Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
2,400 | 141,532 | 76823_0 | In Pride and Prejudice, when an old woman (Catherine) asks a young lady (Elizabeth) whether she is engaged with her nephew or not, the young lady neither confirms nor rejects such relationship in a dissembling way. Lady Catherine censures Elizabeth and criticizes the scandalous elopement of her sister. Then she says this sentence: > Heaven and earth! Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted? What does it really mean? |
2,401 | 113,254 | 76823_0 | Which sentence is correct? > 1. Enter the password 1234. > 2. Enter 1234 for a password. > |
2,402 | 113,255 | 76823_0 | I'm writing my thesis dissertation and in the results section I'm showing my results with this sentence: > A small correlation between hit position and time was found for SS2 > ($r=-0.143, p<0.01$) but not for SS1 ($p>0.05$) (see Figure 3.2). I believe I'm following APA guidelines for reporting statistical results and I want to show the reader the figure as it shows graphically my results. But, I don't like having these two parentheses next to each other. What can I do? |
2,403 | 146,089 | 76823_0 | There is this poem by Whitman who paints a picture of life as a narrative that we contribute our story to: > **O Me! O Life!** > > Oh me! Oh life! of the questions of these recurring, > > Of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities fill’d with the foolish, > > Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who > more faithless?) > > Of eyes that vainly crave the light, of the objects mean, of the struggle > ever renew’d, > > Of the poor results of all, of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around > me, > > Of the empty and useless years of the rest, with the rest me intertwined, > > The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life? > > _Answer._ > > That you are here—that life exists and identity, > > That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse. My question is - **is there a phrase that describes this idea of life as a narrative?** (My guess is 'hi-story'. ) |
2,404 | 146,087 | 76823_0 | "Don't cry." is universally accepted sentence form. But I also notice some books also provide "Don't you cry." Both means "not to cry". Are they all correct? |
2,405 | 113,259 | 76823_0 | > A big black vehicle rumbles through the streets of the slum. Its battered > exterior is encrusted with dust. "Encrusted" means that water or oil has been combined with dust (or something) and then applied to an object and allowed to dry as a crust. So I think "encrusted with dust" has to be wrong, but "encrusted with mud" could work. Am I right? |
2,406 | 146,085 | 76823_0 | How should one punctuate a sentence like the following? > If she were to find out about our . . . "secret plan" shall I say . . . it > would be the end of everything. |
2,407 | 146,082 | 76823_0 | My sentence says "Tom Robinson's case..." I wanted to say "took place" but I'm using it in the sentence right after it. Help! |
2,408 | 146,080 | 76823_0 | The word probably has the prefix "extra-", but I am not thinking of extracurricular, as that only pertains to that which is outside of the educational curriculum. Any ideas? |
2,409 | 187,928 | 76823_0 | A _lobbyist_ is a person tries to influence the votes of legislators on behalf of a special interest. What would the correct term be for the legislators being lobbied? _Lobbyee_ might be a logical conclusion, but it looks and sounds terrible (at least to me). Note: If the word you suggest has more subtle connotations, e.g. it describes a legislator that is particularly easily swayed lobbyists, please be sure to mention that. |
2,410 | 187,924 | 76823_0 | What is a single word to describe a list of parts, tools, and instructions to be assembled later to form an object. Examples: Bag of parts/tools/instructions for a DIY crib A group of parameters to be sent as an object with both properties and methods to describe how to build out the object _(software-factory pattern,IOC)_ List of car parts/schematics/assembly instructions to be assembled in the factory. To clarify, I am looking for a general term that could apply to any or all of the scenarios above. |
2,411 | 187,923 | 76823_0 | "The reason we hired an agent who's come back temporarily to be an instructor is..." The agent who has come back temporarily was hired to be an instructor. But another way to read this sentence is that the agent came back temporarily for the purpose of becoming an instructor and he was hired. Is there a way to word this so that the meaning is clearly the former? I should be a little cleared here as well. When I say, he's come back, I don't mean he stopped working there previously. I mean that he normally works somewhere else—like in a different country for example. |
2,412 | 151,049 | 76823_0 | "Quite" is probably the most ambiguous word in the English language. Merriam- Webster defines it three ways: 1: completely, wholly, totally (quite mistaken) 2: to an extreme : positively (quite drunk) 3: to a considerable extent : pretty, rather (quite near, quite ill quite rich) So if someone tells you someone else is "quite drunk", how do you know this person is: a) completely drunk? b) very drunk? c) pretty drunk? Or how about "quite difficult?" Does it mean rather difficult? Or extremely difficult? |
2,413 | 3,450 | 76823_0 | **Background** A garden path sentence is one that is exceptionally hard for the reader to parse. English is especially prone to this because it is an analytical language and so many words can be many different parts of speech. I read that as a person reads a sentence, he builds up a likely meaning for each word and a meaning for the whole sentence word by word, then if a "disambiguating word" appears that changes the meaning, he switches to the new meaning and continues. When the disambiguating word is far away from the ambiguous word, the sentence can be very difficult to understand. The classic garden path sentence, as far as I am aware, is "The horse raced past the barn fell." The ambiguous word is _raced_ and the disambiguating word is _fell_. For those who don't think this is a perfectly grammatical sentence, the meaning is the same as "The horse [that was] raced past the barn fell." Or perhaps more clearly using a different word, "The horse driven past the barn fell." Before I ask my question, since these things are so cool (to me, anyway), here are a few more examples: * The old man the boats. * While Anna dressed the baby spit up on the bed. * The man returned to his house was happy. * Fat people eat accumulates. * She told me a little white lie will come back to haunt me. * We painted the wall with cracks. **The Question – My Own Garden Path Sentence** After enjoying these and many other garden path sentences I read about, I invented one of my own. Recently I told it to a friend, but he didn't really get my example garden path sentences (the horse, the old, and Anna) and argued that they and mine were not correct grammar. So I submit it to you for your analysis: The men run through the arches screamed. As explanation, the men were stabbed in the feet, possibly as a form of torture. I swear I had several others I invented five to ten years ago, but I can't remember them. Perhaps I will invent some new ones. Is that sentence correct grammar? As well as the others? Feel free to edit my grammar. No comment necessary. |
2,414 | 3,456 | 76823_0 | I came across the following phrase: > I was wondering if you might be able to give me some advice. Is it a natural construction for a conversational context? Can I use the following instead in order to sound less formal: > I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Or is it less polite? Or which phrase would be better to use instead? |
2,415 | 171,713 | 76823_0 | I don't understand the last sentence, "Do you suppose the boys in her went before I knew her?" This is from Hemingway's To Have and Have Not. > He sat at the table and looked at the piano, the sideboard and the radio, > the picture of September Morn, and the pictures of the cupids holding bows > behind their heads, the shiny real-oak table and the shiny real-oak chairs > and the curtains on the windows and he thought, What chance have I to enjoy > my home? Why am I back to worse than where I started? It’ll all be gone too > if I don’t play this right. The hell it will. I haven’t got sixty bucks left > outside of the house, but I’ll get a stake out of this. Those damn girls. > That’s all that old woman and I could get with what we’ve got. **Do you > suppose the boys in her went before I knew her?** |
2,416 | 84,757 | 76823_0 | I was filling out an application form, when I had noticed this sentence: > If bilingual, please provide in _what_ languages. If I was writing this, I'd form it as _which languages_ , instead of _what languages_. Is the sentence above correct? |
2,417 | 182,340 | 76823_0 | What does this phrase mean? "take out your book" Because I have found no relevant meaning of take+out as a phrasal verb in the online dictionaries. Can any one help me? |
2,418 | 147,972 | 76823_0 | recap: state again as a summary; recapitulate: a way of recapping the story so far | [ no obj. ] : to recap, it’s been a year full of ups and downs. Is there any difference among "to sum up", "to summarize", and "to recap"? |
2,419 | 182,345 | 76823_0 | IF "No first-order theory...has the strength to describe fully and categorically structures with an infinite domain", how then does the domain of the first order describe any real thing? Is this related in any way to the problem of induction? |
2,420 | 182,347 | 76823_0 | Which of the following is a correct usage? > CLAIM A STAKE or > STAKE A CLAIM I am highly confused about these two. How to use them in sentences? Though the first one appears to be correct to me, the dictionary suggests the second. Why? Why is the first one wrong? |
2,421 | 41,332 | 76823_0 | What does it mean when a person says _"I don't give a damn for someone that can only spell a word one way"_ when talking about give and take relationship? The situation goes like this: My friend helped her classmate with her research paper. Then, after a week when my friend asked for help from her classmate, she refused to help back. That's when he said _"I don't give a damn for someone that can only spell a word one way."_ |
2,422 | 41,333 | 76823_0 | I've often heard the phrase "you lot" in British programs on PBS, e.g. "Oi! You lot! Shift y'selves" or thereabouts, and have sometimes wondered about its origin and how it gained currency. It seems both elegant (short, easily understood, and accurately expressing plural of "you") and crude (on PBS, only heard in broad comedy) or perhaps colloquial. Its use seems to have sharply increased ca. 1960. Why the increase, or is it an artifact of the corpus? Are "you lot", "you-all" and "you guys" (as mentioned in the middle of Wikipedia on "you") cognates? Is there a more appropriate term for the group? |
2,423 | 138,121 | 76823_0 | Is the following sentence right: "You got to have that satisfaction to never being satisfied" English is not my first language and a friend of mine wants this as a tattoo. I can't shake the feeling that he will be walking around with a wrong sentence the rest of his life |
2,424 | 154,057 | 76823_0 | I'm not certain that there is an answer to this one: Americans refer to our teams as The > Example: The New York Yankees The British in my experience do not. > Example: Manchester United I know that occasionally the British will throw in a the, such as _The Arsenal_ , but I believe this is a nod to the actual Woolwich Arsenal. We also tend to pluralize our teams, where I don't believe the British do this typically. (Not certain on that one . . . A bit of help from across the pond would be appreciated.) Could the pluralization be compelling the usage of _The_? Of note, the only time _The_ gets truncated from an American team name is when it is used as an adjective. _e.g._ Legendary New York Yankees pitcher Mariano Rivera retired this past season. |
2,425 | 40,068 | 76823_0 | I am always confused about the correct usages of words like _longer_ , _less_ , _higher_ , _high_ etc., for comparing performance of two programs. For example, if a program A completes its work in 10 seconds, while another program B completes its work in 20 seconds, i.e., A gives high performance compared to B, then which one of the following sentences is best to express both _A is better than B_ and _The short running-time program is better_? Maybe the following sentences are bad. If so, please provide me your suggestions to improve them. I have seen that people use short sentences in parentheses as shown below in technical research papers. Can I use parentheses as below? I have also used google and google ngrams, and I could see that the words _longer_ , _short_ , _low_ , etc., all are used along with _running time_. > 1. B has a longer running time compared to A and therefore A gives high > performance. > 2. A gives higher performance (low running-time) compared to B. > |
2,426 | 113,731 | 76823_0 | Is it correct to use 'majority' to refer to quantity? For example: More than half the garbage in our city is recycled . The majority of garbage is recycled. If this is incorrect, why? |
2,427 | 40,061 | 76823_0 | What is an alternative term for _Swiss army knife_? As in a general multi-purpose tool. It is a word that everybody understands, but I would like to know some alternatives. Clarification: The term _Swiss army knife_ is often used to express a multi- purpose, versatile tool outside the contexts of knives or armies. * The Swiss army knife for writing books. * Perl is the Swiss army knife among programming languages. * Swiss army knife of codecs (Google's search entry completion). I think that "multi-tool" or "one stop shop" are adequate alternative, maybe there are more? |
2,428 | 14,149 | 76823_0 | Where does the internet jargon "Troll" come from? The way I see it. If it's a fishing reference, then you can't accuse someone of "Being a troll" and if it's a mythology reference then someone isn't really "Trolling" they're just "Being a troll". It seems like it has roots in both, because * it's like they're waiting under a bridge to pop out and get you * it's like dropping a line in and waiting for someone to take the bait while moving around a lot. |
2,429 | 14,146 | 76823_0 | What is the usage, and why use plural? The context is here: > The automatic support for long - running workfl ows that the WF > infrastructure provides is the most evident benefi t. The execution of a > long - running workfl ow can be suspended or resumed on multiple points, so > the internal state of the execution and activities must be preserved. WF > automatically **takes cares of** saving the workfl ow state through the use > of confi gurable providers. Therefore, you do not need to worry about these > details. |
2,430 | 25,244 | 76823_0 | Take a look at this: > By the way, I marked (the tag that includes) position 2854 (in the code that > the tag is inside). Is it okay to use a couple of clauses that are dependent of each others like this (in order to convey the right meaning)? |
2,431 | 14,140 | 76823_0 | What are classical languages? How they are different from other languages? Is English is an example of classical language? |
2,432 | 154,457 | 76823_0 | **What's the difference between eddy and vortex?** When one talks about vortical flows what is more correct to use? |
2,433 | 191,795 | 76823_0 | I need to emphasize two items using **It is (was) ... that ...** grammar, but I am not sure in such plural forms, should I change to **They are (were) ... that ...**. Specifically, if I want to emphasize this sentence: He read three books in the library yesterday. Then, I can use: > It was he who(that)read three books in the library yesterday. > > **It was three books** that he read in the library yesterday. > > It was in the library that he read three books yesterday. Just want to make sure the second sentence is grammatically right. |
2,434 | 20,192 | 76823_0 | 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? |
2,435 | 106,148 | 76823_0 | Which preposition should be used in this sentence? > 1. Thank you for your continued **support of** the John Q. Public > scholarship > 2. Thank you for your continued **support to** the John Q. Public > scholarship > |
2,436 | 15,819 | 76823_0 | We know there has been an influence (or attempt at influence) of Latin grammar on English, especially in the 19th century. And of course, many new words coined today in (say) the sciences draw upon Latin sources. In the opposite direction, I vaguely seem to recall reading about a movement (or several separate movements) in English that championed the use of words derived from Anglo-Saxon, eschewing words from Romance, Latin, and possibly Greek roots. For instance, as in the examples here, "people" would be replaced with "folk", "sense" would be replaced with "meaning", and so on. Does anyone know more details about such movements? Who were the advocates? How well did they succeed? And most importantly, are there examples of works written in (or "translated" into) such English? **Edit:** To clarify, the question is not about a mere _preference_ for Anglo- Saxon words, which quite a few usage writers have advocated, but a near- fanatical attempt to expunge _every_ Romance word from writing. I recall reading about some outlandish words coined as part of this attempt. |
2,437 | 70,892 | 76823_0 | I’ve come on the adjective _bloodripe_ in Nabokov’s _Lolita_ (bold emphasis added): > . . . it had become quite a habit with me of not being too attentive to > women lest they come toppling, **bloodripe** , into my cold lap. The passage contains a metaphor likening women to ripened fruits, so _bloodripe_ is easily defined as _fully ripe_ (although it’s quite an ironic adjective for a paedophile, such as Humbert Humbert). Yet, I can’t find it in any of the dictionaries at my disposal: for example, it is not in Merriam- Webster or Oxford Dictionary. Does it actually exist, though not listed in the dictionaries, or is it Nabokov’s brainchild? |
2,438 | 70,894 | 76823_0 | I am looking for a word that can serve in the following context: > After the pasta is cooked, put some sauce on top of it and use a spoon to > _mix_ it together. Mix seems to be too general, I am looking for something that is related to mixing with the use of a spoon or fork. |
2,439 | 70,897 | 76823_0 | Does it make sense to say the following? > Yesterday I wore an umbrella and a coat. |
2,440 | 102,651 | 76823_0 | > 1. "This program was compiled **with** gcc." > > 2. "This program was compiled **in** gcc." > > 3. "This program was written **in** C++." > > 4. "This program was written **with** C++." > > Note: gcc is a widely used compiler by C/C++ programers. What are the subtle differences between the pairs of sentences? |
2,441 | 70,899 | 76823_0 | I want to ask a simple question. One often uses _some_ and _and not others_ or _but not others_ together. For instance: > (1) Why does cancer attack **some tissues but not others**? > (2) Why do interventions work in **some places and not others**? Is _and not others_ or _but not others_ put after _some_ just to emphasize the noun after _some_? |
2,442 | 15,812 | 76823_0 | Is it correct to use the word "do" twice in a row? For instance; "I do do that" or would you say "I do that"? "You do do that" or "You do that"? Which is correct, or are they both correct? |
2,443 | 148,569 | 76823_0 | What does "I can run flat out for a half mile before my hands start shaking" mean? It was said in The Bourne Identity. I am not a native English speaker. I know the meaning of the individual words, but have never heard the expression "run flat out" before. |
2,444 | 102,658 | 76823_0 | > “Funny, isn’t it,” she said, “how the law can have a soft spot like that? > No, someone had seen her in the village at the time Robin went missing, so > she wasn’t really a suspect. It was decided that because of her. . . because > she was . . . well, not to put too fine a point on it, that Meg was best (1) > **left** out of things entirely, and that’s how it was done.” > > “So it was Dieter who found the body then.” “Yes. He told me about it that > same evening. He was still in shock – hardly making sense: all about how he > had come (2) **racing** down from Gibbet Wood, yelling himself hoarse . . . > leaping fences, sliding in the mud . . . running into the yard, looking up > at the empty windows. Like dead eyes, they were, he kept saying, like the > windows of the Brontes’ parsonage. But as I said, poor Dieter was in shock. > He didn’t know what he was saying.” (The Weed that Strings the Hangman’s > Bag) I guess the first participial construction is a complement of the adjective _best_ , while the second participial construction is an adjunct for it’s not necessary to complete the meaning. Am I right? |
2,445 | 171,399 | 76823_0 | When someone is lying down, you say _sit **up_**. When someone is standing in an upright position, you say _sit **down_**. What in the situation when you want to ask a very small kid to sit down to a chair, but the chair is too high for him so he has to _climb **up_** the chair to _sit down_ on it? See a picture. _Sit down_ sounds like not matching the context. Would you still use _sit down_? What I want to find is if for the native English speaker the phrase _sit down_ is stronger than the idea of the logical direction as in _sit up_ (which seems more natural to me as the non-native speaker). So if you really _had to_ choose and you had no other options, what would you select. (I believe this is not a duplicate of lying down and then sit up/down?) |
2,446 | 18,673 | 76823_0 | I am building an interface for making connections between items. When viewing a particular item, the user has the possibility of connecting it to other existing items, by selecting them from a list. Which expression is better? Is "add connection" even correct? |
2,447 | 108,437 | 76823_0 | I'm only posting out of curiosity. But recently I've begun to wonder what you would call a shortening of a word that only sounds correct when spoken, and the pronunciation cannot be inferred from its spelling because the pronunciation is based on “phantom" letters”. Offhand, I could only think of the example below. I'll add more if I remember them. For example: In England, someone might order a _Veg_ Meal. _Veg_ is pronounced /vɛdʒ/ but words ending in _g_ have a _guh_ sound. However, _Veg_ is pronounced as if the _egtable_ part was still there. |
2,448 | 66,126 | 76823_0 | I found that diaeresis is used on the word, reelection in the following sentence of the article titled “Rational Irrationality” in the New Yorker magazine (April 27). > “This morning’s news that economic growth slowed markedly between January > and March is an unmitigated bad for Obama and an unmitigated good for > Romney. The President’s reëlection chances largely hinge on being able to > point to evidence that the economy is finally improving.” As I don’t think I’ve come across diaeresises being used in the articles of today's journals so often (Correct me if I’m wrong), I checked dictionaries at hand and online. Cambridge Dictionary online resisters reelection without hyphen nor diaeresis on ‘ee’, same as Merriam Webster online. Both Oxford Dictionary online and Oxford Advance English Learners’ Dictionary register ‘re-election’ with the former coming with the notation - Spell ‘re- elect’ with a hyphen after the first e. Other words beginning with re- that have a hyphen are re-educate, re-emerge, re-enact, re-enter. New Yorker used diaeresis on ‘reelection’ as shown above, and their separate article titled “The Curse of the Diaeresis’ (April 2) stated: > “The special tool we use here at The New Yorker for punching out the two > dots that we then center carefully over the second vowel in such words as > “naïve” and “Laocoön” will be getting a workout this year, as the Democrats > coöperate to reëlect the President.” I find no consistency of the use and non-use of hyphen and diaeresis among Cambridge Dictionary, Oxford Dictionaries and New Yorker magazine. What is the standard rule or custom of using, not using a hyphen and a diaeresis on the words including ‘ee’ ‘oo’ letters? |
2,449 | 69,990 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > What is the standard rule for using or not using hyphen and diaeresis on > the words like reelect , reexamine, and cooperate? I was reading this article in the New Yorker when I came across the word _uncooperative_ spelled with an umlaut over the second 'o' ( _uncoöperative_ ). I'm assuming a magazine of that stature wouldn't misspell such a word, but then it got me wondering why the use of umlaut isn't more common in English, when clearly common use cases exist (uncoöperative, naïve, etc.)? |
2,450 | 115,856 | 76823_0 | I have a pretty straight forwards question I think. Of the following three spellings, which one is generally accepted as correct (I've seen them all, well, something like it) reemerge re-emerge reëmerge The first looks wrong, the second looks like there is emphasis on the "re" part, and the third is archaic (but I like it and it emphasises there are two vowel sounds). |
2,451 | 108,432 | 76823_0 | This word _got_ has been confusing me for a long time. Is it against the rules of English grammar, because _got_ is the past tense of _get_? Why do I never hear people say it this way: > I get to go now. |
2,452 | 11,183 | 76823_0 | I wonder, why **`!`** symbol is called _exclamation mark_ , but **`=`** symbol is called _equal sign_? Is it only tradition or there is something behind? |
2,453 | 142,687 | 76823_0 | I am reading _Candide_ by Voltaire. Candide urges a sick man to find a cure for his illness, and the man responds with > "Alas! how can I?" said Pangloss, "I have not a farthing, my friend, and all > over the globe there is no letting of blood or taking a glister, without > paying, or somebody paying for you." A search of the word _glister_ typically redirects to _glisten_ or _glitter_. But these lead to the expected definitions about the behavior of light. Searching the phrase _taking a glister_ led to a result that claims the action can break a fast, which may imply impurity or consumption. From the information I found I think it may be: 1. Slang for a hygienic (like "take a shower") or medical (with "letting of blood") practice 2. A form of measurement, perhaps like "take a pill" What does the phrase "taking a glister" mean? |
2,454 | 14,498 | 76823_0 | I heard a great story the other day about a guy with a bloody hook for a hand - but then, when I retold it to my kids at bedtime my Au Pair informed me that it was just a silly Urban Legend. What does she mean by that? |
2,455 | 18,332 | 76823_0 | In other cases, a [country] Idol show titles use the demonym: _American Idol_ , _Malaysian Idol_ or _Indonesian Idol_. Why is this show called _Singapore Idol_, not _Singaporean Idol_? |
2,456 | 14,492 | 76823_0 | When to use _cry_ and when to use _weep_? Which one goes more formal? Which one should have preference in general use? |
2,457 | 18,330 | 76823_0 | I'll try to give some specific examples, as this one is rather difficult to explain. Example 1: Imagine you have been attending a kindergarten in Canada. Now you are 30 years old, so you won't go to kindergarten again, but I want to ask you whether you would be happier today, if you were attending a US kindergarten in the past. Would it be like this? > Would you like to have been attending a US kindergarten? Example 2: You have been brought up by a stepfather. Now you are an adult, so nobody is, nor will be bringing you up anymore. But yet, I want to ask, whether you would be happier, if it were your real father who brought you up. Would it be like this? > Would you like to have been brought up by your real father? Alternatives, or how are they different? > Would you have wanted to attend a US kindergarten? > > Would you have wanted to be attending a US kindergarten? > > Would you have wanted to be brought up by your real father? |
2,458 | 86,760 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > What is a word/idiom for ‘unable to decide’? Is there a word to describe indecisiveness, specifically between **two** things? I tried online dictionaries, but did not find anything. |
2,459 | 184,549 | 76823_0 | I am trying to find one single word in English that means “unable to decide which one is correct”. |
2,460 | 33,917 | 76823_0 | What is the meaning of the following sentence? > You have successfully split a hair that did not need to be split. Source: this post on the Programmers Stack Exchange. |
2,461 | 194,753 | 76823_0 | In most words with a long U that doesn't start a syllable, it is pronounced /uː/. Examples: _student, reduce, introduce_. However, in some words (such as _music, mule_ ) it is pronounced /juː/. I've heard that in other countries, even the first examples are pronounced like the second (/ˈstjuːd(ə)nt/, /ɹɪˈdjuːs/, /ɪntrəˈdjuːs/). What's with the discrepancies in the American pronunciation? |
2,462 | 38,033 | 76823_0 | I was taught that when _interfere_ is followed by _in_ , it means _to get involved in something that doesn't concern you_ ; when followed by _with_ , it means _to prevent something from being done_. And this is confirmed by British English speakers on the other sources I have read. However, when I looked up this word in Dictionary.com, I just found this entry: 2. to take part in the affairs of others; meddle ( **often followed by with or in** ). Is this a difference between American English and British English? As an American English speaker, will you also use **interfere + with** (as it says in Dictionary.com) when you are trying to express, for example, "Don't interfere in other people's business"? |
2,463 | 76,495 | 76823_0 | I have tried to use _candidate_ or _queue member_ to indicate a person waiting in a queue, but the former is not accurate and the latter is not a noun. Is there a better word for a person waiting in queue? |
2,464 | 76,494 | 76823_0 | Etymology Online dates _chatterbox_ to 1774, understandably as a concatenation of the words chatter and box. To me, it seems like the connection stems from "a heavy blow of gossip/chatter". When was this word first used and in what context, more specifically as a noun? |
2,465 | 38,034 | 76823_0 | What best completes this sentence? > Joe, in opposition to environment-friendly sentiments, has decided to go > **___ __ ___**. |
2,466 | 147,024 | 76823_0 | Which one would be right? Check out for offers online. OR... Check out online for offers. |
2,467 | 147,022 | 76823_0 | I want to write letters with the same content but addressed to religious authorities of different religions and levels, from the local Christian priest to the Dalai Lama. Is there a greeting I can use for all of them or must I research the title for each letter recipent to ensure I am not offending them? |
2,468 | 147,023 | 76823_0 | The term "white knight" has been well documented in places such as Wikipedia or various online dictionaries. But none of those definitions seem to encapsulate the meaning from this quote: > [White knights] are renowned for beating around the bush and not saying what > they actually think instead they cover their real thoughts with stupid > compliments. [White knights] also notice things that your typical man would > not (see below) > > Typical white knightish sentence to a girl: You look fantastic did you get > your hair done? > > Typical non white knightish sentence to a girl: I'm hungry/horny The above portion has a handful of various grammatical oddities but their use of White Knight does not fit the definition from the dictionary: > white knight -- > > 1. a hero who comes to the rescue. > > 2. a beleaguered champion who fights for a cause. > > 3. a company that comes to the rescue of another, as to prevent a > takeover. > > What does noticing new hairdos have to do with rescuing people? |
2,469 | 91,896 | 76823_0 | > If you want something in your life you’ve never had, you’ll have to do > something you’ve never done. * Dependent clause * _You_ — subject * _want_ — main verb * _something_ — direct object, assertive pronoun * _in_ — preposition * _your_ — possessive pronoun * _life_ — noun, direct object * Relative clause * _that_ (elided) — relative pronoun * _you_ — noun * _have never_ (adverb) _had_ — present perfective * Independent clause * _you_ — subject * _will have_ — main verb * _to do_ — infinitive * _something_ — direct object, assertive pronoun * Relative clause * _that_ (elided) — relative pronoun * _you_ — noun * _have never_ (adverb) _done_ — present perfective |
2,470 | 47,598 | 76823_0 | So, in the US, we make ample use of the word "just" in a context such as: "I just finished my homework." (I finished my homework very recently -- perhaps immediately preceding this statement) or "He had just gotten his driver's license when his father's car was stolen." (pointing out that there was very little [if any] time between the two events) I only recently learned that this is, apparently, an Americanism. Is there a better, more universally accepted way of expressing this? I feel that "recently" is not quite "recent" enough. |
2,471 | 103,014 | 76823_0 | These words share the Greek root πτέρυξ (pteryx), meaning feather/wing, but the P in pterodactyl is silent (in the initial position), while the P in archeopteryx (in the middle of the word) is voiced. Why is this, and what's the rule? Is it just that that's how the ancient Greeks pronounced it, or is there something more subtle going on? |
2,472 | 103,010 | 76823_0 | Besides for telling the score on a test (as in "He made a score of 88 out of 100 on the test"), can the phrase "to make a score of" be used to describe the score in a soccer/association football match? For example: > England made a score of two goals to zero. [If the final score is 2-0.] |
2,473 | 47,590 | 76823_0 | For example: * GH in _enough_ is pronounced "F" * O in _women_ is pronounced short "I" * TI in _nation_ is pronounced "SH" Why aren't the words spelled enouf, wimen, nashon, or why not spell fish "ghoti"? It seems like there are a lot of odd spellings in English, why is that? Over time I would have expected the odd spellings to have been replaced with more phonetically spelled versions, but that's not the case, why? |
2,474 | 177,580 | 76823_0 | I ran into this sentence in a ESL testing, "It really is like a dream come true." Just wonder why should we use come instead of comes here. |
2,475 | 183,122 | 76823_0 | I watch film science fiction The Blade Runer and man says this sentence. he is holding eye in his hand. I see in in a subtitle but I am not understanding this meaning. Can my friends in a Language and Usage website help me understanding meaning? Is this an idiom of English Language? |
2,476 | 183,128 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for a word for "All Being" to describe deity existing, always existing, and existing for eternity. Other words often used to describe deity include: 1. omnipotent—all powerful 2. omnipresent—present everywhere at the same time 3. omniscient—all knowing None of these words describe a being/deity that has always existed and will always exist. A being that exists because he/she exists; i.e., needs nothing/nobody else to define his/her existence. Does such a word exist? |
2,477 | 137,345 | 76823_0 | The song lyrics are here, with the following: The black brook calls It sings a chorus While the gathering swells The flames grow tall Right before us As drums keep pounding And the masses now are fusing Bodies pressed and tangled As we revel in confusion Our inhibitions thrown into the fire Wiktionary lists the following meaning for the noun: 1. a body of running water smaller than a river; a small stream. 2. a water meadow. 3. low, marshy ground. Does this word really mean the soil, ground in this context? |
2,478 | 137,348 | 76823_0 | In many languages, including English, the most important verbs are irregular. Examples include: * to be * to do * to get * to go * to have * to make The same applies (roughly) to many other languages I know about (Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Swedish) and presumably to many other languages too. Is there any reason why these everyday verbs tend to be irregular? |
2,479 | 137,349 | 76823_0 | I apologize if this is a duplicate or anything for that matter but I didn't locate any questions on it. I have this phrase I wrote and it is confusing me a little bit. > An OAHU Agent can help at no extra cost to you! _Wouldn't_ you want an extra > layer of protection during this very confusing time? _Wouldn't_ breaks down to _would not_ if I am correct and which can also be written as in: > _Would not_ you want an extra layer of protection during this very confusing > time? That just doesn't make sense to me. I know I am not an expert in English language, but it does sound right as _wouldn't_. Any ideas? Am I using it wrong all together? |
2,480 | 83,190 | 76823_0 | My dad (who is Irish) has been using the word "delutherer" since I was tiny. It derives from "to delude" and is used to affectionately/teasingly denote someone who is trying to trick you or cajole you by using charm. Today I googled it and to my astonishment found only one reference, via google books, in an old book called Humours of Irish Life. Yet I know it must be reasonably common in Ireland and I'm sure I've heard it used outside of my family. Does anyone know of any other sources where this word is used? Or have you heard it used? |
2,481 | 47,049 | 76823_0 | So, I'm watching this lecture. One of the slides (at minute 27) in that lecture contains this sentence: > "Write in the language you are writing." But shouldn't it be: > "Write in the language you are writing in." It's about a programming language. Programmers _write in_ that programming language. They do not _write_ that programming language.  |
2,482 | 17,918 | 76823_0 | Some verbal/written exchanges convey almost no meaning but are part of the protocol of conversation. For example, somebody greets you with "How are you?" and they're not usually not listening for actual information, just for you to say, "Fine," or similar. Or when you go through any sort of service transaction, it seems like half a dozen "thank yous" are exchanged between both parties. Is there a term or phrase describing the phrases we use for maintaining the facade of politeness? |
2,483 | 87,471 | 76823_0 | I do not understand the use of "run off" in the following sentence. Neither was I able to find any explanation so I guess it is not a phrase? > If your generator (software) was running off a different machine you would > type the server name or IP address of that machine. |
2,484 | 109,746 | 76823_0 | > For your perusal and evaluation, I have enclosed my curriculum vitae for > further information. My main problem with this sentence is the double usage of the word _for_. My idea was to replace it with _with_ , would that be better? Just clarifying: This is at the end of paragraph in which I describe my skills and such. |
2,485 | 15,368 | 76823_0 | I wish to know if any of the following sentences are incorrect: > * Using A and B parallel. > * Using A and B in parallel. > * Using A and B parallelly. > Now I suspect most people are going to simply recommend that I use "in parallel" since it is the most common. However, this is a question formulated to understand the underlying English theory. Apart from that, I'm mostly interested in using that theory to determine the use of _parallelly_ and whether or not it is correct. Now some research on my end. I've found the use of _parallelly_ in several dictionaries: * Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) * Century Dictionary Along with that, Wiktionary is quite clear on the use of the word. Along with some rules on how to use _-ly_ which do not mention that the use of a word such as _parallelly_ may be incorrect. I don't know how Wiktionary is fact checked, so I have come here instead asking the question to professionals. Being a non-native speaker and having no background in human language apart from high school (computer languages all the way) this question and the following debate interests me greatly. The answer I am looking for probably makes a distinction between variants of English. I'll flag the post which provides the most comprehensive answer as the accepted answer. |
2,486 | 144,804 | 76823_0 | How do you punctuate a sentence to indicate that the second phrase is contingent on the first, e.g. _Waste not, want not_? You could read this typical punctuation as meaning "waste not and want not" vs. "waste not, and therefore want not". Same for _Well govern, well serve yourself._ Dashes don't work, I don't think. |
2,487 | 15,363 | 76823_0 | Are they synonymous, or not? Looking at _wake up_ as a phrasal verb it seems that the more correct way is "I will wake up Joe" rather than "I will wake Joe up", but the second rolls better off my tongue… I had a look around but could not find a rule. |
2,488 | 6,471 | 76823_0 | > You might also be curious why the productsList variable is initialized as > new list of strings at the start of the method, only for it to be > overwritten by the code in the try block. This is a defensive mechanism that > ensures that the productsList variable is always set to a meaningful value > **should** the code in the try block fail for some reason. You will see an > example of how such a failure might occur in Chapter 3. |
2,489 | 6,470 | 76823_0 | So I am giving a presentation to an American audience tomorrow, and I have rather cluelessly labeled some components on a Powerpoint slide using the alphabet. When I talk about "component Z", I want to say the right thing. It's too late in the night now to re-label with numbers. I grew up calling it "Zed", but noticed many Americans prefer "Zee"; I want to be correct, not herd-minded. |
2,490 | 15,367 | 76823_0 | What is the difference, if any, between liberty and freedom? Does it convey the same meaning if "Status of liberty" is replaced with "status of freedom" ? or every occurrence of "liberty" in Declaration of Independence is replaced with "freedom"? > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Doesn't liberty imply the pursuit of Happiness? |
2,491 | 31,516 | 76823_0 | 'co-opt' in US usage means to take over for a purpose for which it was not really intended, having a slightly inappropriate connotation, while in the British usage it means to choose or elect as a member. I can find a single reference that says the US usage started in the 50's but with no further explanation as to the reason for the shift in meaning. Any help would be appreciated. |
2,492 | 171,641 | 76823_0 | I'm confused whether to use were or are on this... I detest liars, especially those who were/are making it up as a go-to-excuse. Thanks |
2,493 | 31,514 | 76823_0 | Is there a difference between _spine_ and _backbone_ in use or in meaning? I think they both mean the same and can be replaced by each other. However, I'd say _backbone_ is used more in figurative speech, but this is just a guess on my part. |
2,494 | 59,292 | 76823_0 | From the grammatical point of view all are correct, just the meaning are different, please bring your clarification, thank you. > 1. The Train will leave at 10:00 tomorrow morning. > 2. The Train is going to leave at 10:00 tomorrow morning. > 3. The Train leaves at 10:00 tomorrow morning. > 4. The Train is leaving at 10:00 tomorrow morning. > |
2,495 | 68,064 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > "The train will leave" vs. "is going to leave" vs. "leaves" vs. "is > leaving" Here are three sentences: > David is going to play football next week > David is playing football next week > David will play football next week In fact, I don't think that there is a difference between them. Am I right? |
2,496 | 31,519 | 76823_0 | Where did these interjections: * man! * (oh) boy! * oh brother come from, and why are they all male? If you don’t know their current meanings as interjections, it sounds very strange to say _Man!_ when you are disappointed or frustrated, and _Oh boy!_ when you are excited (although people are increasingly using it for other emotional contexts), and _Oh brother_ (well, I'm not even sure of this interjection’s usage). Why are they used as interjections, and why are they all male? |
2,497 | 31,518 | 76823_0 | Almost everyone knows about knock-knock jokes. Who made them up, and why did they catch on? |
2,498 | 170,513 | 76823_0 | What does the expression "here falls the shadow" mean? The context is a list describing how to teach your kids to become entrepreneurs: > 6\. **Teach the mental nexus**. Here falls the shadow. Rational people do > not become entrepreneurs [...] |
2,499 | 170,517 | 76823_0 | As in: "My project lays important groundwork for a future project." Is my usage of 'lays' correct? I'm not sure why I'm hung up on this, it just doesn't sound correct to me. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.