Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
3,500 | 28,433 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" Is it correct to say > "This is a forty foot drop" or > "That is a forty foot telescope" Shouldn't it be "forty feet"? And what if it is > "This is a thirty nine foot drop" instead? Are both correct? Does it depend on the context? How does it work? |
3,501 | 107,525 | 76823_0 | Which one is correct: 1- 4.23% of the world (world's) population SPEAKS Arabic. 2- 4.23% of the world (world's) population SPEAK Arabic. |
3,502 | 193,313 | 76823_0 | I recently joined a company as a trainee and we have to skype our priorities or task that we are gonna do on that day. For example, people write priorities like this: **1\. HTML/CSS training - [0.5 hours].** **2\. PHP training - [9 hours].** Now I do know about quasi possessive but this doesn't sound like a quasi possessive. I wanna know whether it should be 9 hour or 9 hours? Maybe it might be 9 hours because it's more than 1 but writing 0.5 hours seems a bit confusing. Please let me know what's the correct usage. Thank you. |
3,503 | 80,393 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" According to Google, it is correct to say "two-week business trip" instead of "two-weeks business trip". So "week" word should be used in singular form which looks strange for me as non-native speaker. Is there any special rule for this kind of phrases? |
3,504 | 100,771 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Are these plural or singular? > Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile? I want to write price of some thing in my site. As I know (maybe I am wrong) for things more than one we have to use "s". Related to 1.99 which is correct? What is the correct pronunciation? |
3,505 | 44,489 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile? I'm working on a website that displays distance to various locations to the nearest 1/10 mile. One of the developers (a non-native speaker) asked me an interesting question: If the distance is 1.0 mile(s), is that singular or plural? Clearly, anything other that 1.0 is plural, but is it: > 1.0 miles away or > 1.0 mile away The first option sounds more correct to my ear, but the voice of my elementary school language arts tells me that the latter option is correct. Edit: Added the word 'away' to the example. It doesn't change the question, but might provide clarity for the answer. Also, regarding numbers between 0 and 1, after more thought, I'm not sure that the answer is as clear as I originally thought. See http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57224.html. |
3,506 | 2,139 | 76823_0 | I have seen people say both 0.25 mile and 0.25 miles. Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile? |
3,507 | 121,628 | 76823_0 | I'm drafting a lease which requires tenants to pay rent for the first three months when they sign the lease. Which one of the following is correct? Thanks. three month rent three month's rent three months' rent |
3,508 | 80,064 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" > Mr. Willow’s more than forty-year experience in the industry persuaded me to > apply. Or is the following a better way of saying it? > Mr. Willow's more than forty years of experience in the industry persuaded > me to apply. Are they both correct, or should the hyphen in the first example be removed? |
3,509 | 138,316 | 76823_0 | I would like to know which would be the correct form: > * a major two-day auction > * a major two days auction > The duration of the auction is two days. Which form is the right one to use? |
3,510 | 24,134 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" We usually say "10 pounds", but for a single bill we say "10 Pound note" and not "10 pound(s) note". And when we have a lot of notes we say again "10 Pound notes". Why this disparity? |
3,511 | 63,246 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" > Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile? When talking about "one and a half" of any object, do we use the subsequent noun in plural or just singular? I'm aware that "A minute and a half" is also correct but I'm looking for the specific "One and a half"-construction here. So for example, which of the below phrases is correct? > You're one and a half **minutes** late! or > You're one and a half **minute** late! Is there any difference when using the phrase as an adjective like so: "One- and-a-half-minute recipe"? |
3,512 | 71,944 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Pluralization rule for "five-year-old children", "20 pound note", "10 mile > run" Reading a report online, I read something like this. > during his 30-year rule. Is it 30 year or 30 years? |
3,513 | 164,723 | 76823_0 | It seems like a particular dance is called "Two-step". It gave me some doubts about how to spell step in the description of a method I use. If my method has two steps, should it be called a two step method or a two steps method? |
3,514 | 103,849 | 76823_0 | I've always understood that the phrase "two weeks" usually turns to "two weeks'" when used as a modifier -- as in "I'm giving my two weeks' notice" or "I get two weeks' vacation" ("two weeks' holiday" for Brits) -- with an apostrophe on the word "weeks", indicating that the vacation belongs to the weeks. One way to explain this is the phrase "two weeks of vacation" being contracted to "two weeks' vacation" -- the vacation is _of_ the weeks, i.e. possessed by it. But I've seen a lot of people omit the apostrophe in casual writing, and thinking about it, it seems plausible that the noun "vacation" would be plainly modified by the adjectival phrase "two weeks"... but on the other hand, shouldn't adjectival phrases be hypenated, viz. "two-weeks vacation"? But then that seems wrong too; the hyphenate should be singular, "two-week vacation" (like "two-tone shoes") because preceding adjectives are not declined for number. Why is the singular of “week” used in “two-week business trip”? touches on this (and references a good Wikipedia page on noun adjuncts) but doesn't explain why the plural must be possessive in this case. Explanation on when the possessive should be used instead of an attributive noun suggests that "two weeks" might be adverbial rather than adjectival, and thus resist being used attributively. But that still doesn't quite explain this particular muddle of pluralization, possession, and attribution... |
3,515 | 157,475 | 76823_0 | In a software system, we allow users to define variables. The variables can be related to one another using mathematical formulas (for example, A = B + 1). If a change of value of a variable A affects variable B, we would call B a "dependent variable". How should we call the variable A - that is, a variable that is affected by a change of another variable? |
3,516 | 157,476 | 76823_0 | In a clinical trail with several visits, it is common to see volunteers not attending their visits at some time point for different reasons. I have these different situations, and I would like to know whether a certain term or phrase should be fittingly used in each case, the different conditions I have are: 1. The participant didn't come, because he was not needed to come, he did come before and he is no more needed to attend. 2. The participant didn't come, but he was needed to come, though he couldn't make it to come for whatever reason. 3. The participant did attend, but the objective of his attendance was not fulfilled. For instance, the sample needed could not be collected or lost after collection. In effect the objective of his attendance was not completely achieved. I know that there is a term for the second situation which is `drop-out', but how to use it with the correct punctuation? is it: He was _dropped out_ from the study at visit 10. He _dropped out_ from the study at visit 10. He was a study _drop-out_ at visit 10. |
3,517 | 157,477 | 76823_0 | I saw a tarp with this text: (Name of University) Academic Community Welcome to the First Youth Congress~~~~ June 15 - 17, 2013 (Name of University) Social Hall Theme: "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" I did not mention the name of the university for the obvious reason.. My concern is the word welcome. I think it should be welcomes because the community is taken as one but when I pointed that out they said welcome is correct.. I'm confused.. |
3,518 | 68,572 | 76823_0 | As I have told you in my previous question, I have heard the CBS news about the Bulgarian president visiting the US here. I don't know why, but the way the reporter has pronounced his name makes me smile. I know that that isn't an issue since we speak different languages, but I was wondering why she pronounced it that way. His name is _Rosen Plevneliev_. In Bulgarian there are duplicate consonants like _s_ in _sauce_ and _z_ in _zebra_. In Bulgarian we pronounce it with clear _s_ sound while this reporter has used the _z_ sound. My question is: What is the rule in English that makes her pronounces it that way. |
3,519 | 104,997 | 76823_0 | What is the correct "parsing" of this sentence: > Futuristic but not out of time — like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone > trying to imagine what 2013 would be like. I came to two interpretations of the above sentence and would like to know whether either is correct: 1. [Futuristic] but not [out of time — like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone trying to imagine what 2013 would be like.] And so it is saying the device _does not_ look like an artifact from the. . . . 2. [Futuristic but not out of time] — [like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone trying to imagine what 2013 would be like.] Therefore, the device _does_ look like an artifact. . . . The full paragraph the sentence is taken from (to provide additional context) > The design of Glass is actually really beautiful. Elegant, sophisticated. > They look human and a little bit alien all at once. **Futuristic but not out > of time — like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone trying to imagine what > 2013 would be like**. This is Apple-level design. No, in some ways it’s > beyond what Apple has been doing recently. It’s daring, inventive, playful, > and yet somehow still ultimately simple. The materials feel good in your > hand and on your head, solid but surprisingly light. Comfortable. If Google > keeps this up, soon we’ll be saying things like "this is Google-level > design." |
3,520 | 68,578 | 76823_0 | In slang, one can use the generic "man", to describe his conversant. For instance: > Man, it's sure hot here this season How can I express that for a woman I'm talking with? |
3,521 | 66 | 76823_0 | What is the difference between a gerund and a participle? |
3,522 | 30,270 | 76823_0 | Wiktionary has a passage explaining (no citation) an origin to the use of the word canard as a means of diverting aggression from vulnerability: > Specifically, the term Canard refers to a tactic used by a parent duck to > deceptively draw a predator away from its offspring or nest by quacking and > feigning a broken wing For canard, Dictionary.com offers "from French: a duck, hoax, from Old French _caner_ to quack, of imitative origin". The passage on 'duck' (as a verb) is less explanatory and offers only the definition, however the Online Etymology Dictionary reads: > "to plunge into" (trans.), c.1300; to suddenly go under water (intrans.), > mid-14c., from presumed O.E. *ducan "to duck," found only in derivative duce > (n.) "duck" (but there are cognate words in other Germanic languages, cf. > O.H.G. tuhhan "to dip," Ger. tauchen "to dive," O.Fris. duka, M.Du. duken > "to dip, dive," Du. duiken), from P.Gmc. *dukjan. Sense of "bend, stoop > quickly" is first recorded in English 1520s. Related: Ducked; ducking. The > noun is attested from 1550s in the sense of "quick stoop;" meaning "a > plunge, dip" is from 1843 So when it comes to 'ducking the truth' or posing a canard in an argument (or resorting to trickery, deception, lying), are these two words only related by coincidence or did something give rise to their linked usage? |
3,523 | 30,272 | 76823_0 | What is the rule regarding using _the_ with superlatives? For example: > 1. John is _the_ fastest among his friends. > 2. John is fastest among his friends. > Both appear to be correct. I have seen both formats in a variety of places. |
3,524 | 109,954 | 76823_0 | Specifically, I'm looking for a word or phrase that captures the feeling of wanting someone to need you to care for them, and feeling guilty that the desire implies that you want the other person to be hurt or vulnerable. |
3,525 | 55,193 | 76823_0 | I've seen a thread that generally asks about Creating words with “-able” suffix But I don't think it answers my point, though they _are_ admittedly dangerously close topics. When do you drop the _'e'_ when forming words suffixed with - _able_. My Spell checker likes _Unforgivable_ but dislikes _Forgivable_. Dropping the ' _e_ ' in the first case, and adding it in the second makes my spell checker happy. How do you determine when one is ok? Note that this is different from the linked question, where neither with or without the ' _e_ ' is accepted. (Having checked the OED it seems there is one accepted spelling of _Forgivable_ but two of _Unforgiv(e)able_ ) |
3,526 | 76,046 | 76823_0 | Is there a word to describe an object that excels in form and function? I am trying to avoid very general words like _great_ , _superb_ or _excellent_. |
3,527 | 109,953 | 76823_0 | > A man asked a question to his friend, “Why was it the best time for Bilal to > be in his home?” > > His friend replied, “It **would** be the best time for Bilal to be in his > home because his uncle visited him at that time.” In what sense is the modal verb _would_ being used above? Can we replace the _would_ used there with this instead: > It might have been the best time. . . .. What job does _would_ do in the quoted dialogue above? |
3,528 | 190,477 | 76823_0 | What's a word for using one's motivation to accomplish something? I tried _passion driven_ but it doesn't seem to fit. The sentence is: > Motivation fosters the dedication needed to **____**. > or > Motivation fosters dedication needed to [be good at what you do] If the question I've asked doesn't make sense, just complete the sentence that describes the importance of having motivation in a career. |
3,529 | 102,039 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > What word means “to speak something into existence”? This is probably something that economists would quickly recognize. It often happens that people would wrongly speculate something; for example, a sudden rise in gold prices, and as a result of that speculation, the buyers will rush to buy gold in a bid to escape the anticipated rise in price whereas the sellers will hold it back looking forward to the price rise. The sudden demand for gold, on one hand, and the shortage of supply on the other, will eventually bring about the rise in its price. I was recently reading about this phenomenon on some website and the author, stating that the trend applies to a variety of economic activities including foreign exchange, had called it something using a term which I now wish I had made note of. Economics apart, I believe this is something that can happen anywhere where anticipation and speculation are involved. I request you to please share if you know what this phenomenon is called. |
3,530 | 2,271 | 76823_0 | I sometimes see square brackets used while quoting. My assumption is that they are replacing a pronoun with what the object of the pronoun, but I never know for sure because I don't usually get to see what the original quote looks like before the modification. What are these called and what are the rules of use? |
3,531 | 110,582 | 76823_0 | What does the bracketed capital letter indicate in the revised version below? Is it essential, per the rules of proper punctuation, to do so? Are the ellipsis points (i.e., the spacing of the dots) spot on in that sentence to indicate the omission of one or more sentences? Original quotation "It need hardly be said that shortness is a merit in words. There are often reasons why shortness is not possible; much less often there are occasions when length, not shortness, is desirable. But it is a general truth that the short words are not only handier to use, but more possible in effect; extra syllables reduce, not increase, vigor." Revised quotation "It need hardly be said that shortness is a merit in words. . . . [S]hort words are not only handier to use, but more possible in effect; extra syllables reduce, not increase, vigor." Thank you. |
3,532 | 71,186 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? What do brackets around a word or words in a quote mean? This may seem silly, but I've never figured this out. Bad fictional examples: > "That's what all this is about it is [terrible]" It's also used at the beginning of a quote sometimes like: > "[Albert Einstein] was genuinely a genius." |
3,533 | 88,009 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? This question is born of practical necessity - one that I encountered while quoting a reference in "another" Stack Exchange property's "comment field". Due to space limitations, I had wanted to "paraphrase" the following line.. > This is why Git will only let you checkout another branch if everything is > checked in – there are no uncommitted modified files. with > This is why all changes must be committed before switching branches. This _did_ allow my post fit nicely - into the properly dignified amount of allowed characters - but left me with only two spaces to spare. With those two, I reluctantly surrounded my mini-edit in `( )` (parenthesis). This is _fine, and all..._ but as the change was _mid-quote_ , and _mid-paragraph_ , there was no obvious way to clarify that this parenthetical portion was NOT as the credited author had intended - but was instead MY little handiwork. A quick _glance about_ found a dearth of good suggestions on how best to propery attribute - or even indicate - occurances of such paraphrasing, short of some kind of annotated bibliography, etc. What is the correct way to do this (syntactically, via a symbol, or with punctuation, etc.), especially in the context of modern / informal / electronic communications? |
3,534 | 110,583 | 76823_0 | Please look at the following sentence with the bracketed lowercase letter. “Doctor Rogers' thesis states that ‘[p]atients often display psychosomatic symptoms.’ ” Is the author decapitalizing the word "patients" that may have appeared in the original, and he or she is denoting this via use of the brackets around the letter "p"? In your opinion, did the original appear like this (see below) with the unnecessary capitalization of the word "patients"? “Doctor Rogers' thesis states that ‘Patients often display psychosomatic symptoms.’ ” Thank you. |
3,535 | 100,390 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? > What do brackets in a quote mean? When I add information beside a word in a Bible verse, what bracket should I use? Parentheses or square brackets? |
3,536 | 95,560 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes? I have come across articles, interviews, quotes etc., where a singular word in put in the box bracket. Here is a quote by Bertrand Russel > I regard [religion] as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold > misery to the human race. If we follow rules of regular brackets, the sentence should be grammatically correct without the bracket. But that does not seem the case here. Does the box bracket follow rules different from those of regular brackets? Either way, how does one know when to use such brackets? |
3,537 | 108,399 | 76823_0 | I am trying to assess errors regarding lexicology in an English-as-a-second- language-learner's spoken English. Does the use of tense fall into the 'Lexicology', Phonology, Syntax or Discourse? I need something in the lexicology area to focus on! |
3,538 | 9,096 | 76823_0 | Is it considered bad style to use ~~abbreviations~~ contractions like "it's" and "that's" (instead of spelling them out as "it is" and "that is") in a textbook or academic publication? |
3,539 | 20,275 | 76823_0 | > **Possible duplicate of:** > Using contracted forms (“don't”, “let's”) in a formal text > Usage of contractions like "it's" and "that's" in textbooks > Should contractions be avoided in formal emails? In Germany, our English teachers always taught us that contractions like "didn't", "he's", "won't" and so on are perfectly valid to use also in written English. The only difference to writing the long version, consisting of two words, was that it would only count as one word. However, in Singapore, where I currently am for an exchange year, if you use these contractions in a test, they will be marked as a mistake. The teacher says it is not allowed to use them in written English. So my question is: Are the German or the Singaporean teachers right? Is there any official rule on this? How is this marked in other countries' schools? |
3,540 | 108,391 | 76823_0 | > Mr. Barnett has slamm **ed the** figure as outrageous. (Aussie ABC News) /d/ and /ð/ are made at different places, we don’t drop any one of them when pronouncing, like the news anchor, do we? |
3,541 | 108,393 | 76823_0 | While translating a book on the aboriginal people of northwest India, I came across a tradition of marriages, where one brother–sister pair were married to another brother–sister pair, as well as many similar traditions. They have a word for this kind of marriages in my native language, so I was wondering whether English has such a word, too. Does it? |
3,542 | 103,422 | 76823_0 | I am interested in the rapid rise (since about 1993) in frequency of the spelling _smoothes_ as against _smooths_. An Ngram Viewer graph tracking the frequency of usage of the two words from 1800 to 2005 shows remarkably stable levels of usage for both _smooths_ and _smoothes_ for about 150 years (1844 to 1993); but then it shows _smoothes_ beginning a sharp ascent and _smooths_ declining significantly. Ngram shows the two frequency lines crossing in 2002. Simple Google searches for the two words yield about 2.82 million matches for _smooths_ and about 4.59 million matches for _smoothes_. In seeking possible causes for the shift, I've looked at a number of dictionaries. In the case of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary series, the Tenth Edition (1994) begins its entry for the verb smooth as follows: > **smooth** _vb_ **smoothed; smoothing; smooths** _also_ **smoothes** ... No previous dictionary in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate series, dating back to the First Edition in 1898, makes any mention of either _smooths_ or _smoothes_. The Eleventh Collegiate (2003) follows the Tenth's wording. In contrast, at least three editions of the American Heritage Dictionary—the First Edition edition (1973), the Third Edition (1992), and the Fourth Edition (2000)—give the related forms of the verb _smooth_ as " **smoothed, smoothing, smoothes** ," as does the Encarta World English Dictionary (1999). A Q&A page at Microsoft Support (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290943) reads as follows: > **23\. What is the grammar dictionary based on?** > > It is based on the _Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English_ and the > _American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_ , third edition. I checked the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, New Edition (1987), and found that it doesn't provide a spelling for the third-person singular form of the verb _smooth_. It thus appears that for many years, on the sole authority of the American Heritage Dictionary, Word treated _smoothes_ as a correct spelling and marked _smooths_ as incorrect. According to Wikipedia's article on Microsoft Word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word), Word 95 (released in 1995) introduced "red-squiggle underlined spell-checking." (Oddly, my most recent version of Word—Word for Mac 2011—treats both _smoothes_ and _smooths_ as typos; however, all previous versions that I can remember, going back at least 10 years, favored _smoothes_.) The Oxford Universal Dictionary Third Edition (1944) has an entry for **smooth(e** , suggesting that it and the OED are constants during the period in question and thus probably had little effect on the shift in overall spelling preference. Meanwhile, Garner's Modern American Usage (2003) views _smoothe_ and _smoothes_ as simple typos, "doubtless on the analogy of _soothe_." From this very limited array of references, I see only two potentially significant factors that changed between, say, 1980 and 2005: the explicit inclusion in 1994 by Merriam-Webster's of _smoothes_ as an acceptable alternative to _smooths_ ; and the adoption (probably at some point in the 1990s) by Microsoft Word of the American Heritage/Encarta preference for _smoothes_ over _smooths_. A further detail of possible interest is that Ngram shows the frequency of _smoothe_ as declining slightly but steadily between 1985 and 2005, including the period when the frequency of _smoothes_ rocketed upward. The Tenth and Eleventh Collegiates omit any mention of _smoothe_ , and Word has always marked it as a typo. Is the shift toward _smoothes_ and away from _smooths_ an instance in which a computer program is primarily responsible for a fundamental change in an English spelling preference, or are other factors that I haven't identified just as important? Do any readers here have an especially old version of Word that they can use to examine its spelling checker's handling of _smooths_ vs. _smoothes_? And does anyone know how (or why) the American Heritage Dictionary came up with its preference for _smoothes_ back in 1969, when its First Edition debuted? **Note: I have edited my original question to include references to a 1973 copy of the American Heritage Dictionary, First Edition, and to a Q &A page in Microsoft Help identifying the sources that several versions of its grammar dictionary relied on.** **Further note [22-11-13]: I finally obtained a relevant copy of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and found that it did not corroborate the American Heritage Dictionary's preference for _smoothes_ over _smooths_. I have added that detail to my question.** |
3,543 | 79,244 | 76823_0 | Please see the context from this blog of Joel Spolsky: > Since you have to poke at Windows Calculator with a stick, it doesn't have > to be as fast as Excel. What does he mean by **poking with a stick** ? Does it mean it is not used often or something ? |
3,544 | 91,313 | 76823_0 | In ‘point new Gryffindors in the right direction ‘, is this the structure of verb + indirect object + direct object, or verb + object + adverbial phrase? As a Korean, I’m easier to accept the former according to my language habit. So I’m confused which one is right? > Nearly Headless Nick was always happy to **point new Gryffindors in the > right direction** , but Peeves the Poltergeist was worth two locked doors > and a trick staircase if you met him when you were late for class. (from > Harry Potter book 1) |
3,545 | 103,424 | 76823_0 | Is "rightsayer" a word that describes someone that believes themselves to always be right? |
3,546 | 103,425 | 76823_0 | Why can I say,'Why do you like her **so much**?' but not, 'Why do you like her **very much**?' My answer is: 'Why' is evaluative and forces you to make (or consider) a comparison. Very cannot be used in comparative constructs. A friend of mine raised the point: That 'very' seems to work in the negative form. For example: "Why don't you like her very much?" |
3,547 | 132,290 | 76823_0 | I'm familiar with the convention that square brackets may be used within quoted text to indicate _word[s]_ that aren't actually present _[in that exact form]_ in the original. It's often necessary where the original uses a pronoun, but you want your citation to identify the context-specific proper noun, for example. My question here includes the closely related usage whereby the square brackets indicate _optional [additional] text_. I'm familiar with this convention in the context of programming syntax, where **dir** [Drive:][Path][FileName] means that any or all of the elements **Drive, Path, Filename** can be omitted. But I was a bit confused by a recent ELU answer using square brackets to indicate that a lowercase letter in the original text had been changed to uppercase... > [D]uctility is a solid material's ability to deform under tensile stress My natural inclination was to see the [D] as indicating an optional letter (i.e. - the word could be written as either **ductile** or **uctile** ). So what I want to know is: > Is the _square brackets = case change_ convention [still] valid, and if so > is it under threat from the [later?] _square brackets = optional material_ > convention? |
3,548 | 1,553 | 76823_0 | We always change subject and verb positions in whenever we want to ask a question such as "What is your name?". But when it comes to statements like the following, which form is correct? > 1. I don't understand what **are you** talking about. > 2. I don't understand what **you are** talking about. > Another example > 1. Do you know what time **is it**? > 2. Do you know what time **it is**? > Another example > 1. Do you care how **do I feel** about this? > 2. Do you care how **I feel** about this? > |
3,549 | 114,538 | 76823_0 | I've got two questions for you. Number one: I've always been confused about what I call "a question in a question" (maybe there is a technical term for that but I don't know it). What I mean is... which one of these two sentences is correct? 1) Can I ask you where **are you** from? or 2) Can I ask you where **you are** from? Then I have a second question which is quite similar to the first one: should I say a) I would like to ask you where **you are** from or b) I would like to ask you where **are you** from Thanks for your help. |
3,550 | 132,149 | 76823_0 | Recently I encountered the phrase "If you know what is QQ then(...)". The writer wasn't a native English speaker(neither me). First, I thought it should be "If you know what QQ is ...". But then, I thought about the phrase: "If you know what is right..." I think the latter implies that you already know _what "true" is_ and you should find/select an object. Or is it related to the fact that "true" is an adjective? Or is it just wrong? So, I'm very confused. Can you help me? I tried to search for it, however searching for "what is" in search engines is really difficult! The nearest questions are this one and this one, but I don't think it's a duplicate. Thank you in advance. |
3,551 | 81,606 | 76823_0 | Lets consider the following: > The book doesn't explain, "What's the wisdom behind education?" Changing this to an indirect question becomes the following: > The book doesn't explain what the wisdom behind education is. Now, I found many instances on Google where structures like this weren't really converted to indirect questions. For example: > The book doesn't explain what's the wisdom behind education. > > "[She] doesn't say what's really on her mind." Edit: And consider the following: > What's the logic behind it. > > (a) I wonder what's the logic behind it vs. (b)I wonder what the logic > behind it is. (a) sounds better but why? And are these constructions acceptable? |
3,552 | 114,997 | 76823_0 | Look at these 2 sentences 1. Who do you think is the richest man ? 2. Who do you think you are ? Try omit "do you think" and we can see the conflict. Because people often ask "Who are you". But with "do you think", it has no inversion I see they are the same structure, but why is there no inversion (subject and verb) in the second sentence ? |
3,553 | 93,607 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Changing subject and verb positions in statements and questions > Why do we put the verb to be at the end of these questions? Is the expression > I don't know what is an amplifier. incorrect? If so, is the correct version > I don't know what an amplifier is. and why is the first variant wrong? |
3,554 | 130,674 | 76823_0 | I need to explain why this sentence is correct. My explanation didn't seem to satisfy the student. The correct sentence is > I've never eaten this before. Do you know what is in it? Specifically, it is the "do you know what is in it?" part that is confusing the student. Leave out the 'Do you know..' and it is a straight question, ie "What is in it?" Can anyone grammatically explain why the sentence is correct when we add the "do you know.."? |
3,555 | 61,714 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Changing subject and verb positions in statements and questions Look at the following questions - can anyone give a simple grammatical explanation as to why we put the verb to be at the end of these questions: Can you tell me where the hospital **is**? Do you know where the children **are**? Do you know what the answer **is**? This is confusing to learners as they are used to seeing the verb to be in questions at the beginning such as: **Is** the hospital near here? **Are** the children in school? |
3,556 | 103,429 | 76823_0 | In Season 3, episode 2 of the sitcom Modern Family, Phil uses the expression "Good governor" to express his incredulity when he realizes that his wife has an obsession about proving she is always right. I presume this is a variation on "good grief" and similar exclamations but wonder if anyone is aware of the origin of the use of the word "governor." Is it a Britishism that has entered US English, from the informal use of "governor" ("guv'nor) to talk about a person in a position of authority? |
3,557 | 132,295 | 76823_0 | I recall being taught that normally after adjectives we use the "to infinitive": It's easy to say. It's hard to do. But how do the following examples fall into this rule? "It was great talking to you." "It's been nice meeting you." I've been tutoring students in English as a second language, and I'm failing to find a "simple" justification for the two types of sentences (as, obviously, I am myself struggling to understand). Very many thanks! Mel. |
3,558 | 132,294 | 76823_0 | I am looking for a verb analogous to "embezzle", but concerning goods rather than money. "Theft" is of course valid, but it's too broad - embezzle carries the connotation of stealing _from your employer_ , or from assets that you had legitimate access to. (In case it matters: in this case, the character is stealing weapons from an armoury that he is supposedly supervising, and selling them privately.) |
3,559 | 170,765 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for a word that theatre people use to describe the initial stages of reading through a script. It's something like _chewing the script_ or _singing the script_. |
3,560 | 132,296 | 76823_0 | Which meaning of "impose" is "imposing" based on? From Wikionary, "imposing" means "Magnificent and impressive because of appearance, size, stateliness or dignity." "impose" means > (transitive) To establish or apply by authority. > > (intransitive) to be an inconvenience > > to enforce: compel to behave in a certain way > > To practice a trick or deception. > > To lay on, as the hands, in the religious rites of confirmation and > ordination. > > To arrange in proper order on a table of stone or metal and lock up in a > chase for printing; said of columns or pages of type, forms, etc. |
3,561 | 111,850 | 76823_0 | I'm writing a paper, please can you tell me which sentence is the right? > 1. The Pseudo-code is outlined in Fig 2 and we _elaborate_ it in the > following section. > > 2. The Pseudo-code is outlined in Fig 2 and we _elaborate on_ it in the > following section. > > |
3,562 | 111,851 | 76823_0 | I was listening to the radio and something caught my attention. The news jounalist made the comment, "The suspect is still at-large." It got me thinking... First, I can only assume that the proper spelling is "at-large" instead of "at large" because using the adjective term "large" as a noun doesn't make any sence in this context (at least in my head). Naturally I try googling it only to find further confusion in context of a suspect. **So, how did this term come to mean "Out and about", or "Free", or some other word(s) that would describe some suspect not in custody?** |
3,563 | 143,572 | 76823_0 | What is an office that keeps records of marriages and divorces called in English? I guess Civil registry is the general term, but what's the specific word for the above mentioned office? |
3,564 | 111,855 | 76823_0 | Does writing, > Former technologist at Foobar, Inc. and Hello, World Ltd. have a deprecating tone to it? Say, as opposed to, > Previously a technologist at Foobar, Inc. and Hello, World Ltd. That is, is _former_ a word reserved for describing something (a state or position) once held but then revoked? It seems more _often_ used in such a light, but I'm not sure whether it's _meant_ that way. |
3,565 | 131,925 | 76823_0 | In a research paper, I'd like to refer to some specific markers on a chart. One marker looks like an x, and the other one is small circle. What would be proper terms? Circular marker and x-marker? |
3,566 | 186,748 | 76823_0 | I was watching movie _John Carter_ where there was some dialogue like this: > — What happened here? > — Zodanga happened. Here Zodanga was a bad guy in the movie. I don't understand how **a guy** can **happen** at some place, like it was said in that conversation? We generally use _happened_ like this: > — What happened to you? > — Oh! I have been suffering from a head ache _or_ > met an accident _or_ > I haven't been sleeping lately, but we never say "Silvia happened to me" (as if Silvia was a bad person here). |
3,567 | 111,859 | 76823_0 | Consider a survey question that asks a question and then gives instruction about how to respond. For example, > Is this a sample survey question? Check all that apply: > > __ yes > > __ no Is it best practice to end " _Check all that apply_ " with a colon because a list of options follows, or a period because the sentence giving instructions is finished? |
3,568 | 42,606 | 76823_0 | I've never seen the word _grounds_ (meaning _sediment/dregs_ ; definition 12 only) used to describe anything other than coffee; are there any other usages of _grounds_ of that meaning, or has it become a coffee-word? > **12\. grounds,** dregs or sediment: _coffee grounds._ |
3,569 | 97,822 | 76823_0 | From Steinbeck's _Cannery Row_ , > The nice bouncer at the Bear Flag threw out a drunk, but threw him too hard > and too far and broke his back. Alfred had to go over to Salinas three times > before it was cleared up and that didn’t make Alfred feel very well. > Ordinarily he was too good a bouncer to hurt anyone. **His A and C was a > miracle of rhythm and grace.** |
3,570 | 35,310 | 76823_0 | Is there a name for letters that follow a number, such as the "st" in 1st or "nd" in 2nd? |
3,571 | 161,164 | 76823_0 | In which of these 2 sentences is the verb "Home deliver" used correctly, in compliance with the rest of the sentence? ABC **offers home delivery** of pharmaceuticals, compounded medications, and wellness diets to pet owners. VS ABC **home delivers** pharmaceuticals, compounded medications, and wellness diets to pet owners. |
3,572 | 35,315 | 76823_0 | I know that AM/PM is for ante/post meridiem, but what is it actually called? Meridian indicator? 12 hour indicator? Something way more clever? |
3,573 | 35,314 | 76823_0 | If someone does something 'by the skin of their teeth', it means they just barely managed to do it. What is this idiom supposed to be referring to exactly, and how did it originate? |
3,574 | 9,933 | 76823_0 | I wasn't sure how best to phrase the title of this question. I'm interested in constructions of the following form: > **An estimated 50 people** died in the bombing. 'An estimated' could be substituted with adverbs like 'approximately' or 'about', so it seems that prepending the indefinite article to certain words produces an adverb. My question is why the indefinite article should function in this way. For one thing, the use of 'a[n]' when the following noun is generally plural seems odd. There are quite a few words that fit this pattern: * An additional ... * An approximate ... * An estimated ... * An extra ... * A good ... * A huge ... * A mere ... * A possible ... * A record ... * A scant ... * A whopping ... |
3,575 | 96,887 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > ‘A[n] * [number] [plural]’ Construction Why do we need an indefinite article in the sentence "The price is **an incredible 50,000 dollars** "? "An" is singular, "dollars" is plural. |
3,576 | 61,635 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > 'A[n] * [number] [plural]' Construction > Since the Crash Test Dummies, Vince and Larry, were introduced to the > American public in 1985, safely belt usage has increased from 21% to 70%, > saving an estimated 75 000 lives. Why is there the article before "estimated" while after it there is the plural form? |
3,577 | 185,204 | 76823_0 | Is there a specific word such as racism or sexism that describes discrimination based solely on handedness? |
3,578 | 185,205 | 76823_0 | A jar is defined as "a glass container with a lid" (MacMillan). At one time, people differentiated between glass and earthenware jars but to my mind, there are only glass jars these days. Is there a need to refer to a jar as a "glass jar"? Isn't it sufficient to simply call it a jar? |
3,579 | 167,946 | 76823_0 | As I have said many times, I'm translating some wordy document, and here is another sentence that need shedding some light on: Thus the first case cited by the Court in Schwinn for the proposition that "restraints upon alienation . . . are beyond the power of the manufacturer to impose upon its vendees and . . . are violations of 1 of the Sherman Act," was this Court's seminal decision holding a series of resale-price-maintenance agreements per se illegal (Source:https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/433/433.US.36.76-15.html, at the paragraph 48, line 4-5, please check it out for the context) Is it just me or this sentence is really saying that "the first case" is a "seminal decision"? if so, what does "case" mean here? (I mean, how can a "case" be a "decision"). And if not, please tell me the main structure of the whole sentence, and which are the subordinate clauses. Thank you. |
3,580 | 87,823 | 76823_0 | How would one explain the following headline news in plain English? > Romney's attack on clean energy: true, **with an asterisk** |
3,581 | 87,826 | 76823_0 | I can't find the right word to describe the object that performs an activity/action. * _Doer_ * _Executor_ * _Performer_ * _Actor_ The term is to be used in an application where you may choose an "object" (from a list), and then retrieve its activities. So what should I call the "object"? Context: The "object" may be anyone or anything which is to do certain activities. Think of a worklog where you'd like to log activities that has been done. Given the object type, you'd might have a different set of activities to log. Object (1. line support member) Activities { Create ticket, Assign ticket, Notify customer, Close ticket} Object (Purchasing employee) Activities { Receive order, Confirm Order, Ship Order} |
3,582 | 162,421 | 76823_0 | Can 'Fullscreen' and 'Full Screen' be used interchangeably? As in > Funny pictures in fullscreen > Funny pictures in full screen The context is a website, with full screen images in a fullscreen website. |
3,583 | 87,829 | 76823_0 | Why is “wavelength” one word when “wave height” isn't? As another example, _wave speed_ is two words. But _wavelength_ is only one word. What is the reason for this? In Swedish and other contructs, both words are only one word: * _våglängd_ (wavelength) * _våghöjd_ (wave height) |
3,584 | 30,898 | 76823_0 | Does it make sense to say that something waited until the "arrival of nightfall"? It sounds a little awkward (maybe because nightfall _occurs_ rather than _arrives_?). Perhaps there is a better way to say it... |
3,585 | 181,917 | 76823_0 | Traditionally, M is used as the symbol for thousands and MM for millions in the business world, particularly in accounting. However, there has been a growing tendency to use K as the symbol for thousands instead of M. Would it be considered acceptable to use K for thousands and MM for millions, effectively mixing symbols? For example, in a document that requires the use of symbols because of limited space in a table, I see "500K-1MM" to stand for "500,000-1,000,000". This document is written for a general professional audience. My thoughts are: If K and MM are used, it's bad style because the symbols are being mixed up. But if M and MM are used, non-experts might not even be aware that M is a symbol for thousands and get confused. It seems like that the safest choice to ensure comprehension is to use K and MM, but something about mixing the symbols just doesn't seem right to me. Thanks! |
3,586 | 156,704 | 76823_0 | Here is paragraph which I quoted from a book. The words "penny a liner", "mendicant", "scullion", and "cut-throat", were epithets so intentionally inexpressive and equivocal, as **to be worse than nothing** when applied to the author of the very worst stanzas ever penned by one of the human race. I can't understand the meaning of 'to be worse than nothing'. I don't know how things are gonna worse than naught(zero). or is it possible? |
3,587 | 92,746 | 76823_0 | I'm having trouble putting the difference in meaning between "point to" and "point at" into words and my Longman dictionary isn't helping, I'm afraid. I'm not a native speaker, but I feel there is a definite difference; however the only thing I can say is that 'point at' feels more aggressive whereas 'point to' feels more casual. Can anyone help? |
3,588 | 156,700 | 76823_0 | I was browsing a document on the history of Leicestershire in the UK. About halfway down the page, in the "Leicester in the 19th Century" section, it said: > Silver Arcade was built in 1899. What does the word Arcade refer to here? Thanks! evamvid |
3,589 | 25,924 | 76823_0 | I would like to know the meaning of "we should not roam about in the hot sun". |
3,590 | 133,858 | 76823_0 | I was wondering which of the following is correct `increasingly easy` or `increasingly easier`. I had a notion that `increasingly easier` is correct since we are comparing with the past. However, this and many other says differently. Googling with quotes gives these many listings: "increasingly easy" = 154000 "increasingly easier" = 71,300 Are both of them correct?? |
3,591 | 162,718 | 76823_0 | Source: http://news.yahoo.com/putin-warns-ukraine-gas-supplies-urges- talks-155039695.html > Ukraine has been in crisis since months of deadly protests **ousted** an > unpopular pro-Kremlin president in February and set the nation of 46 million > on a westward course that prompted Putin to obtain the authority to use > force against the ex-Soviet state. I don't understand the reasons why a relative pronoun such as _which_ or _that_ was not used. My brain naturally wants to add one, otherwise it's difficult to tie the two parts of the sentence together. Don't you think that adding one would make the sentence sound much more clearer? > Ukraine has been in crisis since months of deadly protests **which ousted** > an unpopular pro-Kremlin president in February and set the nation of 46 > million on a westward course that prompted Putin to obtain the authority to > use force against the ex-Soviet state. |
3,592 | 23,459 | 76823_0 | English is not my first language. I googled and googled, but this was one thing I was not able to find. Can someone give me a definition of this? |
3,593 | 23,458 | 76823_0 | I'm building a search engine for businesses and I'm wondering if there is a single word for 'how you're found'. The context is that I need a word to describe a group of properties that determine when the business will show in the search results. The best I came up with is 'Exposure' but my girlfriend thinks its too abstracted. Any help would be super! |
3,594 | 140,172 | 76823_0 | I am talking about valves, and there is this specific valve which is cheap (not expensive), compact (not too big), easy to maintain (the valve is easy to clean and rarely ever needs to be repaired) and easy to 'seal tight' (meaning, it is easy to tighly seal the valve). The sentence which I wrote was 'These valves are cheap, compact, easy to maintain and seal tight.' My teacher highlighted this sentence saying something was wrong with the sentence structure and that 'easy to seal tight' is incorrect. Is it true that it is incorrect? If yes, how should I rephrase it so that the sentence structure is correct? |
3,595 | 72,430 | 76823_0 | Does the game shown in the following picture have a particular name? (I ask because a similar game does not exist in my country and I would like know its rules.)  |
3,596 | 140,177 | 76823_0 | I am from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, and this popped into my head today. Is the word _acorn_ (the nut of an oak tree) in any way related to the Dutch word for squirrel, _eekhoorn_ , the animal that collects acorns for food? Looking at _eekhoorn_ , one will have a hard time finding any logical meaning to the naming of this animal. There's _eek_ , which is not a Dutch word, and _hoorn_ which means _horn_. So it doesn't make much sense. But the pronunciation even in Dutch/Flemish is remarkably equal to the English _acorn_. Since many words have migrated country borders (like the NL _bolwerk_ and EN _bulwark_ ), I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same with _acorn_ / _eekhoorn_ , except for the fact that _eekhoorn_ is the actual animal that consumes the acorns. That would make it pretty unique, I think. By the way, _acorn_ in Dutch is _eikel_ , having different connotations which I won't explain here. |
3,597 | 72,432 | 76823_0 | Having only seen this word in writing, I assumed it's pronounced "plate". howjsay (whose author is british) suggests the pronunciation that rhymes with "flat", but also offers the "plate" one. This thread, however, has several people who perceive the "plate" pronunciation to be completely wrong. So how would most people say this in the UK? Is it "plat", and would people in the UK consider the "plate" pronunciation wrong? Does it vary by location within the UK? |
3,598 | 23,456 | 76823_0 | I am writing an essay about (among other things) Gutenberg's printing press and Project Gutenberg. I want to say something along the lines of "Gutenberg's press was so popular that current things are named after him." I tried the following. Am I using _namesake_ correctly? > As evidenced ahead, Gutenberg’s invention was so popular that he is still a > popular namesake. I want to keep _namesake_ in there because I think it sounds cool. |
3,599 | 76,958 | 76823_0 | While I was reading an article about the etymology of _jaywalking_, I stumbled upon this phrase: > “Jay” used to be a generic term for someone who was an idiot, dull, rube, > unsophisticated, poor, or simpleton. When did people used to use the term _Jay_ as _unintelligent person_ (or idiot)? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.