Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
3,800 | 47,756 | 76823_0 | When I found _as much, if not more, than_ , I had an impression that _than_ might be wrong at first because the phrase looked like a variation of _as much as_. However, there’re a lot of examples of both of them on the Net. Do they have different meanings? 1. as much, if not more, than ( _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (5)_ [US Version]: p501) > He was no longer their sullen host of the summer; now he seemed determined > that everyone should enjoy themselves as much, if not more, than they would > have done at Hogwarts, and he worked tirelessly in the run-up to Christmas > Day, cleaning and decorating with their help, so that by the time they all > went to bed on Christmas Eve the house was barely recognizable. 1. as much, if not more, as (From Google search) > The imports in 1877 amounted to as much, if not more, as in 1876, though I > have not been able to procure the exact figures. |
3,801 | 28,978 | 76823_0 | What is the antonym of "capital" (in the sense of city of governmental seat)? A related question: is there a term for referring to the whole set of cities that are not the capital within a country (or state, province)? |
3,802 | 28,974 | 76823_0 | I’ve heard, on rare occasion, a subtle differentiation between _be_ as a state (to passively embody) and _be_ as an action (to actively embody). The latter form often occurs in parallel with _do_ to add emphasis to the active nature of the verb. * What do you **do** with all your money? * **Be** rich. * I **be** rich. * *I **am** rich. * What does the Pope **do**? * **Be** Catholic. * He **bes** Catholic. * *He **is** Catholic. * **Does** he always **be** idiotic like that? * Yes, he always **does** ( **be** ). * No, he **doesn’t** always ( **be** ). * *No, he **isn’t** always (idiotic like that). Rhetorical questions demonstrate a similar, possibly related device: * Why **don’t** you **be** sure first? * If I take the time to **be** sure, I’ll be too late. It is not at all related to African-American Vernacular English and its use of _be_ as a tense marker. It’s also not necessarily indicative of a habitual action (e.g., _(will) be_ ). Is this standard? Moreover, is it predictable? Could it be a vestige of a distinction that used to be marked in English but has since been largely lost, or is it a wholly new development? |
3,803 | 28,971 | 76823_0 | When one word ends in a consonant sound and the next begins with a vowel sound, can you tell me how you say these words in American English? * **can I..?** ( _Can nai_ or _Ca nai_?) * **take it** ( _teɪ kit_ or _teɪk kit_?) * **push it** ( _pu shit_ or _push shit_?) * **find out** ( _fain-dout_?) * **bridge is** ( _brid- ʒ iz_ or _bri-dʒ iz_?) * **Put it in** ( _put tit tin_ or _pud dit din_?) * **like a** ( _laiy-ka_ or _laik-ka_?) Should the final sound always be shared between two words or should the final sound jump to the next word? What is the basic rule about that? Or does it depend on the accent? When I hear linking sounds in a long sentence, it’s difficult for me to understand. And is it strange if I say them without linking sound? |
3,804 | 185,418 | 76823_0 | Obviously, just for the 7 deadly sins you would use 'sin' and for the 7 heavenly virtues you would use 'virtue' or 'heavenly' but what word would you use to describe all 14 of them together? |
3,805 | 174,925 | 76823_0 | In the following sentence, which is more appropriate — _I_ or _me_ , and why? > Sending separate mails will look more genuine than me/I writing on behalf of > everyone. |
3,806 | 81,403 | 76823_0 | Inspired by this question, I'm left wondering if the phrase "work ethics" has a slightly different meaning in Australian English than in other dialects. > I came across this term some time back: _Flexible work ethics_ in an ad for > an IT job. Anyone know what it could mean? Im sure its not as dodgy as it > sounds To my (US) ear, it sounds like the ad is looking for people willing to engage in ethically questionable business practices. I'd hope that's not the case, and that it's just a nuance in the meaning of "work ethics." My best guess is that "flexibe work ethics" actually means "willing to work flexible hours." A quick search reveals several job listings that use the phrase, mostly in Australia. Is this a case of differing meaning in a dialect, or is it just really, _really_ poorly worded corporate-speak? |
3,807 | 570 | 76823_0 | I occasionally use "retarded" when chastising myself or other friends. I know it's not Politically Correct, but am I only allowed to say stupid? How long before we can't say that anymore? Other words like "ignorant" don't work well because well, I don't like that word because it's misunderstood (even though it works well for how I say retarded . . for me it's like if you don't know something you should know). |
3,808 | 140,883 | 76823_0 | It's so easy to do in a chat room. I just do this: click here. I want to capture that same benign, eye rolling, gently mocking disdain - but I have to stick to small words. An example of an actual circumstance (true story) after which I might want to use such a phrase or word is when he ever-so-patiently explained to me that "rocket surgery" was an incorrect use of idiom. Perhaps a quote? I realize that this question is _at least_ borderline for the site. If you feel I've crossed that line please edit if you feel that the question is salvageable. EDIT: He's 56. Perhaps an instantly recognizable (to an American of his age) quote from pop-culture? Kind of like the way I might say, "Laugh it up, Fuzzball" to someone my age (46) who is very much enjoying the fact he's winning a card game? |
3,809 | 69,951 | 76823_0 | Sometimes I need to adjust a quote for whatever reason. I don't want to steal somebody else's words, so I want to quote, but if it's no longer their exact words, wrapping it in "" doesn't feel right to me. For example, I just altered > if I couldn’t do it within 10 minutes, I couldn’t do it at all To squeeze it into a tweet. I wound up changing it slightly to > If I couldn’t do it in 10 min, I couldn’t do it at all I wrapped it in ~~ to try to show that it's not a direct quote, but wonder; is there a way to 'almost' quote somebody? |
3,810 | 69,957 | 76823_0 | What is the American word for a notebook that students have at school in which they do their homework assignments? I mean the notebook in which a teacher marks good or bad behavior of a student and which parents have to sign weekly. |
3,811 | 81,404 | 76823_0 | Sometime in the near future, I will achieve the (dubious) distinction of being "the person who has cast the most votes on questions and answers on StackExchange." I want to add a short statement about this to my SE profile. But the way I phrased it in the last paragraph seems awkward and somewhat ambiguous. To be clear, I mean that if you add up all the up/down votes people have cast on all the SE sites they participate in, my total is the highest (approaching 50,000). Something like "Highest-voting person on StackExchange" seems ambiguous to me - in addition to Q&A votes, there are moderator elections, close votes, deletion votes. And although "on Stackexchange" is probably ok, I'm not sure that makes it clear that I'm talking about total votes cast across multiple sites. Perhaps "Highest Q-and-A-voting person on all of StackExchange" would be ok? I might just wait until I reach 50,000 total votes and say something like "First person on all of StackExchange to cast 50,000 votes across multiple sites." UPDATE 21 SEP 2012: By the time I verified today that I'd passed the next-most-active voter, I'd also exceeded 50,000 votes. So I've included most of the answers in my updated SE profile (see link above), especially: > I am the most active voter on all of StackExchange. (That is, I have cast > the most total question and answer votes across all Stack Exchange sites.) |
3,812 | 174,922 | 76823_0 | I'm unable to remember a single-word substitute for "a person who takes happiness as his/her goal of life" |
3,813 | 81,408 | 76823_0 | The meanings for _ameliorate_ and _alleviate_ are quite similar, but I don’t think they are exact synonyms: what are the nuances behind choosing which one to use in a particular context? I’d like some example sentences to show where one of them **_can’t_** be substituted by the other. |
3,814 | 174,929 | 76823_0 | How can we describe someone who always takes the initiative? He is very **_**. The only word I can come up with is _pro-active_ but it sounds/feels a little awkward to me. Edit: Dictionary[dot]com has a list of synonyms: _aggressive, anxious, ardent, banzai, can-do, dedicated, eager, energetic, enthused, enthusiastic, excited, extremely enthusiastic, fanatical, fired up, fired up, intense, keyed up, lively, passionate, proactive, spirited, take- charge, zealous_ But nothing really strikes me... |
3,815 | 13,739 | 76823_0 | Let's suppose there exists a standard that documents fruits. This standard has already accepted apple and peach. Banana has just been accepted as a standard. When I say: **The proposal of banana has just been accepted as a standard.** How should banana be written? In quotes ("banana") or in italic ( _banana_ )? Because it is not the fruit banana that entered the standard, but the word. |
3,816 | 33,544 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When a sentence uses an optional plural, should the rest of the sentence > treat it as singular or plural? I'm writing a technical guide and trying to define 'reader' as it relates to the subject of the guide. > The **reader(s)** is/are the user(s) who view the content. How do I get rid of all those conditionals? I've also considered, > The **reader** or **readers** are the users who view the content. ... which seems fine, but if we flip it, we get: > The **readers** or **reader** are the users who view the content. I've also considered the most obvious: > The **readers** are the users who view the content ... but I want it implicit that there can be as few as one reader. Am I just over thinking this? |
3,817 | 49,048 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When a sentence uses an optional plural, should the rest of the sentence > treat it as singular or plural? Which is correct? > Buy an apple from the vendor(s) that **are** selling fruit. > > Buy an apple from the vendor(s) that **is** selling fruit. On the one hand, the content of the parentheses is supposed to be an aside, or in this case, a possible substitution for the word _vendor_. In that case, which verb should I use, singular or plural? |
3,818 | 189,057 | 76823_0 | When we write difficult surnames, e.g. Novak Djokovic, is it neccessary to use 's in the genitive case? Is it correct to write Novak Djokovic match-ball, or we must write Novak Djokovic's match-ball (that is difficult to pronounce)? |
3,819 | 43,273 | 76823_0 | This also came up on either a BBC or CBC science program, but not as a linguistically-oriented discussion. Over the last two or three years I've noticed a lot more people starting a sentence with "so": "so when we take the ...", "so I have this ...", "so the basic idea ..." and (uh) so on. What _is_ "so" when a sentence begins with it? When did it start? Is it just a "pause" word (and is there a word for that)? Is it grammatically correct? Am I the only one that finds it annoying? _Edit:_ Much of its usage in scientific discussions is as a "therefore". |
3,820 | 189,056 | 76823_0 | Could the words _slope-up_ or _slope-down_ be nouns? I found them just as verbs in the dictionary, and _slope_ as a noun. But then I see sentences such as "That slope-up was amazing." Is it correct to use that as a noun? |
3,821 | 43,276 | 76823_0 | I would like to use the following phrase for a machine with large number cores. Is this correct? Please let me know. `large number core machine` |
3,822 | 127,158 | 76823_0 | Is there a single word for "never fails"? |
3,823 | 170,202 | 76823_0 | I'm a Customer Service Agent for a governmental assistance agency. We often have situations where clients numbers have changed, and someone else has been assigned the old number. When I want to make a note to my supervisor that the person I've reached is not the client and that the 'person I've reached' has requested in very virile, flammable language that they would like us to remove their number from our calling list/dB, it vexes me that all I can come up with is "the answerer," which sounds dumb, and "the number's new owner..." |
3,824 | 170,205 | 76823_0 | In the following paragraph, what does "defy repetition" mean? I know what **_defy_** and **_repetition_** mean, but don't know what it means when they connnected. Thanks. > You can create a database under the assumption that SQL looks after all the > problems of concurrency. It will probably work fine under test conditions: > Then, in the production environment, it starts losing data in subtle ways > **_that defy repetition_**. It is every Database Developer's nightmare. In > an excerpt from his acclaimed book, Alex explains why it happens, and how > you can avoid such problems. |
3,825 | 147,544 | 76823_0 | I have heard "today morning" being said in the country I am from a lot. However here in the States people never use it and correct others who do. "Tomorrow morning" is acceptable though. What is the correct usage and why? |
3,826 | 19,154 | 76823_0 | What I'm thinking of is usually not performed as a very deep bow as the torso doesn't really move far from the vertical. And when it's done, it's often performed in rapid succession, with kind of a facetious manner. The intended meaning is to pay homage, to say "I am in awe [of what you just did]." Does a specific word describing this motion exist? |
3,827 | 159,240 | 76823_0 | So, I have a sentence, more or less like this: > "Gil, who HAS a psychokinesis ability, studied math yesterday." or > "Gil, who CAN move things without touching them, studied math yesterday." So, with those sentences, I want to explain something that happened in the past, while explain a little about Gil himself. The thing is that I'm confused with the form I have to use for the "HAS" or the "CAN". I don't think I could use "HAD" or "COULD", because his psychokinesis ability is something he always has, till now (present). But I'm not sure present tense is right one. What form should I use? Sorry for my broken english. |
3,828 | 94,202 | 76823_0 | For example, given a common saying or sequence of words, like > A picture is worth a thousand words One reverses the order and obtains > A word is worth a thousand pictures Is there a name for this kind of wordplay/whatever it is? I seem to hear them all the time, I can give more examples if needed. |
3,829 | 52,268 | 76823_0 | It's common at this time of year for adults to ask small children _What's Santy bringing you?_ (awkward as this is for those of us who don't celebrate Christmas). Is this pronunciation of _Santa_ unique to Ireland? |
3,830 | 52,269 | 76823_0 | Should "office mate" be one word, in the same vein as "roommate"? I haven't been able to find any reference that addresses this. |
3,831 | 52,266 | 76823_0 | Hopefully this one is nice and simple. Which is correct: > I would never say that I **am** superior to a cleaner. or > I would never say that I **were** superior to a cleaner. I'm rather confused -- any answers (and an explanation of the answer) would be appreciated. |
3,832 | 22,508 | 76823_0 | I can't quite figure out which of the following expressions is more correct: * He is the devil's advocate. * He is a devil's advocate. * He is playing devil's advocate. The combination of an article with the possessive is what confuses me. Exactly which word(s) does the article apply to? The first form seems to suggest either that he is an advocate of The Devil -- namely, Satan himself -- or even worse, that he is The Advocate of The Devil. (Kill him with fire!) The second form seems to suggest that he is an advocate of a devil (but not necessarily of The Devil, nor the only advocate out there.) This seems to fit better with the way this idiom is commonly used, but I haven't seen this idiom used very often with the indefinite article. It's usually used with the definite article. The third form suggests that he is playing a role named "devil's advocate", with no article attached to it. Similar examples: The King's speech, the Indian's prayer, the mother's room, etc. |
3,833 | 141,101 | 76823_0 | New York Times just published an article where they use the word "yearslong": > Federal agents charged 18 current and former members of the Los Angeles > County Sheriff’s Department on Monday, accusing them of excessive use of > force and obstruction of justice as part of a sprawling, **yearslong** > investigation into allegations of misconduct and abuse of inmates in county > jails, federal law enforcement officials said. Is this a typo? Edit: A day later, NYT changed the paragraph and removed the word in question, but in the process, they have misspelled another word! Here's the new paragraph: > Federal **prosectors** on Monday charged 18 current and former members of > the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department with excessive use of force and > obstruction of justice as part of a sprawling investigation into allegations > of misconduct and abuse of inmates in county jails, federal law enforcement > officials said. This is too funny. |
3,834 | 174,829 | 76823_0 | This 1921 article gives "Ten Pointers for Domestic Happiness". Pointer V reads: > Make love to your wife; continue to be her sweetheart. Neglect begets > indifference that is fatal to married life. Every true wife expects to be a > sweetheart, and rightly. More than bitter disappointment follows > disillussionment. Did "make love" here just mean "be loving; be nice; etc."? |
3,835 | 147,547 | 76823_0 | What do you call this profession in English: > someone who creates layouts for web sites in css and html |
3,836 | 43,188 | 76823_0 | There was the following sentence in the _New York Times_ (September 24) article, titled “Perry and Romney set clear lines of attack”: > “His (Rick Perry’s) shaky debate performance Thursday night in Florida > underscored concerns among establishment Republicans and donors about his > electability and his skills as a candidate on a national stage — and _the > difficulty he has had planting serious doubts_ about Mr. Romney. He also > finished a distant second place in a weekend Florida straw poll." I was arrested to the line, ‘His shaky debate performance underscored audience’s concerns about --- and _the difficulty he has had planting serious doubts_ ” about Mr. Romney.’ Is the expression, “have ＋_ing” like “He has had planting serious doubts” common English usage? Shouldn’t it be either ‘he has (had) planted,’ or “he has (had) been planting.” I’ve barely seen the expression “have (had)” directly followed by a gerund or a verb in progressive form. |
3,837 | 192,777 | 76823_0 | Normally the idiom is as follows: > He walks the walk and talks the talk. Should it not be "he walks the talk", meaning "he does what he says"? |
3,838 | 60,357 | 76823_0 | A neologism would be fine. I was thinking of “ruglifter”, as in someone who is wont to sweep dirt under the rug. edit: I was aware that using "from first principles" would render the question ambiguous, but I thought my run-on would clarify it. I was partly trying to avoid using a Latinism ("ab initio"), but I guess it is appropriate, so I've edited to use it. |
3,839 | 60,356 | 76823_0 | I saw the word, _outpander_ in the following sentence of Maureen Dowd’s article titled, “Liz: Cheney desist!” in March 6 New York Times: > Speaking by satellite to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee > conference here, Romney _outpandered himself_. > “I will station multiple aircraft carriers and warships at Iran’s door,” he > said as if he were playing Risk. Not afraid to employ “military might” (or > alarming alliteration), Romney wrote a blank check to Bibi Netanyahu --- I can guess what _outpander_ means from the definition of a dictionary at hand –OAELD defines pander (to sb) as "to do what sb wants, or try to please them, especially when this is not acceptable or reasonable." However, as far as I checked, no dictionary including Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, even urban dictionary registers _outpander_ , nor does Google Ngram. Is _outpander_ a received English word, or usual Dowd’s coinage? Or, anyone can fix ‘out’ to any verb as a prefix as he or she likes just as we do with any verb＋able, like outeat, outknow, outlaugh, outsex? |
3,840 | 65,650 | 76823_0 | Is the word "of" optional in this instance? Is either of these considered preferable to the other? > * Taste all our delicious treats. > * Taste all of our delicious treats. > |
3,841 | 87,586 | 76823_0 | I have architectural drawings that contains numerous instances of intersecting walls that form a **'T' shape.** To state the obvious, a capital 'T' has two parts: 1. the top line 2. a vertical line that buts up against the T's top What might each of these two connected walls or segments be called? I am asking for word suggestions. The words may or may not be math-based. Short words (short number of characters) that most people understand are preferred over obscure words that few people understand. **Edit:** I'm currently using 'T-Top' for one. That's okay I guess, but I couldn't think of anything short for the vertical piece. |
3,842 | 150,557 | 76823_0 | For example: James snatched the papers out of the flustered Jenifer's hands. You could say, "James snatched the papers out of the hands of Jenifer, who was flustered," but if the first sentence is acceptable, I think I would prefer it to the second. |
3,843 | 87,583 | 76823_0 | The Microsoft Word grammar check shows "Tipsy's" to be wrongly formed. I thought "Tipsy'" would do the job and it was shown as correct. However, it occurred to me that _Tipsy_ does not end in a 'z' or 's' sound, so now I am confused. |
3,844 | 155,708 | 76823_0 | > My observations helped me see human behavior in an evolutionary light. > My observations helped me see human behavior in the light of evolution. Do these two sentences have the same meaning? Are in an evolutionary light and in the light of evolution interchangeable? |
3,845 | 155,709 | 76823_0 | I am looking for a phrase that is used occasionally in English as a **near** synonym of "expertise". For some reason, "coup d'mentarie" keeps going through my mind, but I don't believe this actually means anything at all and it doesn't produce any results on the web. To clarify, I am looking for a word or phrase that sounds similar to this, whilst I am foggy about the language of origin and precise meaning. French is just a guess. :) |
3,846 | 119,998 | 76823_0 | Is the word _voluminous_ more commonly used to describe women's hair? What's the male counterpart? Actually I'm not very sure about my statement. But judging from Google Images. It seems like it is more commonly used to describe women's hair. What's the male counterpart of the word? |
3,847 | 137,257 | 76823_0 | Here's a list of examples I've seen: > 1. What do you think happened? > 2. Who do you think has killed him? > 3. Who do you think he killed? > How does this structure _what/who do you think..._ work? It seems a bit odd that you've got _happened_ after _think_ in the first example, _has killed_ after _think_ in the second. In third, who and what have got nothing to do with the first clause in the sentence but with the second. Can it be used in the past and in the future? "Who did you think (had) killed him? Who do you think will call him?" Apparently it can appear in the middle of any question when someone asks an opinion. Is that so? Are there more structures like this? |
3,848 | 137,254 | 76823_0 | In another question here (sanity of a plastic glass!) the term "plastic glass" is being used which sounds somewhat odd to me, but has not been brought into question by any respondents. Maybe it is has to do with the fact that my mother tongue is German where a "Glass" is always made from glass, while a plastic cup would be be "Plastikbecher". (which would translate into plastic cup.) Can anyone confirm this for me? |
3,849 | 69,378 | 76823_0 | I understand that the phrase in the title means "to behave frivolously". E.g.: _A bereaved person does not cut capers in the street, and neither does a failed pupil._ Google gives around 3 links for the phrase, including Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (English edition) and Frederique , a novel by Paul de Kock . Google ngram shows no hits between 1700-2000. **Question** Can you give me some idea of the origin of this phrase? And why it has hardly ever been used? |
3,850 | 148,303 | 76823_0 | I periodically get emails inviting me to a "free" lunch for the purpose of hearing a sales pitch. Multiple times these invitations have included some quip such as "See? There _is_ such thing as a free lunch!". But the phrase "There's no such thing as a free lunch" describes, almost literally, the advertisement: the lunch is not free because I have to pay the rather steep price of hearing a high-pressure sales pitch. The author of such quips appears ignorant of their own ironic misuse of the idiom. Is there a name for this type of situation? CLARIFICATION: The question is not whether or not advertisers try to deceive. I'm asking if there is a phrase which describes "ironic misuse of an idiom". |
3,851 | 118,021 | 76823_0 | I have kept the "Check Grammar" option in my browser **On** , so whenever I write anything wrong as per US English it gets underlined. This is also the case with "multi". When I use this word in combination with other complete standalone words like _multibillion_ , _multimillion_ or _multithreaded_ , the word "multi" gets underlined (in Red) which means it's not considered correct grammatically. But it's not considered an error when used in words like _multitude_ , _multilateral_ , etc. Again _lateral_ is a standalone word here but there seems to be no error. Is "multi" a wrong word in US English? (The said browser software was developed in the USA.) This link here provides the details about the word "multi" but all of the words used above are considered correct here. |
3,852 | 118,027 | 76823_0 | I'm trying to say that the item will be found in the near future, but has not been found yet. Which way of saying is correct in this context? |
3,853 | 26,692 | 76823_0 | I'm trying to decide how to describe someone. He is not very wise, but that is also due to his ignorance. Should I use "innocence" or "immature" and can someone please explain the difference between these two phrases? |
3,854 | 152,952 | 76823_0 | A **_selfie_** is a kind of casual self-portrait. People often take selfies that include a significant other or multiple friends, and I’m curious whether there is any established terminology or slang for this kind of “group selfie.” The linked Wikipedia article indicates that they are simply known as “group selfies,” but I suspect that there may be an older or better established term. I’m also curious whether there are specific terms for “couple selfies” featuring a significant other or best friend. Formal English, slang, and jargon terms are all acceptable. |
3,855 | 80,752 | 76823_0 | > Todays Alpha males are MMA/Jits fighters not meatheads who gas 15-30 seconds > after raising their heart rate. This aint the 80/90s bro. Is this some kind of thing bodybuilders inhale? How does it work? |
3,856 | 42,584 | 76823_0 | I recently heard someone use the phrase "extract a price". He was referring to a scenario in which an action had an associated cost. To me, it seems the correct phrase should have been "exact a price". But, given the literal meaning of "extract", it seems his usage could have been correct. What's the deal? |
3,857 | 42,585 | 76823_0 | We're used to the word "whore" in reference to a prostitute or (less commonly) as a verb meaning to prostitute oneself. Looking in a few online dictionaries, this is the first and only meaning. However, I hear the word used more liberally these days. An "attention whore" is someone who desperately craves attention, which seems quite different from selling sex for money. Last weekend I was at a party and entertaining a 6-month old while the mom socialized. Someone said, "You are such a baby whore." The last two uses seem to imply that people now consider the verb "to whore" as "to hoard". Is this common usage now? |
3,858 | 153,399 | 76823_0 | Word for a **supporter** /believer in the cause **of a dictator** (but is not one themselves), or the concept of dictatorship in the general sense. Dictatorist? Despotist? |
3,859 | 64,294 | 76823_0 | Could you clarify difference between sentences: > 1. If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster > horses > 2. If I asked people what they wanted, they would say faster horses > In a similar vein: > 1. If you had asked me I would have followed > 2. If you asked me I would follow > They're all hypothetical, aren't they? |
3,860 | 64,295 | 76823_0 | What is the natural way to say in English that a certain doctor did some surgery on — for instance — my knee? In Spanish we say "El doctor Pérez me operó la rodilla". Is the following grammatical? > Doctor Pérez did some surgery on my knee. |
3,861 | 153,393 | 76823_0 | The phrase "pros and cons" is often used to weigh the positive and negative effects that would result from taking a particular course of action. When trying to explain to someone else why only actions (and not objects or people's reasons for doing things) have pros and cons [e.g. there are no pros or cons for grass; there are pros and cons for _having_ grass], I realized that I have no idea why this seems to be the rule. I have so far come to the conclusion that both "pro" and "con" are probably abbreviations, but I can't figure out what they are abbreviations of. Does anyone know? How does this create the usage rules detailed above? |
3,862 | 153,392 | 76823_0 | According to Wiktionary, the British spelling of "vaporize" is _vaporise_ , not _vapourise_ as one might expect from the word _vapour_ (and similarly, the Canadian spelling is still _vaporize_ , not _vapourize_ ). The words "laborious" and "coloration" suffer from the same problem, and yet "favourable" doesn't. Why is this so? * * * And in case you think Wiktionary is a disputable source, the Cambridge Dictionary has no entry for vapourise either. |
3,863 | 7,866 | 76823_0 | Often, I have to decide whichever is better in mail, forums, letters. For instance: * _colour_ vs _color_ * _behaviour_ vs _behavior_ * _humour_ vs _humor_ * _rumour_ vs _rumor_ * _honour_ vs _honor_ * _armour_ vs _armor_ The difference comes certainly from the country of origin of the writer — basically Americans write _o_ and English people write _ou_. Please confirm that. (By the way, all the words left side are underlined in Firefox, since the spell-checker is set to “American English”) What I would like to know — from a non-native English speaker perspective — is if it _really_ matters, nowadays with the new technologies and international exchanges, to make a distinction between "ou" and "o"? Does it hurt the reader if they are both used in the same text, mixing _colour_ and _honor_ , or even worse, _colour_ and _color_? What is the current trend? |
3,864 | 7,863 | 76823_0 | I was reading my apartment lease recently, and I came across this sentence in the rent section: "Lessee will pay a penalty of $16.00 for rent that is unpaid before the 6th of the month." The paragraph previously states that the due date is the 1st of the month. So with that information, it feels like there are two interpretations, based on what "before the 6th of the month" refers to - the rent, or the paying of the penalty: 1. Between the 2nd and 5th (before the 6th), pay a $16 penalty. After that it increases by $1 per day as stated in the next sentence. 2. Pay no penalty at all until the 6th. This is the correct meaning (they've told me.) Is there really any ambiguity? I think maybe if they meant the first meaning it would have said "that is _paid_ before the 6th." Saying "unpaid before the 6th" may be a clear way of stating that you haven't paid _until_ the 6th, at which point the penalty applies. So is the first interpretation reasonable, or would it be an error on the part of the reader to interpret it that way? Either way I think they should probably reword it. |
3,865 | 9,520 | 76823_0 | Are _if_ and _whether_ equivalent in sentences like the ones below? > How to determine if my saddle is too high? > How to determine whether my saddle is too high? > We should check if everything is okay now. > We should check whether everything is okay now. |
3,866 | 35,839 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When are "if" and "whether" equivalent? As a non-native English speaker, I would use the following sentence: > I am wondering if you have seen that movie. Is it correct to use _if_ here? |
3,867 | 54,293 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When are "if" and "whether" equivalent? Which one is the correct meaning of _"Let me know if the problem persists."_? Or is it ambiguous? 1. If the problem persists, let me know. 2. Let me know whether the problem persists or not. |
3,868 | 65,624 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When are "if" and "whether" equivalent? I was told that one can use _if_ in constructions like: > ... if A, then ... But that whether should be used when there is more than one option, like: > ... whether A or B, then ... Is it good practice or common to use whether when giving only one implicit or explicit option? > ... whether A (or not), then ... > > ... whether A, then ... |
3,869 | 144,188 | 76823_0 | Is there a grammatical rule that governs when we use “if” and when we use “whether”? Examples: I don't know if I want to go. I don't know whether I want to go. I don't know whether _or not_ I want to go. How do we know when to correctly use “if” and when to use “whether (or not)”? Thank you! |
3,870 | 22,379 | 76823_0 | How can I know when should I use _whether_ or _if_ in a sentence? I can not see any difference between _whether_ and _if_. When should I use each? For me, they are the same and I am not sure if there is a difference. |
3,871 | 48,771 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > When are "if" and "whether" equivalent? Do these two have the same meaning: 1. To determine **if** something is correct. 2. To determine **whether** something is correct. |
3,872 | 95,557 | 76823_0 | When making relations of my contribution to the work of others, I sometimes deliberately want to avoid detailed description of the related work and state: "For details on derivation, see the **original** work." However, I'm not sure if the term _original_ is appropriate here, and I kindly ask you to provide some alternatives. Or, is the term actually the most appropriate? |
3,873 | 95,556 | 76823_0 | I was wondering if there is any particular word for 'discrimination on the basis of profession/professional rank'. |
3,874 | 95,551 | 76823_0 | If I'm currently studying to specialize in Urology, for example, is it correct to say, I'm specializing in Urology, or does it imply that I already did my exams and specialized in Urology? |
3,875 | 42,630 | 76823_0 | First of all, I'm speaking of webpage referral. Second, let me quote Wikipedia: > The misspelling referer originated in the original proposal by computer > "scientist" Phillip Hallam-Baker to incorporate the field into the HTTP > specification.[1] The misspelling was set in stone by the time of its > incorporation into the standards document Request for Comments (RFC) 1945; > document co-author Roy Fielding has remarked that neither "referrer" nor the > misspelling "referer" were recognized by the standard Unix spell checker of > the period.[2] "Referer" has since become a widely used spelling in the > industry when discussing HTTP referrers; usage of the misspelling is not > universal, though, as the correct spelling of "referrer" is used in some web > specifications such as the Document Object Model. > > * * * > > [1] Hallam-Baker, Phillip. "Re: Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?" > alt.folklore.computers, 2000-09-21 > [2] Fielding, Roy. "Re: Referer: (sic)." HTTP-wg, 1995-03-09 It seems even the W3C isn't completely consistent: 1. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer \- works 2. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referrer \- fails 3. http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check?uri=referrer \- works What is the correct spelling to use ( _referer_ or _referrer_ ), either in general or specific situations? |
3,876 | 16,818 | 76823_0 | Some words have the same etymology, root, but mean different things, such as mysterious and mystical. What are some other pairs (or more) that fall into this category, and what exactly is this category called? |
3,877 | 132,612 | 76823_0 | When I read novels, I've noticed many use a comma if it is followed by words denoting who said the words (like the second example). If what the character said is a full sentence, do we use a comma like the second example or a period like the first? "The boy jumped and we were shocked." John said. "The boy jumped and we were shocked," John said. |
3,878 | 195,209 | 76823_0 | I'm trying to describe King Saul's suicide out of fear of his rival David, of- whom-he-is-jealous. Is there a better way to describe this? |
3,879 | 195,205 | 76823_0 | Is it common to say "He misput his book in my mailbox/drawer"? If not, should I use misdeliver here? Any other expressions? Thanks! |
3,880 | 42,639 | 76823_0 | When people refer to me on stackexchange websites they call me @broiyan. Where did this convention arise from? If it were taken from my email address, the @ symbol would be at the other end of my name so that does not appear to be the source of this convention. |
3,881 | 123,019 | 76823_0 | > 1. I have done my internship **at** Amararaja Batteries Limited. > 2. I have done my internship **in** Amararaja Batteries Limited. > Which of the above sentences is correct? I want to know when to use _at_ and when to use _in_. |
3,882 | 95,321 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Which one is right? He works at XYZ company or in XYZ company? I always get confused while using prepositions. Should I say" It doesn't matter whether you work in X company or ..." or "" It doesn't matter whether you work at X company or ...." |
3,883 | 55,315 | 76823_0 | In one of Stephen King's books titled "On Writing" he writes: "The next week my mother called another taxi, we went back to the **ear doctor's** , and I found once more lying on my side with the absorbent square of cloth under my head. The **ear doctor** once again produced the smell of alcohol..." Can someone explain what is the difference between the possessive and non- possesvie usage of the word doctor? |
3,884 | 90,336 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Store names & possessive Is the following sentence a correct usage to tell someone that I'm in the clinic to see the doctor right now > I'm at the doctor's |
3,885 | 195,184 | 76823_0 | Is there a grammatical reason for Tiffany & Co being made possessive in _Breakfast at Tiffany's_? |
3,886 | 55,328 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Store names & possessive > "Ear doctor's" vs "Ear doctor" I have often heard members of the British public pronounce the name of the supermarket chain Tesco as "Tesco's" or "Tescos". Thinking that it was formerly called "Tesco's", as many old British companies are, I looked up its history and learnt that it is a concatenation of the initials of its early tea supplier's name (T. E. Stockwell) and the first two letters of the founder's surname (Cohen), and was never called "Tesco's". Is it because of confusion with other supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Morrisons? If so, why have I not heard "Asda's", "Co-op's" or "SPAR's"? |
3,887 | 14,796 | 76823_0 | Observation: It seems that it's common to turn a store name into a possessive, for example a store named "Palisade" gets transformed to possessive in speech like, "Hey how about going to Palisade's for breakfast?" Another example is Chutneys Grille in Seattle. Many (most?) store names do not get this treatment. It seems most common if the store name is: * Abstract: "I saw a great concert at BOOT's last night." * A person's name, or what looks like a person's name: "I got this at JC Penny's" * Totally unknown word: "I get my hair cut at Foofum's" * [UPDATE] Is it ungrammatical to do this? My assumption is that it's a short form of saying "BOOT's performance venue" (nonsensical though?), "JC Penny's shop", or "Foofum's salon". Questions: 1. Is this common, or is it just my home town or something? Or my imagination? 2. Why must we do this instead of simply calling the store by its rightful name? To me "I saw a concert last night at BOOT." is no less clear, and no more difficult to say. * * * Inspired by a previous question |
3,888 | 84,031 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Store names & possessive What is the correct grammar for saying that I worked for a chemists (that is, a shop that sells medicine)? Is it > I worked in a chemist or > I worked in a chemists or perhaps > I worked in a chemist's ? Had I been working for multiple different chemists, would it be correct to say > I worked for chemists during my first two years of university |
3,889 | 195,206 | 76823_0 | Should I write 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', when discussing George Orwell's novel in an essay, or '1984'? Is it considered unconventional, or overly colloquial to use the latter form? This question applies for any book title consisting solely of a number, although I can't call to mind any. |
3,890 | 142,123 | 76823_0 | * A carpenter does carpentry. * A scientist does science. * An engineer does engineering. * A blacksmith does blacksmithing. (The grammar of these sentences may be poor; the point is to get the idea across.) So then: * What does an electrician do? * What does a (car) mechanic do? Or are there perhaps really no such words? |
3,891 | 151,664 | 76823_0 | Is it allowed to use the word "one's" in academic writing? For example: It can help improve one's vocabulary. |
3,892 | 182,901 | 76823_0 | Although someone has previously answered a question as to the difference between "pending" and impending", I'm still struggling on when to use which word, and if one is preferred in a more formal context. For example, I was talking about the upcoming FIFA World Cup Semifinal Match, and that I was awaiting one team's _"impending victory"_. Was that an accurate use? Should I have used _"pending victory"_? |
3,893 | 12,127 | 76823_0 | In a recent email I received was this line: "Be under no illusion that 2011 is Our Year." From what I understand "Be under no illusion" means the same as "Don't be fooled". So I would expect that it would be followed by comments such as "It's going to be tough, but we can do it together" or some similar sentiment. However, this statement is then followed by a positive statement. To me this contradicts the use of "Be under no illusion". Do I have the meaning wrong or is this one of those crazy phrases that can be used both as a negative and as a positive? |
3,894 | 53,606 | 76823_0 | Consider: > "The identity process is culturally embedded." Is the following then possible? > "Cosmopolitanism constitutes the cultural **bed** of this identity process." |
3,895 | 53,603 | 76823_0 | I strongly need someone's help to solve this problem of grammaticality: I have to say why these examples are ungrammatical * *Which book did you make the suggestion that the children should read? * *Which book did you make the suggestion that the children should keep? In relation to this, we have the grammatical counterparts: * Which book did the children read? * Which book did the children keep? I am blocked because I think it is not a problem of subjacency, since it is only one bounding node being crossed (book). Maybe it is a problem of the type of verb, or maybe it deals with the issue of the relative clause [that the children should read]. |
3,896 | 10,412 | 76823_0 | > The milk having soured, Martha drank her coffee black. Is this sentence a run-on sentence, or is it an (grammatically) acceptable sentence? |
3,897 | 10,411 | 76823_0 | I found a word ‘Yes-ish’ in the answer (from PLL) to my question about the meaning of ‘Stuck to the script’ I posted today. As it is quite new to my ear, I consulted with Wikipedia before logging out the forum, which says: (Yesih) is yes with a condition or limitation, and similarly Noish (but this of course tends more to a .... Is ‘Yes-sh / Yessh’ often heard in day-to-day conversation among American people or found in casual writings. How ‘Yes-sh’ is different from ‘Yes’ in its implication, supposing it’s an informal or colloquial expression. |
3,898 | 42,811 | 76823_0 | I read this sentence on an educational website: > Now times have changed and you are ready for situations involving forces in > two dimensions. Shouldn't there be a comma before _and_ , since the subject of the sentence has changed ( _things_ vs. _you_ )? > Now times have changed **, and** you are ready for situations involving > forces in two dimensions. What is the exact comma rule for joining two clauses with _and_? |
3,899 | 162,740 | 76823_0 | How can I eliminate the weak "to be" verb (DOES) in the following sentence: She does not assist in accomplishing... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.