: <S> con·sec·u·tive <S> (kn-sky-tv) <S> adj. <S> Following one after another without interruption; successive: was absent on three consecutive days; won five consecutive games on the road. <S> Marked by logical sequence. <S> Grammar <S> Expressing consequence or result: a consecutive clause. <S> From theFreeOnlineDictionary <S> If you had just used the word in its logical or grammatical sense, you might add "in time" if you then wanted to be clear about which version a chronological statement was serving. <A> Unless you are able to break a fundamental law of physics, consecutively in time is redundant. <S> If this is a technical report and you're discussing buffers, then your audience should/will probably understand FIFO. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFO <S> A queue is FIFO, a stack is LIFO. <A> Just one word: successively .
| I would suggest the good old simple expression, one after other . I cannot definitively say that consecutively in time is incorrect, but the phrasing is awkward, at best.
|
What's the difference between "these" and "those"? First of all, I'm not a native English speaker, but in school I learned that these is used if referring to something near, and those is used when referring to something far away (temporally or locally). But now I'm sometimes watching English movies and notice sentences like "Have you seen those boots?" while the boots were only centimeters away. Is this just not correct, or have I learned the wrong rules? Another question is, what if I'm referring to something abstract such as ideas or thoughts so that I can't say if they are far away or not. Should I use those or these? Edit So it can't be really wrong in any case if I use these respectively those? <Q> In the 'Have you seen those boots?' <S> example, if meant as an exclamation, there is also a sense of distancing oneself. <S> That is to say if it was meant to imply "Have you seen those boots, they are fantastic/awful", one is indicating the boots are not yours, but belonging to someone else, and thus conceptually distant from you. <S> If the question is taken to mean "Where are the boots? <S> " <S> then their distance is unknown, and thus also conceptually distant. <S> In summary, I would use 'those' when something is either physically or conceptually distant, and 'these' when they are near to me, either in proximity, or my emotional sentiment toward them. <S> That's the best way I can frame it logically, anyway. <A> These and those can indeed have locative difference. <S> They are the plural forms of this and that , respectively. <S> They often convey a more abstract idea of proximity rather than actual physical closeness. <S> If I am unaware of where the boots are, I will say "have you seen those boots?" <S> regardless of how close I think they might be. <S> There are no hard and fast rules on which one to use, since they are used somewhat intuitively, and can vary from speaker to speaker. <A> These if often used when presenting something you have to someone: Have you seen these boots? <S> I'm so glad I bought them. <S> These are the grapes I'm going to give to Mildred. <S> these Those are not my boots <S> Those poor pigeons, why did you shoot at them? <S> Those grapes are rotten, these grapes are not. <S> These are not strict rules. <A> I would also add that the speaker may have had mental distance in mind (possibly subconsciously) when speaking. <S> For example, either they hated the boots and wanted to distance themselves from them or the really liked the boots, but the boots were way more expensive than the speaker could afford. <A> "These" is generally used to refer to things that are currently present/happening, whereas "those" may be used to refer to things that are present/happening at a distance, be it space and/or time wise. <S> However, it is also common to use "those" for things that are not on the immediate person of the speaker, remembering that near and far away are both distances.
| Those is often used when you you are indicating something not in your possession, something conceptually unattached to you, or as an alternative to what you are presenting as
|
In what contexts would one use the slang word "minging" in British English? I was watching a Youtube video on English accents, and in the middle of a Yorkshire one, I think, the author of the video used the word "minging", in what seemed to be an insult. So I have two questions: What's the definition of the word, and does it have any preferred phrases or contexts its used in? I'm looking for more the connotative elements that dictionaries aren't really good at giving. <Q> Less common but still frequently it can mean " <S> smelling very bad". <S> It is also found frequently as a verb ("That food mings"; "She mings to high heaven"), with either of the senses above, and also commonly with an "-er" suffix to denote a person not possessed of physical beauty ("That psmears is a right minger"). <A> The New Oxford American Dictionary has: minging (adjective; British; informal): foul-smelling. <S> • very bad or unpleasant: <S> I'd really like to burn that minging beige jacket he has glued to him all the time . <S> ORIGIN 1970s: <S> perhaps from Scots dialect ming ‘excrement.’ <A> As a northern English man I use this word all the time. <S> Minging can mean stinking, revolting, honking. <S> Also there is minger , someone who looks unsightly, or failed to wash and smells, or is generally repulsive. <S> You then have other variations such as ming monged when you're drunk. <S> I'm minging when drunk. <S> Basically you can use it in any context when describing something revolting. <S> He was, she was minging, he is, she is, they were minging etc. <A> Being 'minging' can also mean to be hungover. <S> My brother uses the phase "ming-be-gone" to refer to anti-perspirant. <S> I'm sure he must have picked that up from somewhere, but I've never heard anybody else use it. <S> It's largely for comedic effect. <A> Minging originates from a British Army term for being drunk. <S> E.g. "I'm absolutely minging!" <S> This morphed to a wider meaning of "in a bad way or in bad order". <S> E.g., if you have very muddy, dirty boots you may say "My boots are minging!" <S> This later translated into Civi street as "dirty, nasty, ugly, smelly etc.". <A> Just for interest's sake, I live in London - <S> the use of 'minging' and all its other forms was very common 10 years ago, but has since faded, as 'fad' words do ('wicked' meaning <S> good being one that's almost completely disappeared). <S> I still hear it occasionally, but rarely, so seems like its only being used by older people, or in other regions of the UK.
| The most common uses are probably to describe people (and to a slightly lesser extent, objects), with the meaning "very ugly" or "repulsive". I've also personally used 'minging' or 'ming' to describe: the weather, during a day of heavy rain a particular poor piece of programming London, when particularly bad for air pollution
|
What is the word for an action that is "considered to be frowned upon"? I'm looking for an adjective to describe a behavior or action that is considered to be a faux pas, or is frowned upon. Picking your nose is [ word ]. Wearing socks with sandals is [ word ]. Breaking wind in an elevator is [ word ]. Voting this question down is [ word ]. ok, maybe not the last one... <Q> How about uncouth ? <S> WordNet Search says: S: (adj) coarse, common, rough-cut, uncouth, vulgar (lacking refinement or cultivation or taste) " <S> he had coarse manners but a first-rate mind"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "an untutored and uncouth human being"; "an uncouth soldier--a real tough guy"; "appealing to the vulgar taste for violence"; "the vulgar display of the newly rich" <A> 'frowned upon' sounds just right to me. <S> It's general enough to fit all your cases. <S> I don't think a two word locution is breaking the rules here. <A> Perhaps, simply inappropriate? <A> Maybe taboo. <S> Except for the socks with sandals one. <S> I'd have to go with forbidden or illegal. <S> (At least it should be) <A> Perhaps you're looking for the adjective verboten ? <S> If that's a bit too strong, you might try gauche . <A> Not done is a good term for this. <S> Going to a random internet reference site, <S> YourDictionary.com defines it as <S> socially unacceptable, improper : <S> Bringing along two friends without asking, that’s just not done. <S> It also describes it as [first half of 1900’s] — but in my experience, it’s still absolutely current in British English. <S> It may be no longer widely used in American English. <A> What's wrong with rude ? <S> (at least for examples 1 and 3). <A> I believe the word you are looking here is: Improper From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/improper —Synonyms <S> 1–3. <S> inapplicable, unsuited, unfit. <S> 2. <S> indecorous. <S> Improper has a wide range, being applied to whatever is not suitable or fitting, and often specifically to what does not conform to the standards of conventional morality: improper diet; improper behavior in church; improper language. <S> Indecent, a strong word, is applied to what is offensively contrary to standards of propriety and especially of modesty: indecent behavior, literature. <S> Unbecoming is applied to what is especially unfitting in the person concerned <S> : conduct unbecoming a minister. <S> Unseemly is applied to whatever is unfitting or improper under the circumstances: unseemly mirth. <A> Uncivilized ? <S> Definitely for the downvote, <S> and I think suits the others as well. <S> The Russian version, ' nekulturny ' is quite a bit stronger, and I've seen it a few times in English. <A> This answer to your question is reprehensible! <A> Picking your nose is rewarding . <S> Wearing socks with sandals is weird . <S> Breaking wind in an elevator is unavoidable . <S> Voting this question down is mean . <S> But to answer your question: horrible is another option. <A> Normal people usually say "frowned upon" for this scenario, if you're describing how society is: Picking your nose is frowned upon. <S> "Discouraged" may be used in contexts where the speaker is trying harder to actually get you to not do these things. <A> My personal preference would be disfavored . <S> It means generally viewed with disfavor or disapproval. <S> That's almost an exact match, IMO. <A> Not strictly an adjective though. <A> My mother would always use the phrase "infra dig" for things like this. <S> Literally, beneath one's dignity. <A> Infra dig - Literally means 'beneath one's dignity', but also used to imply unacceptability. <S> See World Wide Words <A> I believe many things that are "frowned upon" would generally be considered poor form . <S> For example, picking your nose in public is poor form. <S> Rolling up the resultant boogers, and eating them, is even worse form. <A> How about: common ? <S> It's a word often used by the British to express disdain and disparagement. <S> Sometimes used in unison with "muck" as in: "Look at him, picking his nose and "breaking wind" like that. <S> He's as common as muck !" <S> I wouldn't use it with someone who wears socks under his/her sandals though. <S> common definition: 6. <S> Unrefined or coarse in manner; vulgar: behavior that branded him as common. <S> common as muck <S> "an impolite way of describing someone who is from a low social class <S> You can tell from the way she talks she's as common as muck." <A> What about despicable ? <S> It's the first word that came to my mind... <S> Maybe it's a bit too strong <S> but here you have the synonyms: <S> contemptible, loathsome, hateful, detestable, reprehensible, abhorrent, abominable, awful, heinous; odious, vile, low, mean, abject, shameful, ignominious, shabby, ignoble, disreputable, discreditable, unworthy; informal dirty, rotten, lowdown, lousy; beastly; Also <S> woeful and pitiable can be included. <A> "tasteless" is my first guess, which upon further consideration is not a 100% hit. <S> "proof for bad education" is my second guess. <S> Third is "suboptimal", being quite an understatement, but transporting the message with a bit of humor, and leaving enough room for interpretation that the socks-in-a-sandal-wearers are not really hurt, yet reach those who hate that combination. <S> Fourth is the German word "abstossend" in English, which as far as I know is "abhorrent", or "repellent". <S> The German pick is absolutely appropriate, but I am not sure about the Enlgish word. <A> How about uncivilized or uncivil ?
| Improper, indecent, unbecoming, unseemly are applied to that which is unfitting or not in accordance with propriety. Discouraged is the word I want to fill that blank with. Wearing socks with sandals is frowned upon. Breaking wind in an elevator is frowned upon.
|
Is ''thanks'' singular or plural? Possible Duplicate: “Special thanks go to” or “Special thanks goes to” I heard a lot of time the following two sentences. Many thanks also goes to xyz and abc for [...]. Many thanks also go to xyz and abc for [...]. Which one of these two sentences is correct? Is thanks singular or plural? <Q> In the sentence you wrote, many thanks is plural, and you should write <S> many thanks go . <S> Thanks is also used as singular, as shown in the following sentences reported by the Corpus of Contemporary American English , which find 13 sentences containing thanks goes used in academic context. <S> My deepest thanks goes to the German and US journalists who shared their expertise with me in the context of my fieldwork. <S> [ACAD] <S> A special thanks goes to Kara Goodson and Jimmie King at PSA Headquarters. <S> [ACAD] <S> Special thanks goes to the world's exhibitor community for they submitted nearly 2,500 entries (10,000 images) for the judges and ultimately for exhibitions at the Conference in Baltimore. <S> [ACAD] [...] <S> and a lot of thanks goes to Cory Parker. <S> [NEWS] <S> A heartfelt thanks goes out to the staff of the Victims Witness Assistance Program. <S> [NEWS] <S> My heartfelt thanks goes to the police and paramedics for their quick and caring response. <S> [NEWS] <A> Thanks is plural, as indicated by the word many . <S> As a result, the use of goes here is incorrect. <A>
| It is both the singular and plural form of the word, like "deer" or "fish".
|
How to properly use "lump sum" How is the term lump sum properly used? Do I work for a lump sum or on a lump sum? Can I work lump sum based, or can I offer a lump sum price? <Q> It sounds a little odd, because "lump sum" normally refers to the manner in which you are paid (in one "lump" rather than in several separate payments) rather than the amount itself. <S> When you turn the phrase around, it is much less common to use "lump sum" for the arrangement. <S> Instead we'd say: I offer a fixed price contract. <S> I think this is the meaning you are after: agreeing to work for a particular price, regardless of how long it takes. <S> The payment may be in a single lump sum or a number of instalments, but that's a separate matter. <A> I've never heard it used in this way. <S> It usually means there is a choice between taking money as a single amount or a series of installments. <S> Life insurance can be paid as a lump sum or an annuity. <A> There is a set phrase in the British construction industry of working on the lump <S> What it meant was casual labour, often failing to pay income tax or national insurance as employers and employees <S> should, with various attempts by tax officials to close it down. <S> It was formally described as "Labour-Only Sub-Contracting" meaning that in theory the individuals were self-employed, though in practice they were picked up at street corners as casual labourers, or recruited though agencies. <S> The Lump is a phrase suggested by lump-sum contracting, though it is in fact closer to piece-rates for employees, and therefore opposed by the trades unions. <S> The practice and debate has run for over a century . <A> I work for a lump sum. <S> I work on a lump-sum basis. <S> My fees are based on a lump sum. <S> I offer a lump-sum contract. <S> "Offer a lump-sum price" might be a bit confusing since you're offering to work for a price, not to pay the price yourself.
| You work for a lump sum, rather than on it.
|
Using "utilize" instead of "use"? My friend has been raising a ruckus about the abuse of the word "utilize" in place of the word "use." He complains that it just makes your sentences sound pretentious. u·ti·lize [yoot-l-ahyz] verb (used with object), -lized, -liz·ing. to put to use; turn to profitable account: to utilize a stream to power a mill. utilize. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 06, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilize Today we saw this post which uses "utilize": each app vendor may utilize unique policies for app pricing." He claims that this isn't a very good sentence to use "utilize" in. I don't disagree but what determines whether or not you should use "utilize" in place of "use?" <Q> This goes way back. <S> From the Online Ety. <S> Dict. <S> : <S> 1807, from Fr. utiliser, from It. <S> utilizzare, from utile "usable," from L. utilis "usable," from uti (see use (v.)). <S> It's used in the sense of "to make profitable use of," as opposed to the bare "use," which just means "to employ. <S> " There's a nuance there that speakers have found useful. <S> The only error is the use of "utilize" when "use" alone would suffice. <A> But it is a little pompous (only a very little, honest). <S> The main reason I personally wouldn't 100% endorse its use here is that utilise is (in principle, at least) a somewhat more precise word than use . <S> It often implies a degree of creativity in making something be capable of being used in a way not originally intended , rather than simply using something designed for the purpose of being thus used. <S> The vendors’ unique policies are obviously designed for the very use to which they will be put, so I think utilise is a bit overdone - slightly tautological, actually. <A> Well, I would turn it round: <S> when there's a nice, short, plain, easily understood word that expresses what you want to say, I would suggest there's no need to use a long, psuedotechnical one instead just for the sake of it. <S> If you really feel that "utilise" conveys some extra/special meaning in the context in which you're using it, then fair enough. <S> For example, in some contexts (but I think not this one), saying "utilise" rather than "use" may get across the notion of "making special use of something where it wouldn't usually be put to practical use". <S> But if you're just trying to use a long word for the sake of it, then I would suggest that using clear, easy to understand language may be a more effective communication strategy. <S> The sentence you quote seems to be a classic case of somebody with poor writing skills attempting to sound impressive but in so doing they fail to see the wood for the trees in terms of getting their message across. <S> They really could have just said "Each seller can define how they want to price their apps" and the message would have been to the point and easy to understand. <A> It is advantageous to utilize those linguistic constructs which most emphatically dialog the paradigm conceptualized by the origination entity-person. <S> Or you could just say what you mean. <S> I used to work for a company where any reports we wrote for delivery to a customer had to be edited by the company's "deliverable department". <S> They routinely changed every place where I wrote "use" to "utilize" and replaced other short words with longer words. <S> This was done so mechanically that I wouldn't be surprised if they just used the search-and-replace function in Word. <S> I can't imagine any purpose for it other than to sound more pretentious. <S> (I'm not saying there is never a legitimate reason to use the word "utilize", just that a wholesale replacement of "use" with "utilize" is silly.) <S> (They also once changed a statement about the steps you had to take to "effect a change" to saying you had to do this to "affect a change". <S> Umm, no. <S> The procedure didn't alter the change, it caused it. <S> I guess someone read in a book that lots of people use "effect" as a verb when they mean "affect", and so they blindly changed it without reading or understanding the sentence.) <S> I've often said that when people set out to write, they tend to have one of two motives. <S> (a) <S> To inform or educate the reader. <S> In this case, they tend to use simple words, clear examples, etc. <S> (b) <S> To impress the reader with how smart the author must be to understand this complicated subject. <S> In this case, they use big words, convoluted examples, etc. <S> People who are really good at (a) leave the reader walking away saying, "Wow, I don't know why people say differential calculus [or whatever] is so hard. <S> It seems pretty logical and straightforward to me. <S> " People who are really good at (b) leave the reader walking away saying, "Wow, I never realized how complicated arithmetic really is. <S> I thought I understood it until I read this book. <S> That author must be a genius to understand this stuff; I couldn't make sense of a word of it." <A> Why would someone want to use a longer and uglier word when there's a better alternative? <S> Utilize sounds like a middle manager in an insurance company sending out a memo to the lower echelons while trying to sound important. <S> Utilize is pretentious and it gets dodgy when you try to add prefixes and suffixes: <S> Underutilized versus underused? <S> Abutilized versus abused? <S> Underutilization versus underuse?No contest. <A> The only necessary use I can think of is in 'utilization' which has a specific meaning different from 'usage' <A> I tend to think of utilize in cases that seem "passive" - where there is no "user". <S> So for example, we could say: a resource "has been fully utilized. <S> " <S> This sidesteps the question of "by whom?" which is not relevant to the discussion. <S> It also leans toward the meaning of utility rather than the verb sense of consuming . <S> The resource in question was "advantageously spent" rather than "put in to action". <S> It seems very passive to me. <S> The emphasis is on how much has been used rather than how it was used.
| I don't think there's anything seriously wrong with utilize ( utilise in UK, so forgive me if I revert to type).
|
Is there a difference between "vice", "deputy", "associate", and "assistant" as descriptive job titles? When vice, deputy, associate , or assistant is collocated with a job title, such as vice manager, deputy manager, associate manager, assistant manager , I wonder how to rank or differentiate their levels. Or, they sometimes can be the same, can't they? <Q> Vice refers to the one who is next in command! <S> And its usage is usually confined to a small number of people, whereas Deputy also refers the same but it is confined to considerably large number of people. <S> For example: There would be just one or two vice presidents under a president! <S> On the contrary, there can be many deputy engineers under a manager. <S> Associate refers to someone who is usually not as high in the cadre as Deputy/Vice but of someone who is of equal level in being a sub ordinate & Assistant being the least in the cadre of the above mentioned! <S> So if you are looking to differentiate, it would be something like this, Vice = <S> Deputy <S> > <S> Associate <S> > Assistant <A> 'Deputy' literally means someone who can act in the stead of his/her superior. <S> Hence, the verb to 'deputize' for somebody, to take their place. <S> A sheriff's deputy is a good example. <S> Similarly, 'vice' comes from the Latin meaning 'in place of'. <S> We have the familiar example of the President of the United States of America, and his/her Vice President who, while being subordinate, may take on the role of President in certain circumstances. <S> I would rank both 'deputy' and 'vice' ahead of 'associate' and 'assistant'. ' <S> Associate' is commonly used to refer to general employees of not especially high rank, such as associates in a law firm. ' <S> Assistant' is a term which can be used to mean something like 'helper' or 'aide' - it may even be pejorative depending on context - but in some cases can be used to indicate a rank similar to 'deputy', such as Assistant District Attorney, or Assistant Coach. <S> In general, these are quite fluid terms depending on the setting in which they are used. <A> Usually, these are also job titles held by a single person. <S> " <S> Associate," on the other hand is used to mean something similar to the others (in terms of being a subordinate), but they may be one of a number of such persons. <A> I'm not looking this up, but… <S> Vice goes only with president and signifies a position that is both executive and subordinate. <S> Deputy specifically implies that the person in charge hired the underling so as to delegate not only tasks, but authority over others as well. <S> Associate is often used in marketing positions, so clients may be impressed that they are talking to a "manager. <S> " If your manager is only an associate manager, then you are definitely low on the chain. <S> Assistant signifies delegation like deputy , but the person works more closely to perform tasks for the superior. <S> The assistant gives orders less often than the deputy and writes more reports. <A> This depends on the ranking system of the institution in question, geographical location also plays a big part, see academic ranks below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_ranks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ranks <A> For the military services, the term "Vice" is used to identify the second in line for non-command roles, such as the Vice Chief of Staff, Army/Air Force. <S> The term "Deputy" is used to denote the second in line for Command billets, as in Deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command.
| "Vice-," "deputy" and "assistant" are generally used to refer to the "second-in-command" or the one who may act as a representative for the holder of the original job title.
|
What is meant by "sth"? I came across this line in a site: Can u make sth effective for a sports betting related product? I can't understand what is meant by sth effective here. I tried to google it but was unable to understand. Can anybody explain to me what is meant by this word? Is it an English word or is it from another language? <Q> Sth is a standard abbreviation for something . <S> It is used in some reference books, such as dictionaries, in order to save space. <S> Another common one is sb for somebody . <A> I think it's short for 'something'. <A> It is only used in cases like phrase books and other reference books where the premium on space makes considerably heavy abbreviation appropriate. <S> Compare how a dictionary might use abbreviations like adj. <S> phr. <S> , esp. <S> Brit. , colloq. <S> and obs. <S> but in normal English we would never use those but the full phrases. <S> It makes sense though because: Space is at a particular premium in dictionaries, which struggle to be both comprehensive and physically compact. <S> The context means that at the point where we see e.g. adj. <S> phr. <S> we are expecting a part of speech, where we see colloq. <S> we are expecting a note on usage and so on, so the problem with such heavy abbreviations causing confusion is reduced. <S> The dictionary will contain a key to the abbreviations it itself uses, further reducing the problem with heavy abbreviations. <S> Similarly, sth ( <S> and sb for somebody ) are found in phrase books and vocabularies for non-native speakers. <S> Whether by force of habit, or by confusing the abbreviation listed as for use in that particular context as an abbreviation defined as one used in English, some non-native speakers are led to believe that it is a common abbreviation in English (akin to etc. <S> or i.e. ) <S> and so use it, though native speakers do not generally use these abbreviations at all and so find their use jarring at best, and at worse so opaque as to not understand what is meant. <S> It's an interesting foreignism, because it results not from lack of fluency, the influence of another language, or a hypercorrection in attempt to avoid those (which cause most traits that one will find in non-native use but not in native), but from an artefact of the very guides that are ironically intended to help people learn and use the language.
| Sth is a specialised abbreviation for something .
|
What is the difference (in terms of usage and connotation) between "loath" and "loathe"? I'm having difficulty in understanding the differences in usage (and understanding which one is used from pronunciation/context) between "loathe" and "loath" - could anyone help clarify it ? <Q> 'Loathe' is a verb used to indicate repugnance: I loathe Brussels sprouts. <S> 'Loath' is an adjective suggesting unwillingness or reluctance: <S> I am loath to eat my Brussels sprouts. <S> As for pronunciation, they both rhyme with 'loan' as far as the vowel sound is concerned, but 'loathe' ends with a 'th' sound as in 'the', <S> whereas 'loath' has a 'th' as in 'thing'. <S> This is based on my experience as an Australian English speaker who rarely says either of these words! <A> There are several pairs of words in English where the verb has a voiced 'th' (/ð/) and the other form has it unvoiced (/θ/). <S> Usually there is a difference in spelling ("loath"/"loathe"; " <S> wreath"/"wreathe"),but sometimes not ("mouth"/"mouth"). <S> Sometimes the vowel sound changes as well ("breath"/"breathe"; "bath"/"bathe"). <S> In most cases the 'non-verb' is a noun, but in this case "loath" is an adjective. <S> However it is a slightly odd one, in that you can say "I'm nothing loath to ... ": I can't think of any other words that will go in this construction. <S> "Loath" is also rather rare in modern English. <A>
| Loathe is used to express hatred/dislike/disgust whereas loath is used to express unwillingness/reluctant attitude.
|
"Unicorn": what other words have this "cornus" etymology? "Unicorn" comes from the French and late Latin, with the "cornus" part meaning "horn". I am wondering what other English words share this root. I could think of "rhinoceros". Can you think of something (or multiple somethings) else? <Q> The Latin word for horn is cornu , stem cornu- <S> (with null-inflection in the nominative case). <S> Note that Latin cornus , "cornel/dogwood", comes from a different Proto-Indo-European root and is not related. <S> Rhinoceros comes from Greek keras , horn. <S> * ḱer- (very frequently, and seemingly somewhat at random, expanded to <S> * ḱerh₂- ), which meant something like "horn, head" <S> (note that there appear to be other PIE roots <S> * ker- <S> that are not related). <S> The examples Snumpy and Trideceth gave all come from Latin cornu- . <S> The following words come from the PIE root * ḱer- through Latin, but not from Latin cornu- : <S> cervix <S> cerebral triceratops <S> rhinoceros <S> The word horn comes from the same PIE root, but not through Latin: the /k/ sound was lenited to /x/ <S> or /h/ <S> in Proto-Germanic, as Colin Fine said, which is why we have <S> /h/ <S> now, just as in other Germanic languages. <A> cornucopia corneous corner tricorn and, believe it or not, corn <A> Previous answers listed cervix , cerebral , triceratops , rhinoceros , cornea , Capricorn , cornicen , corniform , cornucopia , corneous , corner , <S> tricorn , corn (on the foot), and cornicle as being from the same PIE root. <S> There are others, including hirn , keratin , kerato- <S> and anything formed therefrom, cerebro- and anything formed therefrom, many (but not all) <S> other <S> corn- <S> and -corn words, and, possibly, Cornelia . <S> Unrelated are cerul- <S> words, ceremony , karma (related to ceremony , though), hurl , and, as someone else has mentioned, corn (grain). <A> cornea <S> Capricorn <S> cornucen <S> corniform <S> cornicle <S> There are many medical terms as well, which I'll not bother mentioning. <A> bicorn and tricorn (as in 18th century hats)
| Both Latin cornu and Greek keras come from the same PIE root
|
Are there resources or tools for "reverse etymology"? EtymOnline is an excellent resource for online etymology searches. If, however, I am looking for lists of words sharing a given Latin, Greek or other root (which I call "reverse etymology"), I do not know which tool I could use. Do you know any? The only thing I could think of is, if I had access to an offline etymology dictionary, I could then perform a full-text search into its content. <Q> This can be achieved with a touch of Google-fu. <S> We want to limit our Google search to search only the site, http://www.etymonline.com/ . <S> From reading the url structure of each result, we notice that definitions all contain ? <S> term= , so can we refine the search with these bits of info: <S> site:etymonline.com <S> inurl: <S> term <S> Then, we add a space and the term we are looking for; if it appears in the text describing a word's etymology, we have a hit. <S> For example, we'd type the following if we wanted to search for phagos : site:etymonline.com <S> inurl: <S> term phagos Search results for "phagos" <S> We are a touch limited in that we must rely on the definitions containing that particular variant. <S> For example, the above search returns 5 hits; however, a search for phagous returns 13 hits despite phagos and phagous sharing a common root. <S> Hope that helps! <S> EDIT : <S> I've further played with this and noticed that occasionally it returns search pages which don't really add much. <S> These can be filtered out as they all contain the expression ? <S> search= , so we can use: <S> site:etymonline.com <S> inurl: <S> term -inurl: <S> search phagos <S> For anyone interested in understanding how that works, prepending a - negates the statement <S> so -inurl:search evaluates to AND <S> url does not contain "search" . <A> Wiktionary maintains descendant lists, but they are far from complete. <S> See e.g.: cornu (Latin) <S> wódr̥ (PIE) <S> watōr <S> (Proto-Germanic) <A> Not online, <S> but I picked up a second-hand copy of Pokorný's Indo-European Dictionary some years ago, and I often refer to it for this. <S> I'm sure that scholarship has moved on since, though. <A> (so you could go backward and forwards in time). <S> Those old pages are available through the 'wayback machine' at http://web.archive.org/web/20080209175233/www.bartleby.com/61/ <S> AHD (at that archive site) also has accompanying articles for Indo-European and Semitic roots, and lists of those roots which then link forward to derivatives: http://web.archive.org/web/20080211183126/www.bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html <S> Seems to be slow, but likely to be exactly what you want. <S> (A comment points out that the dictionary is still online, but it just doesn't offer the same list of IE roots or clickable etymology.) <A> https://www.etymonline.com/word/*ad-?ref=etymonline_crossreference <S> As above, currently the roots are hotlines as well. <S> Basically, you can search on a root word or particle and it shows all of the modern words derived from that root. <S> Try searching for *per- in the search box. <A> This misses many hits, but still gives a lot of results:METHOD 1: 1) <S> Replace the word "still" for the word you want in the following link: <S> https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/still&limit=500 2) to filter bad results, do ctrl+f "still" (and variants that you suspect to match), those results will give you lots of words that are descendants. <S> METHOD 2: <S> same as method 1, only to explain what the weird link means:1) go to the "still" page on wiktionaryShould get you here: <S> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/still <S> 2)Click "what links here" <S> (probably in the left side bar)Should get you here: <S> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/still 3) <S> Click "500" to try to see all the results in the page. <S> 4) do step "2" of METHOD 1.
| The American Heritage Dictionary (used to be online, no more) had great etymology links back to the root of a word, which then had a link to all the words derived from the root.
|
What does "like kicking a puppy" mean? "I think we just don't care that much [about Microsoft] anymore," Zemlin said. "They used to be our big rival, but now it's kind of like kicking a puppy." I'm just curious, how to correctly translate that ? Does that mean that Microsoft is now "kicking like a puppy" on the market but can do nothing anyway or it is Zemlin, who kicks Microsoft like a puppy on the market? <Q> The phrase "kicking a puppy" means that the action would be picking on/bullying a weaker target. <S> So in this case, Zemlin does not care about Microsoft because to them Microsoft is a very weak and easy target and to harm them (kick them) would be like "kicking a puppy" i.e. picking on something that cannot defend itself. <A> I think an adequate simile would be "like taking candy from a baby", if you're more familiar with that. <S> Something which is 'easy' (physically if not emotionally), implicitly mean or unfair to the subject. <A> Microsoft is not the one kicking puppies here; it is (being reduced to) a puppy itself. <S> It used to be a serious rival, but no longer is, so attacking it is like kicking a puppy.
| Basically it's an insult, they are implying that Microsoft is so small and helpless that it's beneath them to even bother with them.
|
"Tit for tat"—Where does this come from? I always ask myself where this saying originates. I only know the individual words, tit and tat , but why is this a saying? <Q> Tit and tat are used here to mean striking a light blow, so the phrase has exactly the same meaning as blow for blow . <S> They were used as both nouns and verbs, as a sixteenth-century rhyme shows: <S> Come tit me, come tat me, come throw a kiss at me. <S> ( Source ; An earlier variation has halter instead of kiss .) <S> I always thought it was a cute mispronunciation of this for that , but apparently it's actually a corruption of tip for tap ( Etymonline ; concise etymological dictionary ), with the same—and, I should think, slightly more obvious—meaning. <A> An exhaustive derivation from http://www.businessballs.com/clichesorigins.htm : <S> tit for tat - retribution or retaliation, <S> an exchange insults or attacks - 'tit for tat' evolved from 'tip for tap', a middle English expression for blow for blow, which also meant a trade of verbal insults. <S> Tit is an old English word for tug or jerk. <S> Tat evolved from tap partly because of the alliteration with tit, but also from the verbal argument aspect, which drew on the influence of the Middle English 'tatelen' meaning prattle, (Dutch tatelen meant stammer) which also gave rise to tittle-tattle. <S> Tip and tap are both very old words for hit. <S> (eg 'tip and run' still describes a bat and ball game when the player hits the ball and runs, as in cricket). <S> Tit for tat was certainly in use in the mid-late 16th century. <S> Tip for Tap was before this. <S> Skeat's 1882 dictionary of etymology references 'tit for tat' in 'Bullinger's Works' . <S> Brewer in 1870 suggests for 'tit for tat' the reference 'Heywood', which must be John Heywood, English playwright 1497-1580 (not to be confused with another English playwright Thomas Heywood 1574-1641). <S> According to James Rogers dictionary of quotes and cliches, John Heywood used the 'tit for tat' expression in 'The Spider and the Flie' 1556. <A> Though etymonline guesses in the way of Robusto's post I would assume that it is related to plattdütsch or Low German where this/dies is dit and that/das is dat. <S> So Low German dit för dat simply means this for that. <S> I am always astonished that English etymological dictionaries prefer parallels to Old Norse or PIE consonant constructs but seldom mention near similar words in Low German, Frisian, Dutch, High German or Latin, words that are better known than PIE roots.
| As with lots of these old expressions, their use has been strengthened by similar sounding foreign equivalents, especially from N.Europe, in this case 'dit vor dat' in Dutch, and 'tant pour tant' in French.
|
Which acronyms are used for epochs? How are the acronyms placed? For example, I usually use 560 BCE 1066 CE As opposed to the traditional: 560 BC AD 1066 Some people, when using AD, place it after the year: 1066 AD How are epochs commonly denoted? <Q> Commonly, BC follows the date and AD precedes the date when referencing a specific year. <S> Wikipedia suggests this is because English copies Latin usage of placing the abbreviation before the year number. <S> Since AD is a latin phrase and BC is not, we arrive at 535 BC and AD 1066. <S> Not the most compelling objective argument, I admit, but entirely plausible considering the other odd constructions we've kept around simply because of Latin tradition. <S> When referring to a century as a whole in text, the convention of placing either BC or AD after the stated century is considered acceptable by most of the style guides I dug up. <S> Wikipedia goes further to note that CE and BCE are becoming increasingly common in academic and religious writing, and suggests that CE and AD should not be used unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it. <S> As an aside, I remember seeing one unusual date-reference acronym that was a good five letters long. <S> It had to do with radiocarbon years, if I recall correctly. <S> The full acronym escapes my memory at the moment, but hopefully someone will read this and chime in. <A> The BCE and CE just strike me as silliness. <A> You should adopt the practices of wherever your writing will end up. <S> If you submit to a paper or journal, check their style guides or ask an editor which they prefer. <S> Schools and their professors will often have a preference and following their lead shows them a few things: you care about style <S> you notice small details <S> you are willing to defer your personal preferences <S> keeps the overall style of the paper, journal, whatever coherent and consistent the copy editors will love you for it <A> I suggest we all start using Unix Time which is the number of seconds elapsed since midnight Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) of January 1, 1970, not counting leap seconds. <S> So for instance, as I'm writing this it's 1302186003. <S> Battle of Hastings: <S> -28502703439. <S> Here's a red-letter date in the history of science: November 5, 1955 or -446722639. <A> There is Anno Mundi, or AM/A.M. which is used in the Jewish calendar. <S> It denotes the Year of the World, so traditionally speaking, there aren't any dates before this. <S> It is 5770 AM currently. <S> Traffic and News on the hour. <S> (sorry) <A> Going to their meaning: 560 <S> Before Christ and Anno Domini 1066 = <S> In the year of the Lord 1066 Grammatically the only way to place them that makes sense is BC after the year and AD before the year. <S> However, as abbreviations that is not as obvious, so either is still usable in the ‘wrong’ place without causing havoc. <S> “BC 560” can not reasonably be misinterpreted as “Before Christ number 560”. <A> Seems like this is mainly an issue when you're referring to dates BC/BCE, <S> since if you cite the date "1970", for instance, most people are going to know you mean in the present era, not the ancient one. <S> (That gives me a thought: why not use mathematical signs, + and -, as the designations, so that 2000 BC/BCE would be -2000? <S> Maybe a letter would have to be inserted, such as "Y" or "A", so it would read -A2000, so it could be distinguished from regular mathematical functions.) <S> Anyway, the use of the word "common" in the CE designation doesn't really bother or offend me politically or religiously because of the assumption that it's more "real" or "correct". <S> I put it in perspective with a little humor remembering the other meaning of "common": <S> Vulgar, course, boorish, uncivilized, unrefined, low-class, inferior, etc. <A> I personally would write BC and AD after the year. <S> I personally feel that BC/AD and BCE/CE and writing the designations in front of the year are all correct, and all function the same, but BC/AD is more universally accepted, don't you think? <A> YBP = years before present is straight forward and used in the sciences.
| I write BC and AD after the numbers.
|
What's the meaning of "Acme developers for IPhone"? I have recently heard the term "Acme developer of IPhone." I was just wondering what it stands for? I think I know the meaning: Is it when a developer goes to a client and presents his/her ideas for the app? <Q> Acme is a sort of tongue-in-cheek reference to any company or person that develops over the top answers to simple problems. <S> The Wile E. Coyote cartoons Robusto mentions have pushed the pop culture meaning into something that is considered bombastic or extravagant. <S> The devices and plans that were used on the show were often punny or taking advantage of cartoon tropes for a cheap laugh. <S> As such, they were never serious solutions for catching the Road Runner. <S> Or they would be a developer who considers themselves much, much better than they really are <S> — they think they are a big player when they only push out meaningless applications. <S> The exact meaning would need a little more context. <A> Acme is a word meaning "highest point"; it is also the company that makes the equipment that this guy: <S> (Wile E. Coyote) used for (unsuccessfully) hunting this guy: (Road Runner) in Looney Tunes cartoons. <S> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_Road_Runner <A> Programmers have something called a "metasyntactic variable" . <S> Acme is the logical extension, a metasyntactic company. <S> See also Acme::Metasyntactic
| An Acme iPhone Developer would be an iPhone Developer who develops oddball or crazy apps that seek solely to entertain.
|
What does the term 'divers places' mean? In the King James Bible, Matthew 24:7 states: For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. What does the term 'divers places' mean? <Q> Source . <S> EDIT : <S> A better source confirms here . <A> The word divers is an old spelling of diverse . <S> The phrase divers places just means "many different places". <A> As the other answers have noted, divers can be seen as an archaic spelling for the modern word diverse . <S> However, the OED gives four senses for divers (my paraphrasing): <S> Different in kind .† Corresponds to the modern use of diversity , as in gender diversity or diversity jurisdiction . <S> Evil or adverse <S> .† Obsolete since the 1600s. <S> Various or several . <S> Described in the OED as "somewhat archaic, but well known in legal and scriptural phraseology." <S> As an adverb .† Obsolete, and not semantically distinct from the other three senses. <S> The alternative Bible translations linked in the comments confirm that here, divers places <S> means various places (sense 3). <S> However, the OED also provides a Biblical citation for sense 1: <S> And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king (Esther 1:7, KJV). <S> As to the legal variant of sense 3, the phrases divers other places , divers other persons and divers <S> other times were traditionally used in English criminal indictments . <S> For example : <S> That T.B. ... <S> together with divers other evil disposed persons, to the number of one thousand and more, whose names are to the jurors aforesaid as yet unknown ... <S> did then and there and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, in a violent and tumultuous manner meet and assemble together, at, &c. aforesaid, and divers other places <S> ... <S> These phrases continue to be used in some common law jurisdictions, such as the Australian state of Victoria (at least as late as 2012 ). <S> For example, in Dickson v The Queen [2010] HCA 30 : <S> The particulars of the offence stated that at Melbourne and divers other places in Victoria between 22 December 2003 and 20 January 2004 <S> the appellant had conspired with three named persons ... and that they had agreed to pursue a course of conduct which would involve the commission by them of an offence ... <S> [3]. <S> † <S> The dagger is used in the OED to mark obsolescence.
| Divers is an archaic spelling of diverse , meaning many and varied places, or a lot of different places.
|
Usage of "assume" vs. "presume" Possible Duplicate: “Assume”, “presume”, “suppose” I would like to know the usage of assume versus presume. It seems to me, that both of them tend to depict the same meaning. So where exactly lies the difference in their usage? <Q> They are both similar. <S> Presume's definition states that it is to assume. <A> When I assume something I'm taking an idea to be true without full support for that fact. <S> Particularly in a legal context, you often hear presume used the same way, for example: "He was presumed dead <S> " However presume can also mean an overreaching assumption, particularly one that someone might find offensive. <S> In common conversation, that is the main difference that I tend to hear between the words. <A> They are both very similar. <S> However, in my experience, presume has a connotation along the lines of being out of reach or above one's station. <S> For example. <S> I might assume that it would be ok to hug my wife's best friend the first time I met her, but I would never presume it would be ok to hug the Queen of England.
| However, the definition of presume says that it is to assume something is true in the absence of proof to the contrary, while assuming is to take for granted without proof. There can be a strong connotative difference between the two, despite meaning more or less the same thing.
|
Origin of "washing up" Where does the phrase "to wash up" (equally "to clean up") originate from? Particularly the word "up", how did that enter the phrase? <Q> There are many phrasal verbs in English, consisting of a verb plus an adverb or preposition, and for most of them the meaning cannot be deduced from the component words. <S> There are plenty in "up": "give up" (= "surrender"), "pull up" = "stop moving", "wait up" = "not go to bed while waiting for something". <S> "Up" in such a phrase often has a connotation of finishing or completing something, but I can't see much of that meaning particularly in this phrase. <S> "Wash up" actually has a significantly different meaning when you cross the Atlantic. <S> I don't know what it means in Canada. <A> "Up" can also be an adverb to mean completely or thoroughly. <S> Therefore "wash up" means to completely wash. <S> Using "up" like this is actually pretty common, but you don't notice it much: <S> I could beat him up . <S> He forgot to put them away separately, and now they're all mixed up . <S> Oops! <S> I messed up ! <S> I have to type up the paper tonight. <S> My dog tore it up yesterday. <S> Go wash up . <A> Both wash up and clean up are phrasal verbs, which are very common in English. <S> These verbs then to share a common etymology: old english verbs with separable preposition prefixes. <S> Suite101 <S> has a nice write-up: <S> Phrasal verbs in Modern English developed from verbs with separable preposition prefixes in Old English. <S> Verbs with separable preposition prefixes still exist in Modern German and Modern Dutch. <S> For example, the Modern German verb aufwachen "to wake up" consists of the verb wachen and <S> the preposition prefix auf. <S> When the verb is conjugated, the preposition prefix moves to the end of the predicate phrase as in ich wache auf "I wake up. <S> " <S> Old English verbs with separable preposition prefixes evolved into phrasal verbs in which the preposition follows the verb in Middle English.
| In the UK it means "wash the dishes"; I believe that in the US it means "wash one's hands".
|
That which was promised My brain immediately suggested the non-word "promisand", but I doubt I would be understood if I said that. What's a good word (or failing that, phrase) for the action or thing that was promised? This reminds me of Latin expressions like Carthaginem esse delendam (Carthage must be destroyed, lit., 'Carthage is a thing-which-is-to-be-destroyed') or perhaps that once-common mathematical expression QED quod erat demonstrandum ('that was a thing-which-is-to-be-proven'). Circumlocution or other forms are often possible: "He gave me the promised widget" or "He did what he promised he would". But sometimes it's useful to have a word that stands on its own. More generally, is there a good way to express the construction 'thing-which-is-to-be-X'? In Latin this is a gerundive, though it seems in my brief searches that the term means different things in English and other languages. <Q> I don't think there is an answer to either your specific or your general question in English. <S> The closest is the phrase "what was promised". <S> But note that there are plenty of other expressions which can be expressed in a word in a synthetic language like Latin but need a phrase in English: many of them involve participles. <S> So for example "loquens" might be translated "speaking", or "who is/was speaking" or "a/the speaker", or "one who speaks" depending on context. <A> Hmm... pledge or promise can work in some contexts, but not all. <S> I also don't know a good answer to the more general "thing-which-is-to-be-X" case. <A> I've used "the promised" before. <S> Charles swore up and down that the blender would be available, a vow he met, but the tale of the delivery of the promised was harrowing, and involved three cars, a bear, a deer, two State Troopers, and the Mayor of a German village. <A>
| Promised can be used as an adjective as in "the promised land."
|
Origin of the idiom "butt of jokes" What is the origin of the phrase "butt of (all) jokes"? I'm wondering whether 'jokes' are being personified here (as per the origin of the term) with 'butt' being used as it's not exactly the most exalted part of the body, or whether 'butt' was intended more as a 'base' for all jokes? (I'm leaning towards the latter.) <Q> Butt 2. <S> a. <S> A mark for archery practice; properly a mound or other erection on which the target is set up. <S> Hence in mod. <S> use a mound or embankment in front of which the targets are placed for artillery, musketry, or rifle practice. <S> Oxford English Dictionary <A> Did some sleuthing for print references. <S> I found butt of the joke back to 1775, though up until the mid-1800s one was just as likely to be a butt of the jest . <S> Prior to this reference, it seems one could be the figurative butt of various slings and arrows all the way back to the early 16oos, as Etymonline has it. <S> Here's the 1775 reference from Observations, Historical, Critical, and Medical, on the Wines of the Ancients , by Sir Edward Barry, explicating on the rank of ancient Roman slaves in relation to rank of guests: <A> Butts were, as is pointed out above, the archery targets erected permanently in or near a village or town for archery practice, required by law by Edward III in 1363 (also forbidding all sorts of other, more decadent pastimes such as football. <S> See various archery reference books, including 'The Longbow' by Mike Loades, Osprey Publishing, 2013. <S> The French word for 'target' or 'goal'(as in a purpose) is ' le <S> but ' (also la cible). <S> probably from Old Nordic ' butr ' - a log. <S> Log ends were, and still are, used for target practice. <S> The Normans would have used this term and introduced it to English. <S> Probably. <S> You can still find 'The Butts' or 'Butts Lane' or some such as addresses today. <A> Update: Colin's answer is more likely correct. <S> See the comments there. <S> To butt something can mean to ram it or hit it with the back end of something: He butted me with the rifle. <S> To get the butt end of a joke is to receive the blunt of the joke. <S> In other words, you are the one being hit or attacked with the joke. <S> This phrase is useful partly because the person getting the butt can still be included in the joking around — you can be making fun of yourself and still get the butt of the joke. <S> Similar phrases: <S> He is getting the brunt of the joke. <S> He is getting the raw end of the deal. <S> He got the business end of a sword. <S> Someone who continually gets the joke butts can be referred to as a butt monkey but that may be returning to using "butt" to mean your tushy.
| A butt is therefore a target, so the butt of a joke is the target of a joke.
|
What's the difference between 'fallacy' and 'misnomer'? In which contexts the usage vary? <Q> Though they both imply there is some kind of mistake, they are pretty different kinds of mistakes. <S> a fallacy is an error in inference. <S> You have some facts and do some reasoning but come to a faulty (or unsubstantiated) conclusion. <S> Then you've committed a 'fallacy'. <S> Coming to a wrong conclusion is a fallacy. <S> A 6'7" basketball player named 'Shorty' has a misnomer (the name 'Shorty' is a misnomer). <A> A fallacy is a common misconception. <S> A logical fallacy is one type of example. <S> Misnomer refers, more specifically, to a wrong name or inappropriate designation -- for instance, calling Native Americans "Indians." <S> An easy way to remember the difference is to remember that misnomer is derived from the the Latin word for "name," nominare . <A> I think Wikipedia has one of the better succinct definitions: "... <S> a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception." <S> It should be noted that there are a number of distinct logical fallacies, and that an entire section of philosophy is devoted to them. <S> The referenced link is a good start for exploring the various flavors of fallacies. <S> @Mitch's answer to a misnomer is well stated. <A> A fallacy has a technical and a common usage, but both could be loosely summarized as "an error in reasoning" or a "logical fault". <S> Poor reasoning can also be called fallacious reasoning. <S> "Begging the question" is an example of a fallacy. <S> From nobelief's fallacy list : begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) <S> But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior? <S> Here's an example usage from a comment on Serendipity: <S> Or, What has Software Engineering got to do with Climate Change? <S> I only bother to bring it up because, IMHO, an appreciation of this fallacy is necessary to appreciate the real differences between technical software validation and its verification. <S> Something being a 'fallacy' tends to indicate an error of process. <S> A misnomer is simply misnaming something, or calling something by the wrong name or a misleading name. <S> This can be minute and technical or broad and ideological or philosophical: <S> Calling that little hill Mount Brawn is an egregious misnomer. <S> Calling that a budget plan is a misnomer -- there's no plan <S> , it's just budget fraud. <S> It is incorrect to use misnomer to mean an incorrect assumption, poor reasoning, or more general kind of error where another word should be used instead: Don't use it this way, please: <S> It's a misnomer that all dogs bark. <S> Ugh. <S> From the another comment found in the wilds of the Internet : <S> Again, please, no: <S> There's still a misnomer that single women pushing thirty are fatally flawed or intimidating[...]
| a misnomer is simply a wrong name for something, in the sense that the given accepted name is at odds with the nature of the things itself.
|
Is being "low on the totem pole" good or bad? The background for this question is that I'm watching the latest episode of NCIS, and in this episode it is mentioned that the term "Low on the totem pole" actually is a good thing, reserved for the most honored carvings. As such, saying that someone is "pretty low on the totem pole" is a compliment, not a way of saying that you're low on rank or importance. However, I haven't been able to find any sources online that says the same, and it seems most usages of the term use it in the meaning I thought it had, ie. low importance, rank, or similar. So what is right? Does the term "low on the totem pole" mean "low importance or rank", or does it mean "high importance or rank"? <Q> From Wikipedia : <S> Vertical order of images is widely believed to be a significant representation of importance. <S> This idea is so pervasive that it has entered into common parlance with the phrase "low man on the totem pole." <S> This phrase is indicative of the most common belief of ordering importance, that the higher figures on the pole are more important or prestigious. <S> A counterargument frequently heard is that figures are arranged in a "reverse hierarchy" style, with the most important representations being on the bottom, and the least important being on top. <S> Actually, [among Native American totem poles], there have never been any restrictions on vertical order -- many poles have significant figures on the top, others on the bottom, and some in the middle. <S> Other poles have no vertical arrangement at all, consisting of a lone figure atop an undecorated column. <S> Using it to mean most important would probably just lead to confusion. <A> As generally used, "low on the totem pole" means at the bottom of a heirarchy, hence low in rank. <S> There are similar sayings about relative position on a ladder. <S> As one is promoted (rises in rank), one ascends the ladder. <S> I was unaware that the real totem pole reverses that order. <A> I study and carve Northwest Coast design or what you call totemic designs. <S> My family comes from the region as well. <S> The phrase "low man on the totem pole" is indeed taken the wrong way all the time. <S> The most revered or "main" character of the story being told is the lowest or closest to earth. <S> You want to show respect by it being closest to you. <S> If you see people on the top of totem poles, it is most definitely not a sign of honor, it is shame, calling them "Shame Poles. <S> " The least favored/honored of the story is always on the top. <S> I hope this assists you in solving any mysteries on this misunderstood saying. <A> There is a resource about the low man on the totem pole . <S> In it, it explains that the highest part of the totem pole was carved by the least experienced carver, because the lower parts of the pole are the parts that are most likely to be viewed, thus: ... <S> the bottom of all totem pole is sometimes the best carved part of the whole pole. <S> Meaning wise, the low man has a much or more meaning than other figures. <S> So while the general meaning seems to be that higher is better, traditionally for totem poles - as is explained by NCIS - lower is better. <A> Well, there is always some confusion about this idiom here. <S> This idiom was introduced by an American named Fred Allen some where in the mid 1940s. <S> He actually used it to depict something of least importance, which was evidently proved to be wrong, as a Totem pole in reality holds the most important ones in the lower order. <S> So if you go by what the idiom was actually supposed to mean, it would denote something of lower importance as mentioned by PSU and Kevin. <S> Rather if you go by its meaning in literal sense, it would denote that of higher importance. <S> However, I would personally prefer using it to denote something of higher importance. <S> (It is strictly a matter of personal opinion though)
| Regardless of the origin, the term "low man on the totem pole" is generally understood to mean LEAST important.
|
What does "Google-fu" mean? Exact Duplicate: Can anyone tell me what the suffix “-fu” stands for in the following sentence? I was reading an article on MSDN where I found a mention to google-fu. It says, “To search for C++ delimeters and code snippets is going to take a little Google-fu on the reader's part.” what does google-fu mean? <Q> Google-fu is defined as "skill in using search engines (especially Google) to quickly find useful information on the Internet." <S> It is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reference to kung-fu, which is generally perceived as requiring a high degree of skill to master in the western hemisphere. <S> In the example sentence you provided, the author is suggesting that the expected results are somewhat difficult to attain and you will need to use diligence when searching. <S> I used a bit of Google-fu to research this answer. <A> It is modelled after kung fu : <S> kung fu (noun): a primarily unarmed Chinese martial art resembling karate. <S> ORIGIN from Chinese gōngfú, from gōng ‘merit’ <S> + fú ‘master.’ <A> It's a pormanteau of "Google" and "Kung-Fu," meaning to have high skill or art. <A> Google fu is a slightly jokey term referring to the ability to utilise google's search functionality better than your average user. <S> urban dictionary
| It means “mastery of Google” or “Googling skill”.
|
How is "e.g." pluralized? How is "e.g." pluralized? Usually I just see "e.g." used regardless of the number of examples given, but I don't know if that's correct or merely a product of widespread ignorance. More rarely, I've seen "ee.g." and "e.e.g." but I haven't been able to verify that either of those is right. <Q> Just like " for example ", " e.g. " doesn't need a plural. <S> If you want to emphasize the plurality of examples, you can say "some examples are...", but that doesn't have a commonly-used Latin equivalent, and thus there is no standard Latin abbreviation for it. <A> Since e.g. , translated from the Latin, means "for example," it doesn't need a plural. <A> Of course you might need to pluralize "e.g.," if you are talking about the abbreviation itself. <S> For example, "In this document we have too many i.e.'s and e.g.'s." <S> As shown, I would add an apostrophe <S> + 's' for the same reason needed in the expression "She earned all A's and B's. <S> " Something is needed to clarify that the 's' in question is not part of the abbreviation. <A> It says here in this book: <S> Latin second declension neuter: exemplum singular; and exempla <S> plural: <S> example, sample, or model. <S> And the neuter singular adjective gratum , plural grata : pleasing, grateful. <S> So e.g. might mean <S> : Thank God! <S> I've finally found some real-world agreement. <S> I hope that I shall ever see no peoples using e.e.g. --JKilmer <A> The E.G. part stands for Exemplī Gratiā . <S> This is the Latin way of saying what we say in English as "for the sake of example". <S> Note that English uses a lot of little words that Latin doesn't. <S> This is because Latin is inflected while English isn't. <S> English still has a plural for nouns, but no cases. <S> Latin has singular and plural, but also five cases. <S> To take the Latin phrase apart, Exemplī is the possessive (genitive) singular form of the noun exemplum 'example', so in Latin it means "of example". <S> Literally. <S> And Gratiā is the ablative singular form of the noun <S> gratia 'benefit; <S> sake', so in Latin it means 'for the sake'. <S> Literally. <S> If you want to pluralize the phrase, you have to decide which noun to pluralize -- is there more than one examples, or more than one benefit? <S> exemplī of example'. <S> I.e, it should be Exemplōrum Gratiā instead of Exemplī Gratiā . <S> Of course, that would still be e.g.
| Since you're looking for multiple examples, one would use the plural genitive exemplōrum 'of examples', instead of the singular genitive
|
What does an exclamation mark inside parentheses "(!)" mean? What does an exclamation mark inside parentheses "(!)" mean? I saw this in a book review I was reading and I didn't understand what the use of it was. Can someone help me? <Q> This usage is simply a passing note of astonishment at the preceding word (or perhaps phrase). <S> Typically there will be no further comment on this astonishment, and it is just an aside. <A> It would help to see the example you're referring to, but this usually is an informal way of emphasizing -- usually with sarcasm -- some piece of information that comes in the middle of a sentence rather than emphasizing the whole sentence. <S> For example, if I said I saw this in a book review I was reading (!) <S> and I didn't understand what the use of it was. <S> The exclamation would apply not to the fact that I didn't understand some aspect of a book review, but rather would sarcastically point to the fact that I was even reading a book review . <A> (!) is the written equivalent of a brief pause to raise the eyebrows. <S> It expresses alarm or astonishment at whatever was revealed by the preceding word. <A> Ayn Rand used (!) <S> many times in her non-fiction. <S> It was like a raised eyebrow or a knowing side glance. <S> I always thought it was very effective <S> and I use it myself now and then. <S> It deserves a name.
| This may express real or feigned (sarcastic) astonishment by the writer, or be used to call attention to a surprising aspect of the use of the preceding word.
|
What is the correct pronunciation of the word "solder"? I have been listening to a podcast where the host pronounces the word solder as "sodder" or "sod-der", even "saw-der". Same thing happened when the lecturer of one of my EE classes pronounced the word solder . As for me I pronounce the word solder as "sole-der" with a distinct L and a longish O. <Q> Depends on if you are British or American. <S> Americans say sod-der (for some reason). <A> This doesn't come from a dictionary, but I had a relative who spent most of his free designing clever circuits (from the 1920s onwards). <S> He always told me that the correct British pronunciation was "sodder", but that over the years it had started to be pronounced "solder" - which he believed was to avoid the embarrassment of a word that could be misinterpreted as being related to sodomy when speaking to people who didn't have a background in electronics (or pipework!). <S> He was a very respectable man with a very good knowledge of the English language and how it had evolved during the 20th century - and at least one of his electronicly minded friends also pronounced it "sodder". <S> Depending on your opinion of natural language, and if you should stick to more traditional, or modern, pronunciations either could therefore be correct. <A> The OED gives two pronunciations: |ˈsɒldə(r)| and |ˈsəʊdə(r)| <S> On WordReference.com , the latter is given as U.S. pronunciation. <S> While on the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary they are both given as BrE, while for AmE we have a new one: |ˈsɑːdər| . <S> Here you can check them all out personally, audio included. <A> Whether or not to vocalize the 'l' in 'solder' seems to be a geographical issue. <S> Lionel Deimel has a nice article on words with silent 'l's . <S> Along with 'solder', he offers many other English words with silent 'l's, including: walk talk <S> half calf yolk almond folk balk <S> balm calm palm <S> falcon <S> salmon <S> caulk haulm (which is a variation of halm) <S> Some readers will argue that many of the words in Deimel's list have vocalized 'l's, but, like 'solder', this is probably related to geography. <A> In my accent (inland Cascadian English, in the northwestern United States), we say [sɑɾɚ], as "saw-der," to rhyme with "water. <S> " It looks like it should be pronounced [sɔldɚ] or similar, as "sole-der," to rhyme with "colder," and it may be pronounced that way elsewhere. <S> And, yes, to make that perfectly clear: in my accent, solder rhymes with water . <S> That seems so bizarre now that I really think about it. <A> Merriam Webster dictionary gives: Middle English soudure, from Anglo-French, from souder to solder, from Latin solidare to make solid, from solidus solidFirst <S> Known Use: <S> 14th century <A> In BE the long 'o' is possibly more common <A> Not one of these words has a truly silent 'l' in all cases the 'l' works as a modifier. <S> wak <S> tak <S> haf <S> caf <S> yok <S> amond <S> fok <S> bak <S> bam <S> cam <S> pam <S> facon <S> samon <S> cauk haum <S> Now Consider Solder. <S> Soder <S> It is a unique case. <S> It seems that the 'l' is only silent in the US not in the rest of world. <A> After living in the US for 25 years, I can't think of any word that is harder to get into my transatlantic brogue than "sodder". <S> I actually do prefer the subtler sound of the American form — <S> my ear appreciates it, but I hesitate to imitate it. <S> I also sign on to the notion that it's one of the many, many words whose original meaning or pronunciation the wayward British have forgotten. <A> "The rest of the world" of course consists solely of Great Britain itself, and countries which were once colonies of Great Britain. <S> Of course, the U.S. was too; but we severed most of our ties with the mother country earlier than most of the others, at a time when the language was still very much in flux. <S> So to say "the rest of the world" when the rest of the world has been highly influenced by a single country, means very little. <S> As a matter of mere numbers, most native English speakers are actually American in any case. <S> Now, if you want to say that American English has changed more in the last few hundred years than British English, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that. <S> For example, though we get made fun of for NOT pronouncing the "h" in "herb", according to the OED nobody did until the 19th century. <S> In fact, the word was earlier (ME) spelled as "erb" or "erbe". <S> It isn't that Americans stopped pronouncing an "h" that everyone else did, but that the British started pronouncing it. <S> In any case, pick up any of the works of Shakespeare, or a copy of the King James version of the Bible. <S> You will find that English as spoken has changed quite a bit since then. <S> (And you won't even actually be seeing the King James Bible in its 1611 form; it's been edited several times since then, but the edits didn't necessarily have much fanfare. <S> Most KJVs actually follow a 19th century edit.) <S> The point is, the language has changed a lot in the last 400 years -- on both sides of the Atlantic. <S> We didn't invent the pronunciation "sodder", even if we're not the only ones who still use it. <A> In Australia, obviously being originally a British colony, we pronounce it “Sole-der”, as in colder . <S> To me dodder sodder just make me think of to sodomise something, which is obviously not good. <S> So it makes me cringe every time I hear an American pronounce it that way. <S> To say that because we don't pronounce the l in words like walk and talk <S> means we don't in solder <S> , is silly. <S> We pronounce the l in <S> cold and in sold and even mould . <S> To me solder sounds like it comes from the word solid in someway <S> and I have nothing to back that up with, but that is what happens to solder <S> , it starts as solid and ends up as a solid. <S> You pronounce the l in solid <S> right? <S> Anyway, like I said, it just makes more sense to me.
| The British say sole-der. I have heard both soul-der and sol-der with a long and short 'o', sometimes the 'o' is so short you lose the 'l'
|
Difference between "garbage" and "trash"? What's the difference between garbage and trash ? Is the difference significant? <Q> I think the saying "one person's trash is another person's treasure <S> " helps answer this question. <S> Of course, food waste can be a treasure to a gardener working on a compost pile, but I'm speaking generally here. <S> It's not a very significant distinction, and the terms are often used interchangeably, but there are instances when they are not synonymous. <S> This excerpt from a 1986 Orlando Sentinel article titled " Trash Vs. <S> Garbage: <S> Any Big Difference? " supports this general distinction in meaning: <S> There was a little note stuck to the can. <S> It said, in essence, that my refuse hadn't been picked up because -- <S> and I quote -- '' <S> trash and garbage had been mixed.'' <S> I hate making mistakes like that. <S> I didn't close the cover on a book of matches before striking. <S> It was weeks before I got over the guilt. <S> I called Georgia Waste Systems, where I have my trash/garbage account, to apologize. <S> They were very nice and said a lot of people make the same mistake I did <S> and they were not planning a lawsuit. <S> As long as I had somebody on the phone who could explain, I asked, ''What is the difference between trash and garbage?'' ''Garbage,'' the woman said, ''are things that come from the bathroom or kitchen.'' '' <S> You mean like bread you leave out for months and green things start growing on it?' <S> ' I asked. <S> ''Precisely,'' she said. <S> ''Trash <S> ,'' she continued, ''is basically anything else. <S> We do not pick up leaves, for instance, or old furniture or boxes of materials that were collected when somebody cleaned out their attic.'' <A> The distinction my grandparents made was that they burned their trash but not their garbage. <S> If this was ever the general rule, it no longer is. <S> UPDATE <S> : There's some evidence for this definition in the 1896 Webster's Collegiate Dictionary , although there definition (2) doesn't include waste paper, which my grandparents definitely included in trash . <S> Trash: 1. <S> That which is worthless or useless; rubbish; refuse. <S> 2. <S> Esp., loppings and leaves of trees, bruised sugar cane, etc. <S> 3. <S> A worthless person. <S> Garbage: Offal; refuse animal or vegetable matter from a kitchen; hence, anything worthless or loathsome. <A> I am almost 80 years old. <S> When I was a child, I remember we had two collections, trash, and garbage. <S> The trash was cans, paper, etc. <S> Garbage was what we used to put into a strainer in our sinks before we washed dished (garbage disposers hadn't been invented yet?) <S> The trash went to a "sanitary-fill" where piles of trash were burned, and then metal cans were extracted with a electro-magnet. <S> Then what was left was pushed over into a canyon and covered with dirt. <S> The garbage was given to places that raised hogs and pigs. <S> Also, the garbage can was a small container with a lid to keep off the flies, but most of the trash containers were not covered. <S> Well, that is the way it was seventy years ago! <A> Garbage is organic ( e.g. food scraps, etc.). <S> Trash is inorganic ( e.g. bottles, cans, etc.). <A> It seems to me that "Trash" is more of a slang term. <S> I suppose they are both an alternative for "refuse". <S> They are somewhat contextual, as well. <S> For example: That outfit makes you look trashy. <S> In this sense, the word trash is used to imply the wearer of the clothing appears to be disheveled, careless, or provocative. <S> Personally, I wouldn't say, <S> That outfit makes you look like garbage. <S> The context has shifted to imply the wearer now resembles a large pile of refuse. <S> I seriously doubt this is the case. <S> I suppose they may be modelling the "Derelict" line of fashion clothing, featured in the Zoolander movie.
| Trash more often has the meaning of something discarded, whereas garbage more often carries the meaning of true refuse, often food waste.
|
Is saying "someone who is in trouble and who can’t be talked out of it" a quite natural expression? I found the expression in a story about a 24-year-old pilot who landed his plane on a beach and who "'could not be talked out of it' when he was in trouble." It was in today’s New York Times , in an article titled, “A Beach Landing? Well, He’d Seen It on TV.” To me "could not be talked out of it" sounds unfamiliar, though it may be quite natural to native speakers. Does this mean he simply did not respond to the air traffic controller out of the plane because of panic? Why is talk used in passive form? Can I replace “can’t be talked out of it” with “can’t be contacted with“ or “can't be called up”? The sentence including this phrase goes as follows: A 24-year-old pilot with an airsick passenger who landed his single-engine Piper Warrior on Rockaway Beach in Queens on Monday night could not be talked out of it, no matter how hard an air-traffic controller tried, according to a recording. The pilot, Jason Maloney of Cornwall, N.Y., later told the police that he had gotten the idea from a television program called “Flying Wild Alaska” that depicted rough landings. <Q> Talked out of it is an expression that means "convinced to not do it; dissuaded from doing it". <S> It is a fairly straightforward expression (i.e. it means more or less what it sounds like it ought to mean), and there is nothing strange or unusual about it, at least to my ear. <S> The gist of the story is, a guy was piloting a plane and had to make an emergency landing (I believe because one of his passengers was sick). <S> He had the idea to land on the beach, because he'd seen something like it on TV. <S> The air traffic controller tried to convince him not to do something that crazy and dangerous, but the pilot did it anyway. <A> The Air Traffic Controller (ATC) talked to the pilot, trying to persuade him (or probably in this case ordered him) not to land there; hence, the ATC tried to talk the pilot out of landing there. <S> Since the interesting person in this story is the pilot, we have to switch around and use the passive voice to make him the subject of the sentence. <S> I don't see any particular implication of panic in the paragraph you quoted. <S> It isn't explicitedly stated, but in this case I'd expect it to be more that the pilot was being stubborn. <S> In any case, the phrase itself is fairly neutral, and could apply to a wide range of situations. <S> Notice that the ATC was very definitely in communication with the pilot. <S> There's even a weak implication that it's a two-way conversation, particularly in cases like this one where the pilot refused to be talked out of his landing. <S> Your suggested equivalents don't work because they all say that the ATC couldn't communicate with the pilot somehow. <A> Yes, it's a natural / common expression. <S> The air traffic controller could not talk him out of it means: <S> The air traffic controller tried to persuade him not to do it <S> but he was not persuaded. <S> I don't see a suggestion of panic in the excerpt. <S> He might've responded to the air traffic controller; he might not -- the excerpt doesn't say. <S> Why passive? <S> : consider these alternatives: "The pilot could not be talked out of it" "The air traffic controller could not talk the pilot out of it" <S> The relevant / important thing is the pilot / the pilot's attitude, not the air traffic controller, so the pilot is the subject of the sentence, which makes makes the passive the natural choice. <S> "Can I replace “can’t be talked out of it” with “can’t be contacted with“ or “can't be called up”?" <S> No -- different meanings. <S> Ps. <S> In the excerpt, he couldn't be talked out of it. <S> Maybe obviously, somebody can be talked out of something -- they can be persuaded not to do something that they intend to do. <S> e.g: "I talked him out of it" / <S> "I managed to talk him out of it" <S> And somebody can also be talked into something. <S> I.e. -- persuaded to do that thing :) <A> Essentially, when someone cannot be talked out of a course of action, it means that they have decided their course and will not be diverted from that path by any logical or emotional pleas. <S> They will stubbornly follow their decision to its end, whether good or bad. <S> In the case you described, the pilot had made the decision to land on the beach, and no argument the air traffic controller could give would change his mind. <S> It implies that there was communication between the two however; saying he couldn't be talked out of it implies that the air traffic controller attempted to persuade him. <A> Personally I think the usage in the example is (conciously or unconciously) influenced by the fact that an air traffic controllers do 'talk down' a pilot with problems who needs ground-based help. <S> By the same token, one could say the controller talked the pilot out of trouble without implying the pilot was uncooperative. <S> In this particular case, I suppose he wasn't actually cooperating with the controller, but I doubt they had a long and heated debate about it as the phrasing might imply. <S> Talking down and talking out of trouble are just things controllers do, but in this case it probably wasn't really the most appropriate choice of phrase.
| Yes, it's quite an natural phrase. To talk someone out of a course of action, you have to be able to talk to them.
|
Why is it a "night on the town" and not "night in the town"? Question as in the title. I commonly use the phrase "out and about in town" in speech. I'm not sure if my usage is correct because of the "night on the town" phrase. <Q> Both usages are correct. <S> The usual phrase for being in the city is "in town". <S> This just refers to your physical presence there, without much implication about what you might be doing there - one would normally assume that you were shopping, visiting people, or even just staying at home (if you happen to live there). <S> The phrase "on the town" has a slightly different meaning - there's no one specific connotation, but one would understand that you were visiting restaurants/pubs/bars, socialising, and very likely drinking as well. <S> I doubt that there is any direct etymological link, but to me the use of "on" is similar to usages such as "on the prowl", "on the warpath", "on the booze", "on the pull" and so on. <A> "Night on the tiles" is a phrase which draws imagery of the wild nocturnal activities of cats as they have fun over the rooftops. <S> As metaphorical expression are used and adapted over time they adopt new meaning and connotation, so what was a "Night on the tiles" has evolved to become a "Night on the Town". <S> Simplistically, the meaning and intention of the phrase <S> It is implicit in the former that you will be going to town at night, in the later you may have to explain what exactly you mean by tiles. <A> The phrase 'night on the town' is similar to 'drinks on the house'. <S> Though you are having drinks 'in' the house, the common usage is 'on the house' to portray that 'house' is playing host. <S> In former case, the 'town' is playing host, sort of!
| "Night on the town" is easier to understand than the phrase "Night on the tiles".
|
Purchase price/cost/worth/value/… — which one? I have a table called purchases and it stores details about purchases of items in a store. One of these details is the amount of money that were payed for items. How should I call this detail (or table field) in one word? I've been thinking about the following options: purchase price/cost/worth/value . <Q> If the column is to store a cumulative total for several items purchased total or subtotal would be better. <S> If its the amount for a single item, and stores the amount paid by the customer, price would be preferable. <S> If its the amount for a single item, and reflects how much it costs for you to supply the item, cost would be preferable. <S> In case it isn't clear, in retail there is a distinction between the price the customer pays and the cost of the item to the business. <S> Also factor in that it is common to store amounts net of VAT/Sales Tax, so your columns might be NetTotal , NetPrice and NetCost or similar. <S> And for completeness, worth and value <S> are ambiguous/inexact/subjective terms, that you wouldn't usually use in such a situation. <A> EDIT: <S> Of course, also cost can refer to something "external" ( E.G. <S> I will do it at all costs ), but still it is less polysemous than the other ones. <S> " Price " is even less polysemous than "cost". <S> So it's up to you about whether choosing the first or the second. <A> Perhaps 'price' is the term you are looking for in this seller-oriented table view, but the other terms seem even more interesting from the seller's and the buyer's POV (POVs? <S> P'sOV? <S> PsOV?). <S> Just to dilate <S> percolate endlessly: <S> Item: Normal-type cup of coffeeMerchant: <S> Mobil station at the cornerTime of Day: 0700 <S> Cost: <S> $ .10 <S> (to the merchant)Price: $ 1.50 (to the buyer)Worth: <S> $ .50 <S> (realistic retail: <S> merchant cost X markup percent)Value: $10.00 (to the buyer) <S> You'd think I had better things to do. <S> You would be right! <S> Hey! <S> Coffee's ready. <S> EDIT: <S> The staff has/have bean grinding the table finer and discovers/discover a calculus of value with independent variable time-of-day ; and of price that depends upon merchant . <A> Price and Cost are the correct terms to use, but you need to be careful with how they are used, especially if you are referring to accounting terminology. <S> In this case I would pick PRICE (or Sales Price)The actual cost to you for selling those items is completely different (hopefully less) and would refer to the Cost of Sales. <S> Cost would normally be used to indicate how much an item has cost you or what it has cost a purchaser. <S> Price relates to the selling price or standard list price. <S> Probably off topic to get into the realms of accounting - but be very careful not to mix price and cost if your target audience is an accountant or a logistician <A> One of these details is the amount of money that were payed for items. <S> You could use price or cost as it sounds the most appropriate to what I can think of. <S> Thanks the people below for clarifying.
| Price and cost are the ones you should use, the others are too general and can refer to things that are not necessary money-related.
|
What's the meaning of 'a court of'? A formal written or spoken statement, esp. one given in a court of law <Q> The expression comes from Anglo-Norman Middle English. <S> You will also find the word in court of justice, court of judicature or the Supreme Court. <S> It was used in the middle ages in many occurrences where important institutions where to be found. <S> See for instance the king's court - from which it then gained the meaning of "retinue". <S> You will find the word in Italian and Spanish "corte" (see for instance the Renaissance book " Il cortegiano " by Baldassare Castiglione . <S> Beyond Old French, Spanish and Italian, the origin can still be traced back to the Latin "cohort-em" which means yard or enclosure. <S> In modern French it has lost its final "t" and is now spelled just "cour". <A> you can't separate out the "law" from "a court of law". <S> It is a set phrase. <S> You could just say "in court", but not all proceedings in "a court of law" take place in the court room these days. <A> The phrase a refers to the location and proceedings of a legal tribunal. <S> A court of law in the one sense is a physical place. <S> It is the building in which the judge presides over a case of legal debate. <S> In the other sense, a court of law is the abstract situation, referring to the authority that the judge represents while presiding over said tribunal. <A> The House of Commons and the House of Lords formally make up the High Court of Parliament. <S> There are also the courts (short for courtyards) in Oxbridge colleges and similar places, and "student courts" where student unions impose discipline without formal authority, so not all courts are courts of law. <S> There is also the technical point that only courts of law have the right to impose legal sentences. <S> Tribunals, mediators, and local councils cannot fine or imprison people. <S> (It's a technical point because, for example, the owner of a carpark cannot fine you for parking in the wrong place, but he can tow away your car till you pay what's due).
| A court of law is a place, hall, or chamber in which justice is administered.
|
Difference between 'hallucination' and 'illusion' The following quote is found on The Basics of Philosophy page: Representationalists argue their case from the "epistemological fact" that it is impossible to have experience beyond the sensory surface, from the fact that dreams, hallucinations and visual illusions clearly indicate that the world of experience is not the same thing as the world itself, What is the difference between the terms "hallucination" and "visual illusion", as used in the quote? <Q> Illusion Illusion is a kind of wrong perception. <S> In illusion, an external stimulus is always present. <S> In other words, illusions are caused by external stimulations. <S> Illusion is almost universal. <S> Normal persons suffer from illusions. <S> The same situation arouses the same type of illusion in most people. <S> In hallucination, no external stimulus is present. <S> Hallucinations are caused by internal stimulations. <S> Hallucination is a personal experience. <S> Hallucinations are mostly confined to mentally ill persons and to those people under the influence of drugs. <S> The character of hallucination is determined by the individual's present and previous experiences. <S> The same situation may not arouse hallucination in all. <S> There are individual differences with regard to hallucination. <S> The same individual may experience different hallucinations <S> are different occasions also. <S> Source . <A> A hallucination is to see something that is not real! <S> For example, if you feel that you are seeing a cat that is flying, then you are experiencing a hallucination. <S> An illusion is to look at something real but to see it in a different way, like when you look at two horizontal lines but it feels like they are not actually horizontal. <A> While the punctuation in the quote is acceptable, placing a comma after the word "hallucinations" would make the sentence a bit clearer (to me, at least.) <S> ... <S> it is impossible to have experience beyond the sensory surface, from the fact that dreams, hallucinations, and visual illusions clearly indicate that the world of experience is not the same thing as the world itself,... <S> A distinction needs to be made, not only between hallucinations and visual illusions , but also dreams and unmentioned mirages . <S> Visual Illusions are almost always synonymous with optical illusions . <S> These are tricks of perception--the brain receives information from the eyes and processes that information based on previous experiences. <S> Our brain "sees" what it expects to see rather than what our eyes really see. <S> When there is a difference between what the eyes see and what the brain sees, we call it an optical or visual illusion. <S> A mirage is a physical phenomenon that happens before the eyes send information to the brain. <S> In this case, the brain sees exactly what the eyes see, so it's not an illusion in the same sense as described in the previous paragraph. <S> It is still a type of optical or visual illusion because ultimately our brain perceives something that is not really there. <S> A dream is a perception that happens completely in the brain, without stimulus from the eyes. <S> We normally consider dreams only to be those brain-experiences that happen when we are sleeping, but perceived thought-images while 'daydreaming' or in other trance states can also be considered dreams. <S> Again, these are perceptions of things that are not really there. <S> Hallucinations are brain-experiences that happen to some people when they are fully awake. <S> Unlike visual illusions and mirages, hallucinations are only experienced by individuals. <S> Visual Illusion: <S> Mostly physical phenomenon, but there is a brain-only aspect to this. <S> Experienced when awake. <S> Experienced by many people at once. <S> Mirage: <S> Completely physical phenomenon. <S> Experienced when awake. <S> Experienced by many people at once. <S> Dream: <S> Non-physical phenomenon (does not exist outside of the brain.) <S> Experienced when in a sleep or trance state. <S> Experienced by a single person only. <S> Hallucination: <S> Non-physical phenomenon (does not exist outside of the brain.) <S> Experienced when awake. <S> Experienced by a single person only. <A> The main difference is the cause.. <S> A hallucination is caused by an altered mental state such as psychosis or drug-use. <S> An illusion is any false perception, with the exception of those caused by altered mental state. <S> Such causes may be deliberate trickery (such as stage magic), optical artefacts (for example certain configurations of shapes), natural phenomena (for example a mirage), etc. <A> Both of the terms imply incorrect perception of something. <S> The most basic difference between the two is that hallucination originates within the mind, and illusion originates outside of the mind.
| Hallucination Hallucination is a false perception.
|
Are 'consecutively' and 'successively' the same? Possible Duplicate: What's the difference between “successive” and “consecutive”? Are 'consecutively' and 'successively' the same? Can they be used in place of each other freely? Does 'for 3 days consecutively..' and 'for 3 days successively..' mean the same ? <Q> On closer examination, there is a slight difference though. <S> In consecutively , there is no gap. <S> In successively there is just some order. <S> For instance " in close/short succession " is sometimes preferred to " in succession " to emphasize consecutiveness. <S> For instance: 1, 2 and 3 are consecutive numbers 1, 2 and 4 are successive numbers but they are not consecutive . <S> So for non discrete quantities you would probably prefer "successive" (as in "successive events") and for discrete quantities with no gaps you could use "consecutive" as in "2 consecutive days". <A> I would quite confidently say that there is no difference; they both mean to follow in an uninterrupted order and to follow closely after another. <S> Interestingly: Latin 'consectus' means 'followed closely <S> ' Latin 'success' means 'followed closely' Hope this helps <A> They have the same meaning and are both adverbs, but consecutively stresses immediacy in following and implies that no interruption or interval occurs: four consecutive days <S> Successively may apply to things of the same kind or class that follow each other regardless of length of interval between: four successive weekends
| Overall, yes consecutively and successively are equivalent.
|
What is another word for an identifier? Edit: Give a better explanation of my problem. I am writing a computer program. I like to make analogies within my code to help me express the intent when I read it months down the line and it all looks like gibberish (code easily becomes gibberish if you aren't careful). I am interested to find another word for someone/something who/that identifies something. The best I can come up with is "an identifier". There is currently a theme of a police investigation throughout my code. There is a Detective and a Suspect; the Detective interrogates the Suspect (a web page). I want a word to identify a bit of my application that, given a response (from a web server), after some investigation, identifies the implications of or meaning expressed by that response. So far I have named the code the "identifier" because it identifies the meaning of the response. The word must express the intent of identification, because that is the purpose of the code. Although witness is the right word in the context of the analogy it is not the word that I am looking for because the issue for me is expressing the purpose of the code. Bonus points if you identify a better analogy. (When I reach 15.) <Q> Not exactly what you asked, but a taxonomist is concerned with the classification of things, especially biological. <S> An appraiser might give something a value, and might identify that thing in the process. <S> Or you could make up your own word; <S> how about determinatrix ? <S> Edit: In the context you give in comments, a witness <S> would be the person choosing from a line-up. <A> Classifier - Identifying means deciding which of a collection of predetermined classes the particular thing belongs to. <A> In the sense of "the expert identified the plant" then there isn't really a word. <S> There may be some obscure legal terms for eg. <S> the witness who proves someones identity on a contract <A> The person who identifies someone in a Police lineup is a "witness" . <S> However that word doesn't reflect the act of identification only that they are a valid person to be called upon to carry out the identification. <S> I've never heard any word other than "witness" used in this context. <A> Some more colourful alternatives to 'witness' from the genre of crime fiction: <S> Snitch Informant Agent Mole Butler <A> It's much more along the lines of "spy", "detective" and "police" work and seems to fit the program you are coding! <A> As I have mentioned in the comments above, going by the specific example set by the asker, I think ' witness ' is the best fit. <S> Many of the other answers given would also be quite usable, I think but going by the scene set - <S> I have a Detective and a Suspect. <S> I want a name for the person who picks someone out of a lineup. <S> I would have to say that witness or eye-witness identifier , as amended by @cindi, is most appropriate. <A> It's elementary, it is a deducer ! <S> It looks at the evidence and gathers the facts. <S> That is it logically deduces the meaning, step-by-algorithmic-step, based on the given input. <S> The analogy is actually quite superb Wastson.
| I would use the term " sleuth "!
|
Why do we say 'commentator' instead of 'commenter'? Another thread addresses the Englishness of the words. My question is different and a lot more convoluted: I hope I can make it plain and simple. I. There are straightforward nouns of action and agency with roots in English verbs: procrastinator, loafer, snoozer. And other nouns that arise from augmented (let's say) forms of the verb. 'Commentator' is one such word: there's no verb 'commentate.' 1 'Orientation' meaning 'guidance' or 'adjustment' ("student-orientation week") is another, though hugely more vexed because there actually is a verb 'orientate' meaning to face eastward (both transitively and intrans). But I convolute. II. Not long ago, we had a thread about meter and foot in prose: iambic, trochaic, and who knows what else that I've forgotten since college. Arguably, as speakers and writers, we seem unconsciously to choose the iambic (say) over boring spondaic. As listeners, we perhaps naturally find the iambic most pleasant and (umm...) euphonious. III. Finally, the question. Let's suppose that we do in truth prefer rhythm that we can grab, that we can lean on and stand on. Do we then invent and manufacture made-up verbs just so as to give us corresponding made-up nouns that feel better to speak and write? That sound better to our ears? 'Commentator' sounds a lot better than 'commenter'. 'Orientator' is somehow easier to say than 'orienter'. Not to go all Chomskian on y'all, but is there an impulsive, inborn, irresistible way to speak? A natural way of locution? 2 1 Not by our lights, anyway. Right? Right? 2 Or am I merely dredging up fragments of Aristotle from dim recall? <Q> The English word commentator comes directly from Medieval Latin commentator . <S> However, this Latin ancestor is labelled as rare and some dictionaries don't have it. <S> Classical Latin does not use commentator but instead prefers commentor . <S> Both are formed after the verb commentārī , but one can see that by adding the standard Latin agent noun suffix ("-or") to the verb yields "commentor". <S> Please note that the Latin verb commentārī had a much broader meaning. <S> It can be used as any of the followings: "to consider thoroughly [thoughts]", "to prepare [exposé]"; "to invent", "to compose", "to write [literary works]". <S> For instance, "commentarius" has the meaning of "memorandum , notebook". <S> Remember for instance the original Latin title " Commentarii de Bello Gallico " of Julius Caesar's (" Commentaries on the Gallic War "): <S> these are actually not comments but a notebook, a relation (a title designed to be neutral but with an agenda as is well known). <S> I'm not too sure why Medieval Latin "commentator" came to supplement Classical Latin "commentor" <S> but I speculate that this is related to the gradual loss of meaning as "to invent" and to the consequent specialisation as "to expound" in which case "commentator" would be formed after "commentarius" <S> the noun (this Julian "Commentarii" really looked like comments). <S> So we have "commentary" and "comment" (just as we have documentary and document). <S> Looking up both words in the Century Dictionary shows the nuance: A commentator "makes comments or critical or expository notes upon a book or other writing". <S> A commenter "makes remarks about actions, opinions, etc.". <S> There's a whiff of scholarship in the commentator that is absent from the mere commenter. <S> I don't deny that musicality or morphological consistency <S> have a role to play in our vocabulary. <S> However, and this is particularly true of English, I would argue that when several words with close signification are in competition, they tend to specialise and contribute to the language's richness. <S> In that particular case the reason why we might be more attracted to the variant "commentator" is possibly because of its perceived higher quality standard. <S> Nevertheless, the word "commenter", having a long history of its own also has its dedicated niche where it is preferably used. <S> A significant proportion of the COCA corpus entries I found had "commenter" associated with "anonymous" or "typical": sounds better than "anonymous commentator" this time. <A> A commentator is someone that tells you details about an ongoing event, such as a sports game, national ceremony, etc., because they can see things that you can't. <S> A commenter , on the other hand, is different depending on the context. <S> A commenter is someone who comments on past events , such as a news event, sports event, blog posting, etc. <S> A commenter is also a person that goes through computer programs that are poorly documented, and adds comments to describe in plain english as to what the code is doing. <S> Source . <A> A commentator is more than a commenter. <S> Traditionally, a commentator is someone who reports the affairs of the day - a pundit. <S> A "commenter" would be a person making an observation, e.g., " <S> Oh look, it's raining. <S> " The word "commentator" may offer a sense of being a portmanteau of "comment" with "orator" or "pontificator. <S> " It most assuredly is not(!) <S> but for that reason it does not jar the ear.
| A commenter is a critic, journalist who comments on something they've seen and they give you their interpretation of what they think would interest you.
|
Is the response "I am fine, thank you. And you?" outdated? This is what I learned from the middle school English class 10 years ago as the correct way to respond to "How are you?". The textbook was co-published by Longman, I suppose it was British English. When I go abroad I find few people say this. Is this saying old fashioned or outdated? <Q> I am fine, thank you. <S> And you? <S> is still used, but I consider it to be overly formal. <S> It could also be considered very polite, however, and I would probably use a phrase similar to this as a response when being introduced to someone older than me, like a friend's parent or grandparent, for instance. <S> You? <A> Strangely, this phrase is in great use but most of the users are new to English. <S> This particular response will almost immediately flag you as learning the language and people will very likely tone down their vocabulary and talking speed in an attempt to make things easier for you. <S> It has the same vibe as, "My name is Matthew. <S> What is your name?" or asking a child, "How old are you? <S> Are you five?" <S> If you want a more commonplace phrase I think both HaL and snumpy have good suggestions. <A> While it is a perfectly acceptable answer in both the US and Britain, it is rarely used nowadays. <S> Responses vary wildly depending on where you are and to whom you are speaking (race and age and environment (rural/suburban/urban) all seem to have an effect on the exact rendition of this basic greeting). <S> I believe the most standard response would be: Fine, thanks. <S> And you? <S> Though my generation typically entertains the following salutation: Sup? <S> (or Whassup?) <S> Not much. <S> You? <S> Not much. <A> As for many expressions, words, idioms, etc regarding a language, it's also a metter of context and situation. <S> If you talk to your friends you can even end up saying "Hey, sup?" <S> but with someone you must give respect to, you are much more likely to use the expression you mentioned. <S> This is not the only thing to consider <S> but I wanted to emphasize it. <A> Actually no one ever says "Fine, thanks and you" in America. <S> Everyone one always says "I'm good. <S> " I find it funny that the Spanish teachers in the school I work at teach "fine thanks and you."
| In the US, the short version of this phrase is a common response, especially with people you already know or see often: Fine, thanks.
|
Difference between "sky" and "air" "The bird is flying in the sky" or" The bird is flying in the air" kindly explain the difference in detail... <Q> The two words mean slightly different things. <S> " <S> Air" is the gassy stuff all around us; "sky" is what you see when you look up outside and is more accurately considered a location. <S> The easy distinction is that "sky" contains "air" but air does not contain sky. <S> Using "the" before each word will heavily imply that they are referring to the same location — namely, the bird is flying and not currently located on the ground. <S> Here are a few examples of each word: <S> The sky is blue. <S> Clouds live in the sky. <S> Look at the rainbow in the sky. <S> The air in this room is musky. <S> I breathe air. <S> That balloon is filled with air. <A> The sky is the blue (or black, or cloudy) vault that comprises the visual limit of the eye. <S> Things that appear to be above you such that that vault appears as their backdrop are said to be "in the sky. <S> " The tops of skyscrapers appear to be "in the sky" as do birds and airplanes. <S> But an airplane taking off or a bird flitting from a low branch to the ground is moving through the air, but is not in the sky. <S> A fly ball in baseball may appear to be sky-high momentarily, but eventually comes to earth. <S> It's all about perspective and point of view. <A> The sky is the big blue thing above your head. <S> In a similar vein, the ocean is the big salty puddle where the land runs out, but water is the stuff in the ocean. <S> Birds generally fly in the sky . <S> They do, technically, fly in air , but you don't usually talk about birds that way.
| Air is the substance of which the sky is made.
|
What is the correct usage of "myriad"? The vast majority of the time when I see the word "myriad" it is in a sentence like "He had a myriad of things." However I don't like the extraneous words so I normally use it like "He had myriad things." My boss corrected the latter usage while editing something I wrote. I averted an argument by simply changing the sentence to "He had various things." but was I incorrect? <Q> From TheFreeDictionary.com regarding myriad <S> Usage Note : <S> Throughout most of its history in English myriad was used as a noun, as in a myriad of men. <S> In the 19th century it began to be used in poetry as an adjective, as in myriad men. <S> " <S> This poetic, adjectival use became so well entrenched generally that many people came to consider it as the only correct use. <S> In fact, both uses in English are parallel with those of the original ancient Greek. <S> The Greek word mrias, from which myriad derives, could be used as either a noun or an adjective, but the noun mrias was used in general prose and in mathematics while the adjective mrias was used only in poetry. <A> Myriad - 10,000 (from greek 'murioi') <S> Therefore: 10,000 men - myriad men not: 10,000 of men - myriad of men <S> Of course, in modern English usage, it is often not used to mean exactly 10,000; <S> just the way 'dozens' and 'hundreds' get used loosely, this has now come to simply mean 'a great many' in most cases. <S> The form remains the same, though. ' <S> Myriad ' should stand alone without 'of' following. <S> Hope that helps. <S> N.B.: <S> Also, with regards to the question, 'myriad' can also be used to refer to something with a wide variety of elements/parts - "the myriad political scene" from <S> OED - Here you see that 'political scene' is singular. <S> So you could say: The myriad things in his office - meaning 'the many items in his office.' <S> or something like: <S> The myriad apparatus/paraphernalia in his office - meaning 'the wide variety of items' <A> Myriad can be used both ways. <S> It is an adjective meaning various and can be used the way you do. <S> It is also a noun meaning a great number (originally 10,000). <S> So it can be used the way your boss does. <S> So it would depend on the way you are using it. <S> Are you meaning "various" or "a great number" <A> Both are used. <S> I tend to find myself saying "A myriad of...", possibly because "myriad" isn't a normal number like "million" etc. <S> I don't think people generally use "myriad" exactly like quantifiers such as "various", however. <A> "myriad" is the same sort of word as "dozen" or "score". <S> Where you would have "a dozen men", you could equally find "a myriad men", but not "dozen men" or "myriad men". <S> As stated before, myriad = 10 000, although this figure is rarely what is meant (a myriad is rather a lot). <S> Using the word "of" suggests that the men collectively make up a group called "a myriad", as in "a gang of men" (the men together make up a group called a "gang"). <S> I'm not sure about "a handful of men", since it only has this figurative meaning when combined with "of" - you wouldn't call the men a "handful" ( <S> that's a different meaning again). <S> However, the usage of "of" is widespread, and so has to be accepted. <A> Languages evolve and change. <S> Definitions are constantly being rewritten as new ones develop or are tossed aside. <S> The majority usage of myriad as a noun has come to define it as a noun as well. <S> Thusly, myriad is both a noun and an adjective. <S> The old definition as an adjective has become awkward. <S> For all intents and purposes, it would do you much better to write " <S> I have a myriad of things" instead of <S> "I have a myriad things". <S> It sounds better, it looks better, and it comes across much more smoothly. <A> It depends on how you use it. <S> If the number is specific to 10,000 then you say, "10,000 men". <S> But if you aren't being specific, you'd say, "thousands of men". <S> So can't I apply this to myriad ?
| Both usages in English are acceptable, as in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Myriad myriads of lives.
|
When to use "me" or "myself"? Which one is correct: Someone like me... or Someone like myself... Is "like myself" ever correct? <Q> "Someone like me" is the correct one. <S> There's a lot to say about the usage I guess, but to make a long story short: <S> Me is a so-called objective pronoun, opposed to subjective pronouns ( I, you, she, he ). <S> It's called like this because it's placed in the object field after verbs or prepositions: <S> Wait for me ! <S> She likes me . <S> Myself instead, is used with reflexive verbs, meaning those verbs that indicate an action that "falls" on the subject: <S> I wash myself . <S> I told myself <S> it couldn't be true. <S> There are exceptions, you can find them here , but I'll paste the interesting part: <S> Usage note: <S> There is no disagreement over the use of myself and <S> other -self <S> forms when they are used intensively " I myself cannot agree " or reflexively <S> "He introduced himself proudly ". <S> Questions are raised, however, when the -self forms are used instead of the personal pronouns ( I, me, etc.) <S> as subjects, objects, or complements. <S> Myself occurs only rarely as a single subject in place of I: <S> Myself was the one who called . <S> The recorded instances of such use are mainly poetic or literary. <S> It is also uncommon as a simple object in place of me: Since the letter was addressed to myself, I opened it . <S> As part of a compound subject, object, or complement, myself and to a lesser extent the other <S> -self <S> forms are common in informal speech and personal writing, somewhat less common in more formal speech and writing: <S> The manager and myself completed the arrangements . <S> There is ample precedent, going as far back as Chaucer and running through the whole range of British and American literature and other serious formal writing, for all these uses. <S> Many usage guides, however, state that to use myself in any construction in which I or me could be used instead (as My daughter and myself play the flute instead of <S> My daughter and I ) is characteristic only of informal speech and that such use ought not to occur in writing. <A> (A bit like when you say "Myself, I think that...".) <A> It is never correct to use 'myself' in a sentence that does not also contain another first-person pronoun such as 'I' 'me', or 'my'. <S> Acceptable examples are the reflexive use: " I did this myself. " <S> and the intensive case: " I myself did this. " <S> Here's a great article on the subject. <S> EDIT: <S> My original rule was incomplete - see comments below. <A> The only time I can think of when "like myself" would be correst is when using like as a verb as in "You may think I'm inadequate, but I like myself." <A> It's a bit of a stretch, but I'm not like myself until I've had my first cup of coffee. <S> seems to obey some interpretations of the rules.
| My observation would be that Someone like me is fairly "neutral" or unemphatic, whereas Someone like myself is a more emphatic, almost as though you're "pointing" to yourself.
|
Is it correct to say "I fancy your photos"? Is it correct to say "I fancy your photos"? If yes, what would that phrase mean? How different would the meaning be from "I like your photos"? In what context would "I fancy your photos" sound natural? <Q> If you fancy something, it means you desire <S> it, you want to have it. <S> Either this is used in terms of physical attraction, if you fancy a person, it means you desire them and find them attractive. <S> If you fancy doing something, it means you desire to do it. <S> If you fancy an object, then it means you would like to acquire it. <S> If you say "I fancy your photos", that could either mean you find the people in them attractive; or you wish to keep them. <S> Either way it would be very strange phrasing. <S> Best to stick with <S> "I like your photos". <A> "Fancy," used as a verb CAN mean to desire. <S> It can also be used as a synonym for "like." <S> A quick trip to the dictionary reveals this definition: "to have a fancy for : like." <S> And the noun's definition, just to check the verb's: "a liking formed by caprice rather than reason : inclination " (Note: There are other definitions for both the noun and the verb.) <S> So, in the sentence "I fancy your photos <S> " I would say that it is equivalent to "I like your photos (for no reason that I can think of.) <S> " Generally speaking, the word fancy isn't used in this sense much any more, at least in the US. <S> It's a little old-fashioned, and some would say rustic. <S> That said, I think the only place it would sound natural used like this would be in a work of fiction. <S> Also beware that @Orbling's answer details a completely legitimate meaning of the word fancy, which can make the meaning of a sentence like "I fancy your photos" ambiguous, especially without context. <A> It would sound natural in that context only. <S> In any other context, it would be best to say "I like your photos" or "You look nice in your photos"
| "I fancy your photos" would be appropriate to say if you were saying it to a photographer, who will take it as a compliment.
|
Alternatives to leading a sentence with the conjunctive adverb "However" The word "however" is used to lead off a sentence that counters a previous thought. Are there any alternative words or phrases that can substitute? I'm even looking for old English and obsolete words and phrases. I'm trying to add some creativity to my writing. I'll start by including words that are nearly as tired: Nevertheless Moreover (not exactly the same thing as "However" and "Nevertheless", but can in limited cases be used) Anyone have anything better? <Q> even so , for all that , despite that , in spite of that , anyway , anyhow , be that as it may , all the same , having said that , and (informal) still and all . <A> A variant of "nevertheless" is "nonetheless". <S> You'll also find expressions such as "in contrast", "on the other hand", "despite that" which mean essentially the same thing. <S> In legal contracts, you'll sometimes find slightly more long-winded expressions such as "notwithstanding the above", "notwithstanding the foregoing". <A> On the other hand Contrarily Notwithstanding
| You could replace however with but , still , yet , though , although ,
|
Can "..." mean the same thing as a semicolon? Can a semicolon be replaced with "..." (an ellipsis) in a sentence? Is there any difference at all? <Q> No, semicolon cannot be replaced from ellipsis because they have completely different purposes. <S> Ellipsis is used to indicate the intentional omissions of words in a sentence to indicate that a list goes beyond those items actually spelled out in the text to indicate the hesitation in someone's speaking <S> In such cases, a semicolon is never used. <A> So you would use an ellipsis in a sentence like this: I went out to buy a ... what is that thing called? <S> In this case, the ellipsis is indicating a pause while they consider the name of the thing they purchased. <S> A semi-colon would be used in a sentence like this: I went out to buy an umbrella; the rain had been falling heavily all morning <S> The semi-colon indicates that there are two separate (but related) clauses. <A> It is called "ellipsis" and used to denote absence of parts of sentences. <S> Semicolons are used to connect independent clauses; they separate two parts of a sentence that are closely related. <A> The ellipsis, as has been mentioned by others, is used to show that something is missing/omitted. <S> Examples given so far would apply best to spoken English. <S> When written, we might use the ellipsis to abridge a quote: In his speech, he said "I will do the very best I can... to improve the situation" where '...' was 'every hour of every day', which does not really add to the meaning so it is omitted. <S> Also, when referring to a long list: It is interesting to note the number of pubs in the town that refer to horses: <S> The Horses Head, The Black Horse, <S> The Nags Tail... <S> I'm intrigued by the popularity of this animal in pub names <S> Where '...' indicates that the list continues.
| An ellipsis indicates either a pause or that something is missing, whereas a semi-colon is used as punctuation to join two clauses.
|
What does "going blue" mean? I'm familiar with the expression to feel blue , but I recently stumbled upon the expression to go blue on two different websites in one week. Vork from The Guild goes a bit blue Source : http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2011/03/24/in-which-i-discuss-the-topic-of-web-series-with-my-head-on-my-desk The second site: Our panel from ECCC last weekend. It went a bit blue. Thanks Wil Wheaton, hehe. Source : http://felicia.posterous.com/eccc-11-the-guild-panel-part-1 Usually I can track down the meaning of expressions myself, but since Google isn't being very helpful I'm turning to you guys. I'd also like to know if this expression is used widely across the English-speaking world or if its use is limited to certain regions. (Please forgive me if my English isn't flawless... I'm a 19-year-old non-native speaker.) <Q> This is in reference to a 'blue movie', a euphemistic term for a pornographic film. <S> It has since been toned down somewhat and phrases like a bit of blue can be used to say that something is 'adult' in nature. <S> Often this includes dealing with sexual material but doesn't necessarily mean visually pornographic; a comedian who tells jokes with a sexual theme could be called 'a bit blue'. <S> going a bit blue then would mean that the programme/character in question is normally 'clean' but has begun to include more adult themes. <S> It would appear that the term has been used thus since the early 1800s, originating in Scotland, though a clear connection between the colour and the connotation has not been settled on. <S> N.B.: <S> Bolton comedian Peter Kay is famous in England and well known for his family friendly stand up material. <S> In his shows he will occasionally tell a joke with some sort of subtle sexual reference or other 'adult' theme and then follow the joke by saying 'a bit of blue for the dads there'. <A> "Blue" humor is a type of humor that is dirty and offensive. <S> From Wikipedia : Blue comedy is comedy that is off-color, risqué, indecent or profane, largely about sex. <S> It often contains profanity and/or sexual imagery that may shock and offend some audience members. <S> "Working blue" refers to the act of performing this type of material. <S> A "blue comedian" or "blue comic" is a comedian who usually performs blue, or is known mainly for his or her blue material. <S> Blue comedians often find it difficult to succeed in mainstream media. <S> Topical musicians may use blue comedy both in their commentary between songs and in the lyrics to their songs. <A> Something being blue in these contexts means that there are references of a sexual nature. <S> In the "Vork from The Guild goes a bit blue" link, there are clips where sexual references are made. <S> The second link, to the panel with Felicia Day, starts out with Felicia explaining that a drawing that Wil Wheaton has made is of a penis. <S> There might be more, I haven't watched the rest. <S> This goes back to blue being a term for a lewd incident: <S> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=blue <S> Also see the 19th definition of blue here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blue <A> When applied to a person, usually to go blue is an idiom that is used for the couple of facial expressions where oxygenated blood drains from the face, leaving the pallor of the face blue; what comes to mind for me are the emotions of embarrassment, shock, and exhausted anger. <S> If someone had told you in the middle of a birthday party your brother had died, at the ripe old age of 24 years, it wouldn't remiss for an observer to describe your face "as going blue" retelling the story of your receiving the news. <S> Some example sentences: <S> She went blue at the news that she was being fired from her job of 30+ years with no severance and 1 week notice. <S> You can stamp and yell and go blue in the face all you want, but you're not still getting an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator for Christmas. <S> After spending $10,000 on an engagement ring, her boyfriend went blue at her unexpected rejection of his marriage proposal. <S> Unfortunately, the sources you link here seem to be using to go <S> blue in a bizarre sense I have never seen before. <S> I thought at the first the second source might correspond to this idiom, since a commenter there writes something like "nonsense... <S> you went red", which is definitely an identifiable idiom for being embarrassed, but her reply comment seems to disagree with his interpretation. <S> I wasn't about to watch the whole video and watch "close-ups" to gauge her blueness as she wanted, either.
| So if a performance or public event "goes blue", it means that much of the humor is profane.
|
Why is "Chop Gate" pronounced so strangely? I was passing through the hamlet of Chop Gate (in North Yorkshire) the other day, and heard it referred to as "chop yat" (tʃɒp yæt). This source here concurs with that pronunciation. Does anyone know why it is pronounced in that way (or, alternatively, why it is spelt that way)? <Q> It may be because the <S> g in Old English could be pronounced like a y when followed by an e or ea diphthong. <S> For example, middangeard , the term used to refer to "this place right here where people live" (literally "middle earth" — so you can see where Tolkien got the term) was pronounced middahnyaird . <S> The North Yorkshire accent may retain some vestiges of Old English pronunciation. <A> Maps aren't written by locals. <S> For example "Pately Bridge" is known locally as "Pately Brig". <S> Brig being norse for a large rock outcrop - no bridge involved. <S> But some map maker came from the south, asked a local what the place was called and misunderstood the answer. <S> It's not that "gate" is necessarily pronounced 'yat' - <S> the 'yat' pronunciation is possibly from some totally unrelated earlier word and "gate" is the nearest the official surveyor could come to it <S> (edit apparently in this case yat = gate) <S> Yorkshire has a wide variety of place names, from early celtic (Pen-y-ghent), mostly Norse, a few anglo-saxon and a scattering of modern Norman places. <A> Chop Gate is pronounced Chop Yat.
| It is Old Norse for Pedlar's Way with the "Yat" being an old Norse word for route or gate.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.