Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
2,900 | 155,306 | 76823_0 | > Nothing is so happy as to hear from your family. > > Nothing is so happy as hearing from your family. Which is more natural for native speakers? |
2,901 | 158,303 | 76823_0 | In this sentence, would you use "to inform" or "for informing"? > These findings are critical ______ future research Likewise, would you use "to understand" or "for understanding" in the following? > These results provide a powerful framework _____ existing patterns. This is a question that comes up a lot in science writing: when do you use the "to" vs. the "for" version of a verb? Is there a word for these two different uses? And is there a rule for deciding which one is correct? They often get used interchangeably, but I can't find any hard rules for deciding between the two. People often use the "to" version because it sounds less passive, but I find it more ambiguous and a bit clunky, but I can't find any actual sources to say which is correct. |
2,902 | 119,063 | 76823_0 | Which of the following is grammatical? > * To see my stuff at your grocery is a great source of pride! > * Seeing my stuff at your grocery is a great source of pride! > The verb "to see" is the subject, so I suppose that using "to see" is the right way... but it sounds so strange to me. |
2,903 | 116,277 | 76823_0 | I am confused about when to use "to verb" and when to use "for verb+ing" constructs. For example what would be the proper construct for the following sentences extracted from scientific journals: > A chemically reactive Raman probe with femtomolar sensitivity was developed > for monitoring/to monitor ROS generated in living cells. Another example: > As the metabolism products,ROS are very important in cell signaling and > homeostasis to regulate/for regulating a whole wide range of biological > functions. Which construct should be used and when? |
2,904 | 117,345 | 76823_0 | I am well aware that a similar question has been asked in the past, namely “Try to save” or “try saving”. However, I am not totally satisfied by the posted answers. My problem is that, every time I think I have understood when to use try + infinitive and try + verb + ing (gerund), I forget and mix them up. I would like **a mnemonic** , or an **infallible reminder** which is which when I need to write, speak or teach this construction to private students. In my grammar books the "rule" stated is: > Try + infinitive = make an effort to do something > > Try + gerund = experiment to see if something works So if I ask: " _Can you try opening this jar?_." and " _Can you try to open this jar?_." Am I in effect saying the same thing? It appears to me the difference in meaning is slight. If I change the verb _try_ into the past: > "I tried to open the jar." and > "I tried opening the jar." Don't they both mean I failed to open the jar? In any case the next time I meet this construction I would like to not have to double check in my grammar books. So any tips? |
2,905 | 139,571 | 76823_0 | Are the following sentences equivalent in meaning? > * To play the flute takes a lot of effort. > * Playing the flute takes a lot of effort. > I know that we say "It takes a lot of effort to play the flute", thus "To play the flute takes a lot of effort" seems to be a better option. But what about the gerund? |
2,906 | 384 | 76823_0 | As a native speaker of English, the gerund version of this sentence sounds better: infinitive: > When used together in chains, extension methods are an unprecedented tool > **to produce** extremely concise code. gerund: > When used together in chains, extension methods are an unprecedented tool > **for producing** extremely concise code. But how can I explain to someone learning English how to decide in situations like these whether to use the infinitive or the gerund? |
2,907 | 60,301 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > How does one know when to use a gerund or a infinitive? What is the difference in connotation between > How easy is it to "some _verb_ here" and > How easy is "some _verb_ here" What is the significance of using "it" in the first example? |
2,908 | 65,526 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > How does one know when to use a gerund or a infinitive? Which of the following is the correct form? > * To know you're interested in my book is all I need to go on with my > work! > * Knowing you're interested in my book is all I need to go on with my > work! > |
2,909 | 189,421 | 76823_0 | I've been looking for the antonym of _dense_. I'm looking for an exact opposite: a single word the means, precisely, "having _less mass per unit volume_ than another object". That is, I'm seeking a scientific word which could be put into this sentence, and have it make sense: > Wood is more `_____` than metal To mean precisely the opposite of: > Metal is _denser_ than wood And precisely the same as: > Wood is _less dense_ than metal Only using a single word (as an atomic comparative), as opposed to the two words " _less dense_ ". As analogies, we have the pairs " _heavy_ "/" _light_ " and " _thin_ "/" _thick_ ", and thus needn't to resort to circumlocutions like " _more massive_ " or " _less wide_ ". For similar reasons, I find " _light_ " (the opposite of " _heavy_ ") and " _spread out_ " (the opposite of " _congested_ ", i.e. "smaller _population_ per unit volume") unsatisfying. I would like a single, atomic word that enjoys some currency in scientific prose, which means precisely " _less mass per unit volume_ ". |
2,910 | 181,231 | 76823_0 | _This is possibly off-topic here - please redirect me if necessary_ I am looking for the name of a type of word where you can continually remove one letter from the start or end of the word, until there is just one letter left, and every intermediate word is a valid word in the English language. For example, `brandy` is such a word, because after each letter is removed below, we get another word: brandy brand bran ran an a What is the name for words with this property? _I'm new on ELU.SE; I can probably do with some help with tagging this question correctly._ |
2,911 | 55,540 | 76823_0 | Is there a word for someone that always has to be right? The person gets angry if they are not. |
2,912 | 55,541 | 76823_0 | I am not sure if the paragraph below is a bit too casual for a résumé: > * Responsible for negotiating the purchase of XXX. Struck a business deal > that resulted in savings of 12,000 EUR/month > Is there a more formal way of saying "Struck a business deal?" in a CV? I am concerned it may sound too colloquial. |
2,913 | 189,428 | 76823_0 | _Jamais vu_ is when an experience that is old to you suddenly seems new. But I'm looking for something even more specific. Is there a word for that feeling you get when an old experience is refreshed by sharing it with someone new? For example, watching a favorite movie with someone who's never seen it, and enjoying it vicariously through their reactions. |
2,914 | 181,234 | 76823_0 | The full name of the movie often called "Dr. Strangelove" is **Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb**. I find it odd that there is a colon after a conjunction like "or." Is that correct usage in a ordinary sentence (i.e., not a title)? If so, are there other examples? I understand that this is a movie title and titles aren't subject to the same rules as ordinary sentences. I'm just wondering if this usage is fine in a sentence. |
2,915 | 55,545 | 76823_0 | _Modem_ is a common word for modulator/demodulator. Is there a word that in a similar fashion (or in general) would describe the encoder and decoder functionality presented in one piece? |
2,916 | 73,194 | 76823_0 | As has been shown in another question, in comparisons with _than_ both the accusative and the nominative are possible and grammatical: > * He loves you more than _I_. > * He loves you more than _me_. > However, when we use _but_ only the accusative seems possible: > Nobody will help you but _me_. [Not _I_ ] What I think is that the nominative case could be justified as well. > Nobody will help you but _I_ [will]. Why I am wrong? Any other examples and references will be appreciated. |
2,917 | 131,399 | 76823_0 | https://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/season/synopsis/aida Aida has hidden in the vault to share Radamès’s fate. This is a sentence from the last paragraph. This usage of present perfect is strange. "It's started to rain." "The president has announced." "He's done his homework already." These all reply what just happened. However, in the question sentence, it implies something already done. Like, when something happened, something else had already been dealt with. What do you think? Is it possible? |
2,918 | 131,398 | 76823_0 | Should I capitalize the word "the" when speaking of God as "the/The Lord"? > I praise the Lord. or... > I praise The Lord. |
2,919 | 22,130 | 76823_0 | > (a) The rise of price of goods burdens the people. > > (b) The rising of price of goods burdens the people. > > (c) The ban of plastic bags is a good way to reduce environmental problems. > > (d) The banning of plastic bags is a good way to reduce environmental > problems. Which form should I use for the words 'rise' and 'ban' before the preposition? Gerund or noun? |
2,920 | 73,199 | 76823_0 | Dictionary definitions of all three are very similar, typically something like: > a pithy observation which contains a general truth But the wikipedia entries for each are quite different. Are these words largely interchangeable synonyms? In the wikipedia entry for adage, for example, a _proverb_ is defined as an adage produced from folk wisdom, whereas an _aphorism_ has "not necessarily gained credit through long use, but is distinguished by particular depth or good style". |
2,921 | 22,134 | 76823_0 | Can the adjunct of time be introduced in a sentence by the word to. like in the case _The case, which opens in the High Court on Thursday, has led **to the discovery of 300 boxes of documents filling 110ft of shelving._** Can the function of the last sentence element be adjunct of space (time because it has led WHERE? -> space reference,) even though it is not an actual physical space? |
2,922 | 151,450 | 76823_0 | I can not understand the difference when _employ_ is a noun. So somebody help me to show the difference between _employ_ and _employment_. |
2,923 | 77,430 | 76823_0 | Oxford Dictionaries cites a verb as an entry for _fête_ and gives a passive example. How can I use _fête_ in the active voice? For example, can one _fête_ an occasion with pomp and circumstance? |
2,924 | 77,436 | 76823_0 | Let's say we are making something, say, a picture, and we want to set up (prepare) the basic things such as the size, the material, the shape and the color of the canvas. Or if we are making a wooden figurine, we want to prepare a piece of wood of an appropriate size and color. Is there a single word to describe the process of setting up those? I thought about "styling", but it occurs to me that "styling" has a slightly different meaning, more like "developing the design concept" or something. If it is impossible to say it in one word, what would be the shortest phrase to describe that? |
2,925 | 146,864 | 76823_0 | I'd like to recall that there's an expression along the lines of " _coin dropping down_ " used to described the moment when an explainee finally reaches the verge of grasping a concept after the explainer tediously has gone through the pains of presenting a multitude of examples, approaches and pedagogical tricks. Googling it gave me no hits and searching on SO for " _coin_ " resulted in way too many. None of that was of relevance, though. Can I use the following phrase in correct English to describe that I'm trying to explain a bit more because I see that the subject is about to get the " _aha moment_ "? I was about to give up but I felt that the coin was about to drop down. |
2,926 | 165,082 | 76823_0 | I have a problem with the word "limp" and "hobble". I do not know which word is appropriately used when it comes to context because I do not know how the words differ from each other. Can we use them interchangeably? Do they have the same meaning? How do we differentiate the word "limp" from "hobble"? |
2,927 | 165,085 | 76823_0 | What is the word for the act of committing? For example, `The _ murder is a crime.`. Sometimes we programmers say "commit" as in committing code to a version-control database, but that sounds for normal usage somewhat geeky (or wrong). |
2,928 | 188,785 | 76823_0 | Here is an example making sort of curious things for me "who are customers with questions advised to speak with" In the above sentence, what does "with" function at the end of it? Simply, next to verb 'speak', dose this just work that say something with someone as a verb phrase? or assisting 'who' to make sure to represent a meaning who customers should ask their questions to? and, if it is correct in the second case, is it able to be replaced by other sentences like "with whom are customers with questions advised to speak" or "who are customers with questions advised to speak to" ? |
2,929 | 141,188 | 76823_0 | In reading the contents of a card, I have come across the following doubt regarding joining the two clauses with a semi colon or keeping them as two separate sentences. The phrase is the following: > Thank you for all of your help these past days; without which, my study > would not have been as successful. The doubt is with the semicolon. As you can see, the first clause stands alone as a grammatically sound sentence: "Thank you for all of your help these past days". However, my doubt is about the second part: "without which, my study would not have been as successful" can not necessarily stand alone in the same sense. My question is: Does the fact that the second part of this phrase begins with the preposition _without_ permit the use of the semicolon? Or, is it more grammatically sound to split the sentence into two separate sentences in which the _without which_ refers to the _time_ in the first? Any insight? |
2,930 | 73,226 | 76823_0 | We are all no doubt familiar with the phrase "with bated breath," but is it ever used in other contexts? |
2,931 | 23,152 | 76823_0 | This is one thing that keeps bugging me, and maybe there's a direct answer. Grammatically, which one is more correct of these two? Does it make a difference? > I tried not to do that. > > I tried to not do that. |
2,932 | 52,849 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Order of "not" with infinitive Someone edited my post on another StackExchange.com site to change the former to the latter. Which is better? I wrote the phrase the first way so that the infinitive wasn't split, but would appreciate other interpretations. |
2,933 | 48,508 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Order of "not" with infinitive When negating verbs that are commonly followed by the infinitive, is there a difference in meaning between placing the "not" before and after the "to"? e.g. > I try not to care or > I try to not care |
2,934 | 42,729 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Order of "not" with infinitive Last month I decided to change my residence and shift to another town. After some days, due to some reasons, I cancelled my program and decided to stay at my current place. At that time I sent a message to my friends, "I've **decided not to** leave A.I. Town". After sending the message, a question flashed in my mind that have I used "to" at the correct place. Shouldn't it be "I've **decided to not** leave A.I. Town"? I am actually confused that should I separate the preposition "to" and the verb "decided" in the prepositional phrase "decided to" by using "not" in between them? |
2,935 | 97,605 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Are split infinitives grammatically incorrect, or are they valid > constructs? I'm currently having a bit of a dispute and would appreciate your help please. Which one is more grammatically correct? > * enables you to quickly and easily identify > * enables you to identify quickly and easily > And why do you think the one that you've chosen? |
2,936 | 27,756 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Are split infinitives grammatically incorrect, or are they valid > constructs? Star Trek's slogan: > To boldly go where no man has gone before. "To boldy go" sounds right, but I was told by my friend that this is actually grammatically wrong because it is a split infinitive. I don't agree, because it seems to sound right. Is this a split infinitive, or something else? |
2,937 | 2,117 | 76823_0 | > Mark's generosity in this crisis seems to more than make up for his earlier > stinginess. Should those sentences always be avoided, or are there cases where they are valid? |
2,938 | 40,471 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Are split infinitives grammatically incorrect, or are they valid > constructs? One of my friends once told me 'to go' is considered a whole word and no word should be put in between. Are either grammatically incorrect and is one preferred? |
2,939 | 26,393 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Order of "not" with infinitive The following are both accepted as grammatically correct, right? > You pretend to not notice. > > You pretend not to notice. However, if I think about it, it seems like the first one is correct but not the second. Why would that be? It's almost as if the second one is saying "You don't pretend to notice," which means something different from the first. |
2,940 | 194,253 | 76823_0 | I came up with this question when I received an email from a committee with a sentence 'We have decided not to publish it', which seems really strange to me because the grammar I learned in English classes is 'decide not to do something' and 'decide to not do' was told incorrect. I searched for answers to this problem online, but did not find a clear as well as persuasive answer. In terms of grammar, is 'decide not to do' correct ? If it is incorrect, is there a reason why people say 'decide not to do' even in official letters ? |
2,941 | 156,276 | 76823_0 | A little bit of context, I read the sentence below after the system - a computer application - has been subject to a certain kind of update: > The system will be able **to not** create a record of that movement anymore. I think they are trying to stress the new behavior of the system compared to the previous one, hence that sentence construction. Firstly, would it sound better if we changed the sentence for something like this where we get rid of the split infinite: > The system will be able **not to** create a record of that movement anymore. At least for me that sentence construction seems a little bit odd and something an English native speaker would not say, do you agree with me or is it perfectly acceptable? |
2,942 | 76,366 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Are split infinitives grammatically incorrect, or are they valid > constructs? Is it allowed to use _split infinitives_ in formal English? I look into Wikipedia but it is too objective and it doesn't directly say that I can use it formally. Is split infinitives grammatical? * * * from Wikipedia: > A split infinitive is an English-language grammatical construction in which > a word or phrase, usually an adverb or adverbial phrase, comes between the > marker to and the bare infinitive (uninflected) form of a verb. > > In some cases, moving the adverbial creates an ungrammatical sentence or > changes the meaning. R.L. Trask uses this example: > > * She decided **to gradually get** rid of the teddy bears she had > collected. > "Gradually" splits the infinitive "to get". However, if the adverb were > moved, where could it go? > > * She decided **gradually to get** rid of the teddy bears she had > collected. > This might imply that the decision was gradual. > > * She decided **to get** rid of the teddy bears she had collected > **gradually**. > This implies that the collecting process was gradual. > > * She decided **to get gradually** rid of the teddy bears she had > collected. > This sounds awkward, as it splits the phrase "get rid of". > > * She decided **to get** rid **gradually** of the teddy bears she had > collected. > This is almost as unwieldy as its immediate predecessor. > > |
2,943 | 113,951 | 76823_0 | I was writing a blog post just now and I couldn't help but hesitate at the following snippet: "...causing this to not work as expected" And I couldn't decide if that's correct or if I should use "...not to work..." ot if "...to not work..." is okay. Can anyone shed any light on this? * "...causing this to not work as expected" * "...causing this not to work as expected" |
2,944 | 154,403 | 76823_0 | A Google search yields 41,200,000 results for the former but only 3,150,000 for the latter. Are split infinitives really to boldly be avoided in English grammar, or are millions of people just unaware of / uncaring for their existence? |
2,945 | 85,180 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Are split infinitives grammatically incorrect, or are they valid > constructs? > Order of "not" with infinitive Suppose I want to tell someone that I want to learn how to stop myself from giving up. I could say: > I want to know _how to not_ give up. or > I want to know _how not to_ give up. Which one is the right expression? |
2,946 | 141,182 | 76823_0 | Please share with me how would you understand meaning of "at the way" in the context below. > He smiled at her now and she looked away from his face **at the way** his > shoulders sloped in the loose tunic he wore with the four big cartridges > held in loops where the left breast pocket should have been, at his big > brown hands, his old slacks, his very dirty boots and back to his red face > again. |
2,947 | 73,228 | 76823_0 | > In February 1825 he married Julianne Thiemer, daughter of a property owner > and well-established glove-maker in Seesen. Heinrich, a cabinet maker > without property, a Beiwohner(boarder), was marrying up. Together, he and > his wife raised ten children in Seesen, a small city of about three thousand > people six miles down the mountain from Wolfshagen. ( _Steinway & Sons_ by > Richard K. Lieberman) How does _marrying up_ work in this paragraph? Is there any difference if you use past tense here? |
2,948 | 184,776 | 76823_0 | I want to say that I loved flying, but I also want to add the name of the airline company in my sentence. So, what should I say? > I loved flying with American Airlines or > I loved flying on American Airlines. I've found on my Googling both "with" and "on", and now I'm even more confused than I was before... |
2,949 | 147,197 | 76823_0 | A recent radio headline was > Another member of the Canadian Armed Forces has taken his own life. This is > the fourth suicide this week. The presence of the word _another_ somehow left me with the impression that the sentence meant all the suicides, or even all the Armed Forces members, are male. I happen to know that neither of those constraints is true. I also suspect the radio headline writer didn't intend to suggest that. Had the headline been: > A member of the Canadian Armed Forces has taken his own life. This is the > fourth suicide this week. ... then I would not have drawn the same conclusions. I know how to write this sentence without implying anything about the gender of the latest soldier (use they/their, change verbs to eliminate any need for a possessive pronoun, etc) but I am curious about why saying _another_ , and thus referring to a series of events, has (for me) the effect of blurring that possessive pronoun back so that it somehow applies to the whole series. Am I the only person who is influenced by _another_ like this? How do these sound? > Another student has missed his deadline for applying > > Another farmer has put her farm up for sale If _another_ has this effect, does it have a name? I would probably avoid the effect by omitting _another_ where there was a second sentence (as in the radio headline) to carry that information, and keeping it but rewording the rest to avoid possessive pronouns when there wasn't. But am I just being overly careful? |
2,950 | 140,584 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for a word for _someone who doesn't want you to succeed_ or _threatened by your success_. Particular for fear that your success will overshadow their own. Not so much for malicious reasons, but more from insecurity. |
2,951 | 32,746 | 76823_0 | From this question, I was just wondering, what is the difference between "leave" and "go" in terms of the same definition of "departing", and when do we use one, but not the other. For example, which verb should I use in the following sentence? > Tell me when you [go/leave]. If it is _leave_ , why is it so, and what determines which to use at what time? I googled this, but there were no discussions or articles on the difference of usage between _leave_ and _go_. |
2,952 | 51,647 | 76823_0 | The plural form of _leaf_ is _leaves_ , although according to Merriam-Webster _leafs_ is also correct. _Dwarf_ can be pluralized as either _dwarfs_ or _dwarves_. Conversely, the words _roof_ and _safe_ are pluralized as _roofs_ and _safes_. Is there any logic underpinning these variations? Is there a historical trend where words that were previously pluralized as _-ves_ are now being increasingly pluralized as _-fs_? |
2,953 | 32,744 | 76823_0 | Is there any thing wrong in the following sentence: > Could you please inform me **when you go**. Can I use 'when you go' like this? |
2,954 | 51,641 | 76823_0 | If a term contains non-alphanumeric characters, when (if ever) should these characters be spelled out? For example: > C++ written as **C Plus Plus** > > C# written as **C-Sharp** If they are spelled out, what are the conventions regarding capitalization and hyphens (e.g. **C Plus Plus** or **C-plus-plus** )? |
2,955 | 51,642 | 76823_0 | The titles of freestanding works (books, movies, plays, albums, etc.) are italicized; smaller parts within these works (chapters in a book, articles in a magazine, songs within an album) are not (they are put in quotes, instead). How are software titles treated? My understanding is that if a particular program resembles a book or a dramatic work (like a video game), its title is italicized -- otherwise, it is treated as a proper noun, just like any other product. > I played _Grand Theft Auto_ , instead of reading "Democracy in Ancient > Greece" in _Microsoft Encarta_ and preparing my presentation in PowerPoint. Is this approach correct? |
2,956 | 57,037 | 76823_0 | Is it correct to say "If I am getting late, I will let you know"? The Conditional rules don't say anything about continuous tense. In addition, what would be a better way of conveying the same message? |
2,957 | 165,550 | 76823_0 | I'm trying to find a word or a short phrase that target such person. Like someone who has no passion, no drive and only does whatever needed to survive. |
2,958 | 140,589 | 76823_0 | > In each of the years 1995, 1996, 1998, and 1999, variable X grew by 20% > year-on-year. But in 1997, X fell by 50%. What might explain this _counter- > trend_ fall in 1997? What might be a better word in place of "counter-trend" here? Googling "counter-trend", it seems like this is somewhat commonly used in investment, but I have not come across it anywhere else. Yet I cannot think of a better word to use in the above context. |
2,959 | 101,122 | 76823_0 | As I understand it, we are to hyphenate phrases which consist of several adjectives strung together to form a single thought. I would, therefore, assume "non-combat-related injury" is the proper hyphenation of the phrase. "Non-combat" should be hyphenated, without question, but should the hyphen exist between "combat" and "related"? Normally I would assume so, but attempting to Google it, I find that most of the top hits suggest "non-combat related injury" is standard. It sounds like it is a related injury (!?) of the non-combat variety (umm...), but apparently, it's standard. I was just going to run with it until I realized I also had to use the phrase "combat-related injury" wherein the hyphen does, commonly, come between combat and related - as expected. Should I stick to the standard hyphenation ("non-combat related injury") or try to smooth things over grammatically by saying "non-combat-related injury"? Or am I overthinking it? Or am I missing something obvious? |
2,960 | 56,014 | 76823_0 | I saw the phrase, ‘ _before you can say Dow-Jones Index’_ in the following sentence of JefferyArcher’s novel, “Not a penny more, Not a penny less.” Scotland Yard’s Fraud Squad Detective Inspector, Clifford Smith tells young Oxford's visiting Mathematics professor, Stephen Bradley who fell a victim to a large scale investment fraud, being coaxed by his Harvard school mate: “I’m sorry to say that we can hardly ever recover the money, even if we produce enough evidence to nail the villains. They have it all stashed away all over the world _before you can say Dow-Jones Index._ I guess “Dow-Jones Index” here is Archer’s version of “before you can say knife (or Jack Robinson),” but I’m curious to know; 1) Can we coin and use as many variation of “before you can say X” in our conversation as Archer did? 2) Is there a standard or best received pattern of “before you can say X”? Is it “before you can say knife”? 3) What is the origin of “before you can say knife”? Why it should be the “knife,” not gun, sword, Tom, Jon, any other words that represent for brevity? |
2,961 | 170,999 | 76823_0 | I am looking for a word or expression to describe those ladies, usually high society ladies, whose main aim in life is to find a good match for marriage and whose main activity is organising lunches or dinners for relatives and friends often to raise money for some non-profit organisation? |
2,962 | 170,994 | 76823_0 | When calculus was first being developed, the terms "fluent" and "fluxion" appeared quite often in the Newtonian works. I am wanting to know the etymology behind these words. I assume that "fluents" are related to the concept of "fluid" or "flowing", but (as far as I am aware) the word has gone out of usage in mathematics. "Fluxions" are not used in modern-day texts, but I assume that "flux" (a term with which every physics student will be familiar) derives from "fluxion". If context helps, one would usually talk of a "fluent" as a moving point, generating a curve, and a "fluxion" as its velocity (direction + speed). I am interested in knowing why these terms were used, and what they referred to. * * * EDIT: On a related note, Newton writes "Fluxions of quantities are in the first ratio of their nascent parts or, what is exactly the same, in the last ratio of those parts as they vanish by **defluxion**." What would "defluxion" refer to? |
2,963 | 170,995 | 76823_0 | Is the expression, I am extending a hug to you, only used when expressing sympathy or can it be used as an expression of love too? |
2,964 | 44,528 | 76823_0 | I have always used both "root" as in route 66 and "rooter" as in the networking device. The latter has gotten me funny looks often, however I could not bring myself to accept the inconsistency. Today I heard "rowt" used for a path of movement by a radio presenter. Which is correct? |
2,965 | 56,018 | 76823_0 | What is a word for an object that connects with something? _Connector_ is used to describe a specific part in electronics but I need a word describing that the abstract object connects with something. This is an object in programming that allows the programmer to connect to a local proxy relay. I would like to call it a _relay-connector_ but am unsure if it is correct to use _connector_ in this context. |
2,966 | 4,452 | 76823_0 | From a comment here, in frequent usage, _arse_ and _ass_ are often interchangeable when used to refer to buttocks or to a person of dubious charms. However, although “to arse about” has a vague connection to “make an ass of oneself”, many of the threads of meaning derived from arse are not present in ass. Likewise, ass has a donkey-referring component that arse does not. Despite common perception, are these words more deviant than common usage indicates? **Edit** : It appears they have (someone look this up with an authoritative dictionary please) different origins, _asinus_ (Latin) for ass, and _ærs_ (Old English) or _orros_ (Greek) for arse. |
2,967 | 186,956 | 76823_0 | The meaning I want to deliver is: `We need to tell the school that we are from the department of education when we approach them.` But since I want to present it in a proper way, I plan to write something like below: `Staff members are reminded to clearly state their affiliation with the department of education while having phone conversation.` I think `affiliation with the department of education` is not the right phrase, any better suggestion? |
2,968 | 186,951 | 76823_0 | What term would you ascribe to the record of a person's illnesses, diseases and medical condition? **Clarification** The thing I am trying to describe is simply the record of, or data that reflects on the present medical condition of a patient with respect to diseases and aberrations from good health. I want to clarify that I am not looking for a term to represent _all kinds of medical data about a person_. **What I am looking for** 1) I am not necessarily looking for just a single word, but definitely a single descriptor or title between one and four words. 2) I am searching for one of the either two things: a) _Precision_ Terms like _medical history_ , _medical profile_ (all encompassing, includes diagnostic reports, health indicators such as BP, sugar level, etc.), _medical records_ (suggests only reports about the medical tests a person had), _medical report_ (again, suggests a medical test report) -- all have different meanings. I am searching for precision; or b) _Custom_ Where there isn't a precise term, or even if there is, and there is also a term that is widely known and accepted to be what my question is asking, and even if it is colloquial and doesn't literally mean what I am asking, but is widely accepted, then I am in favor of using it. |
2,969 | 4,456 | 76823_0 | What is the part of speech of "Tater Salad" in the sentence 'They call me "Tater Salad."'? What about "crazy" in "They call me crazy."? For that matter, is "me" the object of the verb "call" in both of those sentences? |
2,970 | 4,455 | 76823_0 | I’ve heard the phrase “flip your script” or “flip the script” in various hip- hop songs. What does it mean? |
2,971 | 4,458 | 76823_0 | I thought this might have already been asked, but apparently not. Is using the phrase "one another" considered equivalent to the phrase "one and other"? Is one of the two considered right and the other wrong? To give an example: > * The two computers were situated relatively close to one and other. > * The two computers were situated relatively close to one another. > |
2,972 | 5,758 | 76823_0 | I wanted to leave the question title as is so as not to take away from my amusement `:)`. Anyway, > It's raining. What is raining? Is it the sky? The clouds? The weather? The rain? What is "it"? Any historical insights on the statement? |
2,973 | 43,415 | 76823_0 | What is the origin of the use of the object (it) in the following sentences, and what is its purpose? > I like it here! and > Did you like it there? In essence, the things we are saying we like are really _here_ (this place) and _there_ (that place) themselves - whence the insertion of the antecedent- free pronoun? Note: I can think of plenty of antecedents you could replace the "it" with, so that's not the answer I'm looking for. |
2,974 | 144,876 | 76823_0 | What does _it_ refer to in the sentence: _It is dark outside_? |
2,975 | 17,992 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > It's raining. What is? 'It is raining.' What does 'it' refer to? I know some people might say 'the weather' but you wouldn't say: 'The weather is raining.' But you would say: How's the weather? It's raining.' Bit confusing. |
2,976 | 36,249 | 76823_0 | Can anybody explain to me the meaning of this sentence? |
2,977 | 130,043 | 76823_0 | Which of these is more correct for American English in a professional context: **Did** you have any other prior marriage that lasted at least 10 years, or any other prior marriage that ended due to your spouse's death? **Do** you have any other prior marriage that lasted at least 10 years, or any other prior marriage that ended due to your spouse's death? (I might also be tempted to change some other other grammar in this sentence if I had my druthers, but for the scope of this question, please focus on the first word.) |
2,978 | 130,040 | 76823_0 | Background: I have an undefined, informal and ongoing relationship with someone where we often meet in the late evening at his place. Occasionally, we might go to a bar first but we don't really hang out socially at all beyond that. Currently, we are both making an effort to expand on the relationship to include other activities. Texting: me: do you want to do whatever tonight...? him: define whatever. lol. me: google says... whatever -> pronoun & determiner: used to emphasize a lack of restriction in referring to any thing or amount, no matter what. me: I guess I could have chosen "something" instead, which would have also implied that I do not prefer the nothing possibility included in the scope of whatever him: so... just to clarify... candyflipping at a rave is out? me: ummmmmmm... technically, based on what i said at least, it is still in. but no, we should not do that. And then we debated my word choice. (yes, I'm lots of fun...) So, here's my argument for using `whatever` over `something`... The idea of `something` essentially means "not nothing" or "more than nothing". However, `whatever` does include both "nothing" and "anything"... and in that, `nothing` can be expanded towards "nothing together" and "nothing apart". By saying `something`, the `nothing` is entirely removed (except, of course, if he says no to the question as a whole and turns me down tonight). I chose `whatever` because I feel like the question in itself removes the absolute `nothing` from `whatever`. Also, I did not want to exclude our normal "nothing out in the world but alone in your room together" activity and using `something` might appear like I am asking for something other/more than that tonight. What I wanted to say: I am good with anything together. I do not specifically have something else to suggest for tonight but if he has something he wants to do with me, I am willing to go with him. I am happy with what we normally do together. I also understand if he is busy but I would prefer to meet up. I think `whatever` was the better choice. What he said: the words are the same and using `whatever` makes me sound like I am 12 years old. |
2,979 | 14,753 | 76823_0 | > I need to find a solution to/for this problem. Can _to_ and _for_ be used interchangeably here? Is one of them just plain wrong? |
2,980 | 171,191 | 76823_0 | How do I pronounce R² as seen in chemistry formulas or maths? I can pronounce it as "R-square" but what other word is there for "square"? |
2,981 | 130,044 | 76823_0 | 'A sentence using a negative construction always expresses bad news or the writer’s dissatisfaction or unhappiness.' Is this strictly true? |
2,982 | 139,192 | 76823_0 | In _The Grapes of Wrath_ : > I learned to write nice as hell. **Birds** an' stuff like that, too; not > just word writin'. My ol' man'll be sore when he sees me whip out a **bird** > in one stroke. (Tom Joad) What is this ' _bird_ ' he is talking about? |
2,983 | 139,191 | 76823_0 | Can a combustion engine be said to _intake_ oxygen? |
2,984 | 139,190 | 76823_0 | Is there a word that describes when someone tells you to do the thing that you are already doing? It seems there should be a word for that. Or at least there should be a word for it so that you can tell people to stop doing it to you. |
2,985 | 139,197 | 76823_0 | Sorry in advance for the spelling of this expression. Do you know of "serbicwitnessour disposition"? I've heard it somewhere and can't find the spelling or any other information. Please help, it is driving me crazy. Thank you. |
2,986 | 150,504 | 76823_0 | What is the best way to phrase and punctuate this type of "this = that" sentence? No noise was detected, indicating that the room was empty. No noise was detected, which indicated that the room was empty. Thanks, EM |
2,987 | 85,361 | 76823_0 | The context of the word _groove_ here is musical groove. In youth slang of electronic music fans it means aesthetic pleasure while listening to music. Can I use _groove_ as a transitive verb? As in, "X is grooving me", or even on itself? |
2,988 | 139,198 | 76823_0 | Although frequently used incorrectly incorrectly in English, the borrowed Italian word _paparazzi_ should be used for **a group** , while _paparazzo_ is **one** intrusive celebrity photographer. The dictionary defines the plural of _martini_ as _martinis_. But similar to paparazzo, shouldn't _martino_ mean **one** such olive-adorned drink, while _martini_ mean **several**? |
2,989 | 128,234 | 76823_0 | > Now banish the **pathetic。** from public discourses, and you reduce the > speakers merely to modern eloquence; that is, to good sense, delivered in > proper expression. > Hume, _On Eloquence_ There are lots of this sort of old marks in this article by David Hume. I am totally at a loss what function this special mark has. |
2,990 | 158,232 | 76823_0 | This question may seem to be very simple, but something I get confused whenever I want to speak. I read a book entitled "re-start your English", and saw a sentence. > this is a leg. it is part of your leg. > > this is a neck. it is 'a' part of your body. Why didn't they use 'a' in the first sentence? And why did they use one in the second one? I'm not a native, so I hope you will please understand, even if there's something awkward about my question. |
2,991 | 87,211 | 76823_0 | I was talking to a teenager and he told me that his eyes change colors a lot. And I asked him how's that? Why's it change? I questioned him saying "it's an illusion probably? from light exposure?" Did I use the word _exposure_ correctly? What I wanted to say is that, could the color change be an illusion from being in different lit areas, such as the sun. |
2,992 | 87,213 | 76823_0 | Sometimes you might hear the phrase, _tyranny of the dictionary_ Is there a way to express succinctly just what that means? |
2,993 | 84,099 | 76823_0 | Which is more grammatically correct: `an XXX-inhibiting drug`, or `an XXX inhibitor drug`? It would seem to me that the use of the verbal noun ("inhibiting") as a modifier is more grammatically acceptable than the deverbal form ("inhibitor"). I say this based on the observation that verbal nouns are generally more grammatically flexible since they retain verbal characteristics. However, I most often see cases of "inhibitor drug" in the literature than instances of "inhibiting drug". |
2,994 | 84,093 | 76823_0 | This type of communication frequently leaves the 'g' off the end of words. "Talking" becomes "talkin'". Also, it combines certain small phrases into one. "What's that?" becomes "Wuzzat?" The best example I can think of would be the comic book characters Nick Fury and Howard the Duck who speak like this in the comics. |
2,995 | 41,271 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for a word to describe the complement of "to create art". I'm trying to describe the act of being affected by it, or by "receiving" it. Specifically, I want to fill in the blank for the following sentence: > I want to create art that I also enjoy **___ __**. So far, the best I have is "consuming". However, I do not like that, as it implies the destruction of the art in the process, which often does not apply. Similarly, I rejected "receiving" as it implies an exchange. I want to stay away from visually-biased words like "seeing", "viewing", or "observing", as much art is not visual. (Think music, food, etc.) I struggled with "partaking" for the title; I think it's not at all what I want. It also implies activity; what I want is a bit more passive than that. "Appreciating" is often used in this context, but I find that very awkward, especially when partnered with it's near-synonym "enjoy". I don't find that it conveys my intent well. Simply leaving it as "[…] that I also enjoy" isn't ideal either; I want to emphasize the dichotomy with the creation, which is also enjoyable. Does anyone have any ideas? |
2,996 | 41,273 | 76823_0 | What's the word for this part of an iron?  |
2,997 | 41,272 | 76823_0 | Somebody told me today in chat: > before i get into **the grind of my day**... is there anything you are > waiting on from us or need asap? What does the expression _the grind of my day_ mean? Where does it come from? |
2,998 | 178,254 | 76823_0 | I am translating some legal certificate and I need to indicate that a construction method and related factors are in accordance with a law. I am not sure what is the appropriate way to describe “related factors” in the sentence that is in. I tried “the like” as below, but not sure if this can be part of the subject. “Method A and the likes are in accordance with the lawB” It will be most appreciated if you could help me with this. Thank you in advance. NOTE: contents of the “related factors” are not provided to me neither, so I need to be vague on that. |
2,999 | 133,638 | 76823_0 | I’m writing a piece of documentation and I want to add the links I'm referring to at the bottom of my document. Since they are links and not books, I think the section title should not use the word _bibliography_. The most appropriate term that comes to mind is _linkography_. However, I don't know if this word even exists. I did not find it in the dictionary. I think the word is ugly, and my computer’s spell-checker does not know it. Is _linkography_ the best term to use when referring to web links? Does this word really exist? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.