Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
38,800 | 132,450 | 76823_0 | Say I have the following sentence: > I went to the store to buy eggs, regular, chocolate and soy milk, apples, > and bread. There are two _and_ clauses here, one that describes the kinds of milk I was buying, and one that describes the other groceries. One option would be: > I went to the store to buy eggs, regular milk, chocolate milk, soy milk, > apples, and bread. But that seems redundant and wordy. What's best? A big problem with the first one is that it's not immediately clear whether I mean chocolate or chocolate milk, since chocolate can be either a noun or an adjective in this case. |
38,801 | 186,506 | 76823_0 | British people sometimes use "love to bits" and "thrilled/chuffed to bits" to indicate extremes. Despite searching high and low, I could not find the origin of the phrase "to bits", other than speculation on forums. Does anyone have a source for its origin or etymology? |
38,802 | 144,545 | 76823_0 | > * I went to live in the small village to seek a simple life after my > failure in finding a decent job in the metropolis. > * I went to live in the small village to seek a simple life after I fail > to find a decent job in the metropolis. > Which sentence is better? Or neither is better or worse semantically speaking, and the difference is a matter of personal choice? |
38,803 | 144,546 | 76823_0 | > I am bold to ask you another question: is there a book written on > Churchill’s life? (self-made) I wrote this sentence in an email to my foreign friend. I doubt that the use of “bold” is awkward. It does not carry the connotation of my being humble. As a Chinese saying goes, excess is not better than deficiency. To say that asking this question is bold is excessive. I desperately want to know the appropriately modest way of asking this question. |
38,804 | 144,541 | 76823_0 | > I think your data is wrong. > Your answer is right. Are the usages of “wrong” incorrect? My teacher says to me that I should always use “right” and ‘wrong” when using on people, but when it is about something objective, I should only use “correct” and “incorrect”. |
38,805 | 144,542 | 76823_0 | > I have no time to unfold my own view on this in full length. (self-made) Is this “in full length” the same as “fully”? So it is correct to use it here? |
38,806 | 186,501 | 76823_0 | I was born in high heels and I’ve worn them ever since- Helena Christensen |
38,807 | 91,554 | 76823_0 | In particular, I want to ask if we have the term "conserved food". E.g. > I have ordered some of your favorite dishes, like chicken, pork, and > [conserved/preserved] fish. This is a question in our mid-term paper. Our teacher said it should be _preserved_. Below is the explanation from Longman Contemporary Dictionary: > _conserve_ > > 1. to protect something and prevent it from changing or being damaged = > _preserve_ > > We must conserve our woodlands for future generations. > efforts to conserve fish stocks > > 2. to use as little water, energy etc as possible so that it is not wasted > > systems designed to conserve energy > > |
38,808 | 91,557 | 76823_0 | If I say this sentence, would it be meaningful? > Similarly, trees can be described by neighborhood relations _which_ we can > see how trees exist with other objects in reality Actually what I want to say is: trees can be described using neighborhood relations that they make with other objects in their vicinity. |
38,809 | 145,635 | 76823_0 | As he sets out, China is on the brink of revolution. But I do not think so. (self-made) It seems to me to be wrong. Because the first sentence implies that the “I” have accepted “his” idea as true, hence the “I” is self-defeating when he says that he do not think so. |
38,810 | 167,819 | 76823_0 | I need a word or phrase to describe the sensation people experience when they hear nails scratching on a chalkboard. I don't want to describe the _noise_ , just the _sensation._ |
38,811 | 180,223 | 76823_0 | I'm a programmer and found myself naming an entity, which shows things, as `Shower`. Of course, the first time I read it, I remembered the freshness of the drops of water and nothing related to what it was supposed to mean. Then I google-translated it into Russian and found no nouns stemming from the verb `Show`. So my questions are: 1. Is it correct to use `Shower` in the sense I meant? 2. If not, then what is the closest noun to the definition of a thing that shows something? I came up with `Presenter`, but it doesn't feel very close. 3. How did this word, which is evidently a derivative from a verb, evolve to mean an absolutely unrelated thing? |
38,812 | 145,632 | 76823_0 | The word dilemma has caused a dilemma. According to Oxford Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dilemma) Pronunciation is : /dɪˈlɛmə, dʌɪ-/ Which is di-lema or dye-lema. The website "howjsay" (http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=dilemma) also gives two pronunciations. I just don't understand why it has two pronunciations. Also, is one UK and the other US? I am unclear as to which pronunciation I should stick to. Does it vary according to its position in the sentence? Or should I randomly shoot the one the pops up in mind? Any assistance would be highly appreciated. |
38,813 | 145,638 | 76823_0 | Why do we write **read** unchanged for present and past, while _study_ changes; we have _studied_. The present form of _read_ is _read_ , pronounced as " _reed_ ". The past form of _read_ is also _read_ but it is pronounced as " _red_ ". Is it a regular verb or an irregular verb? |
38,814 | 101,662 | 76823_0 | Is there such a word as " _drownded_ "? I would say " _drowned_ " but I am hearing " _drownded_ " so often I am beginning to wonder. For example: > He went into the deepest waters and drownded. |
38,815 | 188,032 | 76823_0 | When I first encountered it years ago, I was pretty sure it must be a mistake. Although I got used to it, it still _does not feel right_. What is the reason for that? Is it something specific to the automobile industry? Are there (maybe) historical reasons for it? |
38,816 | 101,666 | 76823_0 | I want to know how one can manage to assert that they are laughing without using euphemisms or colloquialism in first person, for example in a letter, without referring to yourself, that is saying "me" or "I". These examples seem impossible: > * The chicken wanted to cross the road because it wanted to reach the > other side. Haha! > * The chicken wanted to cross the road because it wanted to reach the > other side. LOLZ. > * The chicken wanted to cross the road because it wanted to reach the > other side. :-P > * The chicken wanted to cross the road because it wanted to reach the > other side. (laughing with mouth foolishly open and smells bad breath) > Side-note: Please pardon that poor humor I have taken as an example. |
38,817 | 23,340 | 76823_0 | I would like to know if someone could provide me some examples of the usage of those phrases? |
38,818 | 188,038 | 76823_0 | There was the following sentence in Time magazine (June 28) article titled, “Reform in Japan – The third arrow” analyzing Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe’s so called, Abenomix policies to revitalize Japanese economy. > Nowadays, Mr. Abe faces little serious opposition outside the LDP: the > opposition Democratic Party of Japan is nowhere near reviving itself after > its **trouncing** at the polls in December 2010. I was under impression that the verb “trounce” is a transitive verb, therefore “trouncing” means “beating sb,” e.g. rival or enemy. CED defines “trounce” as transitive verb: to defeat a competitor by a large amount. OED defines “trounce” as transitive verb: (accompanied with object) 1. Defeat heavily in a contest. 2. Rebuke or punish severely. OALED defines "trounce" as verb: to defeat sb completely. Merriam- Webster defines “trounce” as transitive verb: to defeat (someone or something) easily and thoroughly In the above quote, “its trouncing” appears to refer to DPJ’s crushing defeat in December 2010 Upper House election. Can trounce which all dictionaries at hand define as a transitive verb be used in the passive sense of “being completely defeated,” or an intransitive verb like 'lose' in a noun or gerund form? |
38,819 | 23,348 | 76823_0 | Many English words use the prefixes uni-, bi-/di-, tri-, quad- and so on to mean one, two, three, and four. For example: > A unicycle has one wheel, a bicycle two, and a tricycle three. I presume these prefixes are either of Greek or Latin origin, but from what little I know of these two languages, neither uses these prefixes as their numbers. That is, in Greek you wouldn't start counting by saying, _Uni, di, tri, quad, ..._ |
38,820 | 1,472 | 76823_0 | For a phrase such as the following: > each apple and each orange Is it correct to use "has" or "have" when describing properties of both apples and oranges? |
38,821 | 76,824 | 76823_0 | I’m writing a novel where one of the characters is a _酒促小姐_ (literally translated as “wine promoter miss”). They come to your table (usually in bars and restaurants) and promote particular beer brands. I’m not sure if this is something that you only find in the country I’m currently living in (Taiwan). I would like to know what’s the best way of referring to them (since it is for a novel, I just want something short). I know they are not waitresses because, well, they only promote beer. They pour beer in your glass, and talk to you sometimes, but I don’t think they are hostesses either. Any suggestions?  |
38,822 | 31,410 | 76823_0 | "Please use other door" signs are common. But would you ever say this? Or would you say "please use _the_ other door"? |
38,823 | 140,041 | 76823_0 | The word "Ordeal" as defined by google is "a very unpleasant and prolonged experience". I need a word that does not have this negative connotation attached to it. |
38,824 | 172,745 | 76823_0 | When referring to a non-specific instance of a place ( _hospital_ , _theatre_ ), there seems to be a strange inconsistency as to when you use _the_. Is there any sort of pattern, or is there any reference site that lists these out somewhat comprehensively? American English: * _go to the hospital_ * _go to school_ * _go to church_ * _go to the mall_ * _go to the theater_ * _go to the police station_ * _go to the train station_ * _go to the airport_ * _go to the supermarket_ * _go to the post office_ * _go to the market_ (is _go to market_ okay in American English?) * _go to town_ * _go to college_ * _go to jail_ * _go to the bank_ British English: * _go to hospital_ * _go to school_ * _go to church_ * _go to the theatre_ * _go to the cinema_ * ??? This question is inspired by the conversation here: Is there a reason the British omit the article when they "go to hospital"? |
38,825 | 140,042 | 76823_0 | English pronunciation / spelling guides appear to state that the letter/grapheme "a" is pronounced either as the "short a" with IPA symbol /æ/, as in "mat" or the "long a" with IPA symbol /eɪ/, as in "baby." However, apparently there exist multiple words where all references I checked provide the spelling of "short e" with IPA symbol /e/ or /ɛ/ which I take as a variation in the IPA transcription not in the underlying pronunciation. What I'm unable to come up with or find a reference for is when will the grapheme "a" be pronounced as /e/ (or /ɛ/) instead of the short "a" /æ/ that the typical rules would predict? Examples of words that have "a" transcribed as /e/: \- temporary \- nefarious \- compare \- share \- dare \- subsidiary (many more have two alternative pronunciations listed, one with /æ/ and one with /e/) I recognize that all these examples include the sequence "ar" but I do not know if this is only because I was searching for this sequence in a corpus (based on the original example of "nefarious") or because there exist no other cases. Actually, I find that my most trusted reference "The ABC's and all their tricks" by Margaret M. Bishop is including some of these words in the group of "-arr-" as in "carry", which my dictionaries transcribe as /ˈkæri/. This mixes two different pronunciations under the same rule. Is there no "rule" to help predicting the /æ/ or /e/ realization? |
38,826 | 1,474 | 76823_0 | So, I want to title a talk. Which of these is the right usage and why? "Web Development Paradigms and Djangoic approach to solve them" OR "Web Development Paradigms and Djangoic approach to solving them" |
38,827 | 43,958 | 76823_0 | What is a phrase to indicate the action _testing and correcting_? For example, imagine a situation in which you don't know what you should do exactly and step by step you change things and see the results. |
38,828 | 5,099 | 76823_0 | > OK, things are going well, both of you are enjoying each other's company, > and both of you are attracted to each other. Is the usage of "both of you" correct? Sounds a bit off to me. BTW what part of the language "both of you"? |
38,829 | 43,955 | 76823_0 | What's another phrase or metaphor that means "to fulfill your dream" or "make your dreams a reality?" |
38,830 | 43,953 | 76823_0 | For example, person A states something. Person B says "And pigs fly" to imply person A was wrong. If there's no term for it, what could you call that that sounds smart? |
38,831 | 150,038 | 76823_0 | Is 'voltages' the plural for voltage? When requesting for someone to check voltage more than once, would you state that you're documenting 'voltages'? |
38,832 | 128,952 | 76823_0 | I am trying to remember the word to describe a person trying to sell stuff persistently. I can't seem to figure it out. - It can be a verb, noun or adjective. Anything around "Selling stuff persistently". |
38,833 | 128,957 | 76823_0 | We call the state you can’t stop tearing “玉ねぎの皮をむくように―tamanegino kawa wo muku youni – like peeling the ‘skins’ of onion" in Japanese. In actuality, we don’t shed (or drop) tears when we peel off the _outer_ skin of onion. We shed (or drop) tears when we peel the _inner layers_ of onion. This might look a very primitive question to Anglophones. But none of Japanese English dictionary at hand carries English counterpart to ‘the inner layer’ of onion. It can't be flesh, pulp, capsule, or leaf. No English text books available in this country makes a specific mention to the inner part (layers) of onion. What is the exact word for the thing (part) of onion we peel off in colloquial English, and if possible with botanical nomencclature? |
38,834 | 172,661 | 76823_0 | I wanted to use the word "cum" to avoid repeating "and" in the following phrase: > example.com is a teacher-cum-student search and listing site... But on second thoughts, the word "cum" is also a vulgar slang, which certainly would raise a few eyebrows when readers come across it. Is there a good substitute for this word? |
38,835 | 74,465 | 76823_0 | In English, when (if ever) is it appropriate to use the possessive with a formal title when addressing someone? Kind of like I would say, "As you wish, my greatest of loves." For example, > Thank you, my Sensei. Or should it simply be, > Thank you, Sensei. Or, would the 'my' be used always and only along with the subject of learning? As in > Thank you, my Sensei of Swordsmanship. but not > Thank you, Sensei of Sauciness. I believe there is a component of cultural understanding and lingual comprehension of Japan and the Japanese language that _may_ be necessary to answer fully with regards to "Sensei" in particular, but in general, how are possessives and titles combined? |
38,836 | 74,467 | 76823_0 | > I am Investigator Ace Sleuth, from the Fuji Apple Sheriff's Department. > > I am Investigator Ace Sleuth from the Fuji Apple Sheriff's Department. The comma in the first sentence implies that he's not Investigator Ace Sleuth from the Granny Smith Police Department, unlikely, I know, nor Ace Sleuth from any other agency. The second sentence implies there are Ace Sleuths all over the place. As a court reporter, I often have this sentence pattern. Which is better? |
38,837 | 171,851 | 76823_0 | I imagine there must be a term/idiom/phrase for polishing something too early... For example: * Painting the walls of a room before completing other work which may accidentally damage them. * Adding detail to a section of a drawing that you may likely need to radically change later (and lose the detail work) * Optimizing a software function which might be deemed unnecessary before it's even used Though I can't seem to think of what this is called (no luck with searching either). Originally I posted this in the 'workplace' stack exchange but was recommended to try here. |
38,838 | 157,958 | 76823_0 | Forever, since I can recall, I've used a book for reference to English grammar, written by Peter Bullions, whenever I've felt ambiguous about whatever it be―from punctuation to syntax. And hitherto, I have been very assured by the laid-down rules provided by this seemingly extraordinary and concise book; although judging by the rules proposed by users on this website, it certainly seems as if the rules whereby I have been composing "grammatical" English texts all this time, and sharing my knowledge with others here, are no longer in use! So, I surely seem to be in a tricky predicament, where I find myself uneasy to impart conceivably-outdated information! Do you suggest I abandon all which I've been taught by this book, or I alter the rules I reckon to be then-right but now-wrong, through meticulous comparisons for confirmation of validity?! Please note that in this book, the 2nd person singular pronoun is thou, and the 2nd person plural ye. However, I have easily learned to ignore these evidently-outdated pronouns, and instead simply use "you" for both cases (which is ridiculously unclear, due to the confusion of whether a crowd or an individual is the audience). Thanks for your recommendations. |
38,839 | 139,470 | 76823_0 | Is this a run-on? > By 1990, it was even easier to make bottles and paper products quickly; as a > result, competition among companies grew and stores featured products with > increasingly interesting and colorful labels. Independent clauses: (1) competition among companies grew (2) stores featured products with increasingly interesting and colorful labels So, is the sentence correct, or should there be a comma before the 'and'? Also, > Pancakes, perhaps the standard American breakfast, **are** losing a rapidly > increasing number of calorie-conscious adherents. Shouldn't the 'are' be 'is' because 'Pancakes' is singular because one eats pancakes and not a pancake? I don't know. These questions were from the Princeton Review 11 Practice Tests for the SATs book. Thanks so much. |
38,840 | 139,471 | 76823_0 | While I'm not native English speaker, I often need to express myself in English. For a week, I have been searching for a term which represents a kind of SQL query: SELECT something FROM somewhere WHERE somethingElse IN (SELECT foo FROM bar) It's a query within another (those in brackets). What term should I use to describe it? * A nested query * An embedded query * An included query * A sub-query * Another term? Thanks, |
38,841 | 164,435 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for a suffix that has the opposite meaning of the suffix _-less_ as in _stainless_. That is, a suffix that means “not free of ...”. In German, for example, there is the adverb “ _behaftet_ ” and one can say “ _fehlerbehaftet_ ” (meaning “not free of defects”). In particular, I'm looking for opposites of _unitless_ and _dimensionless_ (w.r.t. physical quantities). |
38,842 | 139,475 | 76823_0 | For instance, what is the equivalent of _New Yorker_ when using the acronym ( _NY_ or _N.Y._ instead of _New York_ )? |
38,843 | 139,477 | 76823_0 | http://youtu.be/a9GgU3hzGGw?t=1m54s In the following video, a talk host watches an acting performance, and refers to the actor as a "garden shed". I've never heard that expression before. I am also not British. I imagine it means someone who can do anything, though I can't find a source for it anywhere on the Internet. Am I correct in this assumption? Is this a commonly used expression in the United Kingdom? |
38,844 | 153,152 | 76823_0 | I want so say that the battle between video rental store franchise companies like Hollywood Entertainment Corporation and internet video streaming companies like Netflix is _something_ of the shift that the .com era brought to the prevailing business management philosophy and practice in America. "Microcosmic" isn't quite it.. what's that word? |
38,845 | 101,086 | 76823_0 | I was correcting an ESL learner who said "It is the way how we write." I realize "It is the way we write" is correct and "It is how we write" is correct, but "It is the way how we write" _looks_ wrong to me, despite that when I say it out loud it sounds perfectly normal if I'm speaking fast. What I mean is, if an ESL learner said it, it would sound wrong. But when I say it as a native speaker, it seems okay though not felicitous. So I can't tell. Is it grammatically wrong? |
38,846 | 101,083 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for another way to say: I couldn't help but ponder the long list of reasons I am unworthy/ a failure. |
38,847 | 5,094 | 76823_0 | Which of the following sentences is better to use? > 1. Where it is concluded that the report is incorrect it will be returned. > 2. If the report is incorrect then it will be returned. > Or do they mean the same thing? These sentences will be used for a description of activities. |
38,848 | 121,359 | 76823_0 | > In that discomfort, breathing quicklime and tar, no one could see very well > how from the bowels of the earth there was rising not only the largest house > in the town, but the most hospitable and cool house **that** had ever > existed in the region of the swamp. > (One Hundred Years of Solitude, tr. by Gregory Rabassa) The that-clause is a complement providing the criterion for ‘the largest’ and ‘the most’, isn’t it? (It seems like the ‘indirect complement’ that is said in ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.') |
38,849 | 121,350 | 76823_0 | I came across the phrase “a State Department spokesperson had walked back his (John Kerry’s) comments in the Time magazine’s (August 2) article titled, “Oops: John Kerry gaffes, Washington backpedals.” http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/02/oops-john-kerry-gaffes-washington- backpedals/#ixzz2aqtJvoJJ The article deals with Secretary of States’ remarks about the drone campaign in Pakistan on a press interview: > “I think the program will end as we have eliminated most of the threat and > continue to eliminate it,” Kerry said. “I think the President has a very > real timeline, and we hope it’s going to be very, very soon.” Was Kerry > announcing a dramatic policy shift? Nope. Within hours a State Department > **spokesperson had walked back his comments** , saying: “This was in no way > indicating a change in policy…. I have no exact timeline to provide.” As I wasn’t quite familiar with the case of using ‘walk back’ in such a context as denying or distancing one’s comments, I checked Cambridge, Oxford, and Merriam-Webster online English Dictionary. None of them shows “walk back” as an idiom, though they show “call back, look back, talk back, walkout, walk through, walk up,” and so on. I’m puzzled about the expression, “walk back his comment,” because I understand ‘walk’ is an intransitive verb that doesn’t take objective noun (here, his comments). Is this grammatically right expression? Though the word, 'backpedal' in the headline gave me a hint, what does ‘a spokesperson had walked back his comments’ exactly mean? Is “walk back” an idiom in this case, and used very often in such a way as “walk back” one’s comment / idea / policy / promise / stand / connection, or person? |
38,850 | 121,353 | 76823_0 | This is one of the _New York Times_ writing rules.I don't know exactly what “zombie nouns” and verbs mean here. Can someone give some examples? > Rule 6: Write With Non-Zombie Nouns and Verbs > > Delve into Strunk and White’s fourth style reminder “Write with nouns and > verbs” by reading about what Helen Sword calls “Zombie Nouns”: > > Nouns formed from other parts of speech are called nominalizations. > Academics love them; so do lawyers, bureaucrats and business writers. I call > them “zombie nouns” because they cannibalize active verbs, suck the > lifeblood from adjectives and substitute abstract entities for human beings. > > Fight those nasty zombie nouns with vivacious verbs. |
38,851 | 121,356 | 76823_0 | It is quite common in comments about major news stories, especially if it's about a crime. Someone disproves a very tiny detail, possibly a mistake of the news-writer, and claims that thus the whole story is disproven. Usually it follows with a rant about how we are all misled by the powers above, and they falsely accused this innocent person, etc., but in reality the event really did happen, and the false detail was quite unimportant. |
38,852 | 121,357 | 76823_0 | Which is the correct expression, _looking to build_ or _looking to building_? > Whether you are looking to build. . . . or > Whether you are looking to build **ing**. . . . |
38,853 | 182,570 | 76823_0 | I'm trying to wrap my mind around the semantic differences between the words "Register" and "Apply". For example, are there any real differences between these two sentences: * "I will _apply_ for this event." * "I will _register_ for this event." **What is the best way to think about the meanings between the two words?** |
38,854 | 131,193 | 76823_0 | Is there a word or phrase for the desire to be recognized as very productive on everything one is responsible for? Perhaps sometimes it could be a motivation for an overachiever. Or other times it could be a cause of depressive symptoms for not being able to do so. |
38,855 | 124,651 | 76823_0 | For example, someone who started learning and playing badminton five years before you do, under the same instructor. Another example, like a senior person in the same school. Thanks. |
38,856 | 124,654 | 76823_0 | I have seen a few tips regarding the placement of periods before or after the closing parenthesis, but none of them solves my issue. A general rule of thumb-if the words inside the parentheses form a complete sentence, then period before closing it, otherwise period after closing it. However I am writing a sentence in the introduction part of a paper and the following options seem to be there * <,> denote the generalised inner product (see Section IV). * <,> denote the generalised inner product (see Section IV.) * <,> denote the generalised inner product (see Section IV.). Which one among them is correct? A double period seems superfluous while placing it either inside or outside seem not to do justice to the whole sentence. Are there different conventions for British, American or Australian systems? |
38,857 | 131,192 | 76823_0 | I'm reading _Yelizaveta Bam_ of Daniil Kharms (tr. Neil Cornwell) and stumbled upon the following dialogue: > **Ivan I.:** But who then lights the lamp? > **Pyotr N.** : No one, it burns by itself. > **Ivan I.** :But that surely cannot be! > **Pyotr N.** : Empty, stupid words! > There is an infinite movement, > the breathing of the lighter elements, > planetary motion, the earth's rotation, > the crazed alternation of day and night, > the combination of remote nature, > the anger and strength of remote nature, > anger and strength of untamed beasts > and the laws of light and wave. (I emulated the formatting used in the book) What does "the breathing of the lighter elements" mean here (or in general)? Since it is supposed to be an "infinite movement" I cannot relate it to the breathing of a living thing. |
38,858 | 124,658 | 76823_0 | A friend has said that there is a word meaning the outcome is something very different from that originally envisaged. For example: > The Australian government introduced a "First time home owner" bonus. Where > if you were buying your first house you would get a lump sum cash. Of course > everyone selling a house in that price backet put the price up by the same > amount as the lump sum and first time buyers didn't benefit at all. Does anyone know if there is a word meaning this and what it is? |
38,859 | 141,395 | 76823_0 | When beginning a sentence with "well", do you put a comma after it? > * Well, you know I was wrong. > * Well you know I was wrong. > |
38,860 | 85,487 | 76823_0 | "Chinese writer Mo Yan wins Nobel literature prize" (USA Today) "Chinese author Mo Yan wins Nobel Prize for Literature" (BBC) Q. Are we to understand 1. that Mo Yan wrote in Chinese, 2. that he was a Chinese national, 3. necessarily both, or 4. possibly both? Q. How would we rephrase to avoid ambiguity, if so required? |
38,861 | 162,121 | 76823_0 | This is something I've heard in some TV show. I don't remember which one. I just wrote it down when I heard it. Here it is. > **-I'm on protecting the public. > -Are you still on saving your girlfriend?** What I'm especially interested is the meaning of **on** in these sentences. What does it mean or imply? |
38,862 | 154,055 | 76823_0 | I have been told to avoid adverbs at all costs. What is another way of rewriting: This feature is not easily extensible. |
38,863 | 141,026 | 76823_0 | Someone said that it was "agnostic," but as an agnostic I know that's not it. But I was wondering if there was a word for someone who hasn't yet found a religion. Thanks! |
38,864 | 172,749 | 76823_0 | I have two questions concerning family trees: 1. What is the name of the initial person in a family tree? For example, if you want to know the family tree of a certain person, you have that person in the center and then draw lines from that person referring to all of that person's relatives, ancenstors, descendants, partner and siblings. Is it called individual? 2. What is the name of the role a certain person has in a family tree? For example a sister, mother, father, aunt, etc? |
38,865 | 141,022 | 76823_0 | Brevity is a noun, is it not? So, ambiguous, being an adjective, should be able to modify it, correct? That was the first thought I had regarding the subject, but for some reason it just doesn't sound quite right. In the past, that's normally been a good indicator to me that something in my writing isn't quite right. Is there actually something wrong or am I just slightly paranoid? |
38,866 | 175,049 | 76823_0 | Which one is correct? > I'd like to schedule a meeting with you [in/for/no preposition] the next > week. |
38,867 | 141,028 | 76823_0 | I read a paragraph in a book: > Three months passed and then one morning, he found his wallet outside his > front gate. It had been wrapped up in newspaper and contained half the money > he had lost. My question is whether 'had been wrapped up' in the sentence can be replaced with 'was wrapped up'. Please explain in detail; thanks! According to my personal view, Past Perfect Tense focuses more on an action which had been conducted by _someone_ prior to the moment the wallet was found, so it gives the impression that _someone_ had done it intentionally. On the other hand, if we replaced it with Simple Past Tense, the meaning would be totally different. It would focus more on the state of the wallet when it was found, and that is, there was newspaper around the wallet when it was discovered. Am I right? |
38,868 | 138,789 | 76823_0 | I read this newspaper article which quotes someone saying: > I must do the penance that lacerates me. What does this mean? 'Lacerate' means to tear, so I don't see the connection. Did the speaker mean 'liberate'? |
38,869 | 138,781 | 76823_0 | Hello I was concerned about this. Is this a correct proper formal English? There shouldn't be any issue, should it? |
38,870 | 134,201 | 76823_0 | I have this sentence: > I strongly believe that the first step **in** making the most efficient > solution for any problem is analyzing it well. Would it be better to use either of the following? > * I strongly believe that the first step **on** making the most efficient > solution for any problem is analyzing it well. > * I strongly believe that the first step **at** making the most efficient > solution for any problem is analyzing it well. > The context is as follows: > First of all, I concentrate on understanding the big picture of any problem. > I always try to recognize all the factors that have caused the problem. > Then, I start planning the solution at a very high level in order to create > long-term benefits. I strongly believe that the first step in making the > most efficient solution to any problem is analyzing it well. In my opinion, > "What to do" is much more important than "How to do". |
38,871 | 162,129 | 76823_0 | I have read the full article in wikipedia and this question, but I am still unclear about this, as I am not a native speaker. A quick Google search did not help either. My brother recently received a PhD diploma in Chemistry. I would like to give him a desk name plate as a gift with a small insignia and his name and title. Should it be: > Alexander Doe, PhD or > Doe Alexander, PhD or something else? Is it appropriate to use Alex instead of Alexander? In all likelihood, he is going to work in the U.K. |
38,872 | 134,204 | 76823_0 | Is there a term for a wife of a polygamist if she has _only_ one spouse? |
38,873 | 134,205 | 76823_0 | I have seen the word 'arch' used as a verb in the context of a villain causing trouble for a hero, or a hero thwarting a villain. It is also used when a villain is actively trying to become a hero's primary nemesis. I've only seen it in comedic or informal settings, or when talking about a hero/villain relationship. It probably sprang from 'arch-enemy', but I'm trying to find where and when this phrasing was first used. Can this be sourced to a particular work? How long has this usage been around? |
38,874 | 138,787 | 76823_0 | I'd like to understand the derivation of the phrase "oldest X in the book." Was this referring to a particular book, or was it an idiom that developed without a particular object in mind? If it is just an idiom, how old is the idiom, and how did it develop? |
38,875 | 81,363 | 76823_0 | What's the word to convey the meaning "not consciously aware of"? |
38,876 | 125,296 | 76823_0 | I am discussing San Francisco's "Indian Summer" and happen to be surrounded by people from India (the country). As I was speaking I got terribly uncomfortable thinking I was offending someone, (there also is a person of Cherokee heritage behind me). Is there any chance that me calling the weather an "Indian Summer" would offend anyone? |
38,877 | 85,732 | 76823_0 | I am working on a programming interface that has functions to give you the closest descendants (in a tree). But there are two categories of function: one gives you exactly one result and the other multiple results. As a non-native speaker I was hoping for the existence of the word _closests_ , so I would not spend so many characters in the function name. What can I use instead? |
38,878 | 125,292 | 76823_0 | Is it ok to use the word "killer" (as an adjective) in a semi-formal or even formal text like an ebook? For example, "this is the killer part," which essentially means that it is the most significant part. If it isn't ok, can it be used within double-quotes to signify the usage of an informal term? Thank you! |
38,879 | 154,813 | 76823_0 | Is this sentence correct? I recently read it in an article: "How does younger generation spend their money." I want to know whether the usage of "their" in the above is correct |
38,880 | 41,082 | 76823_0 | I came across a phrase in Seinfeld, it wrotes: > (Claire passes the table; George stops her and writes something on his > notepad.) > > GEORGE: Claire, Claire, you’re a woman, right? > > CLAIRE: What gave it away, George? What does "What gave it away" means? |
38,881 | 170,818 | 76823_0 | What word or phrase best describes a sense of loyalty to and/or support of an educational institution from which one graduated? **Used in a sentence:** > Alice received her PhD from Foo State University (FSU). She actively > promotes her alma mater, attends alumni events, and makes large > contributions. She has a strong sense of **__**. |
38,882 | 194,006 | 76823_0 | A person who has............is said to be.............. > * "good manners".........."well-mannered" > * "good behaviour"........"well-behaved" > * "good intentions"........"well-intentioned" > * "a good reputation"....."well-thought-of" > * "a good upbringing"...."well-bred" > * "a good education"......"well-educated" > * "a good proportion"....."well-proportioned" > * "a good taste"..............."well-tasted" > But someone who has "good looks" is said to be "good-looking". Would it be wrong to say "well-looking"? |
38,883 | 41,084 | 76823_0 | I've seen this writing style several times, where the most important part of a sentence - or a twist - is put at the end between parentheses. This is typically used in titles and gives the sentence an ironic or cynical tone. Examples: > The new ways to lose weight (that don't work) > > The car of your dreams exists (but you'll never have it) > > A simple recipe for happiness (that nobody follows) Does this writing style have a name? Which prominent author used it first, if any? |
38,884 | 172,083 | 76823_0 | What is a word called that consists of a repetition of one word? I came across the word polypoly in one of the other question asked on the site, and it got me thinking whether there are other English words that are made up of a word or part of a word repeated in the same way that polypoly is made up of poly + poly. Can you please provide examples also? |
38,885 | 41,088 | 76823_0 | Quoted from here: > green gfx bugs while playing avi file encoded with ultimotion codec > > most likely libavfilter-caused regression Can someone here explain in more detail? |
38,886 | 164,530 | 76823_0 | I can find many instances of this expression, especially in descriptions of characters' lines in written dialog, but I can't find any mention to the expression itself. I understand that deference means polite submission and respect, so I take mock deference to mean that it's mocking someone by speaking with deference; like an employer calling an employee by boss. Not being a native English speaker, I'm looking for a grounded meaning of this expression so I can be confident that I'm using it right. |
38,887 | 84,287 | 76823_0 | Which is correct, "Oh, dear!" or "Oh dear!"? My understanding is that the word _oh_ is an interjection, and should thus be followed by a comma. However, is the second usage the correct one because the two words form a phrase and the word dear is not a vocative here? |
38,888 | 154,814 | 76823_0 | Mary doesn’t play the piano well and nor does Alex. Mary doesn’t play the piano well. Nor does Alex. Are they the same? and which one do you use? ......................................... Now, considering the mentions above, would you please tell me whether these are right or not? Corpus delicti – other Latin legal term using corpus, here meaning the fact of a crime having been committed, not the body of the person being detained nor (as sometimes inaccurately used) to the body of the victim. Corpus delicti – other Latin legal term using corpus, here meaning the fact of a crime having been committed, not the body of the person being detained and nor (as sometimes inaccurately used) to the body of the victim. Corpus delicti – other Latin legal term using corpus, here meaning the fact of a crime having been committed, not the body of the person being detained .nor (as sometimes inaccurately used) to the body of the victim. ........... In addition, could you possibly explain the following and verb's tense? having been committed Thanks in advance |
38,889 | 33,374 | 76823_0 | When I was in San Diego, I asked to a girl "how can I get to the freeway?" She answered me, "Go straight on, you can't **fuck it up**." What does it mean? Is this a usable phrase or it is too vulgar? Is this american slang? |
38,890 | 14,233 | 76823_0 | I am talking about something you should pay. "Invoice" here doesn't mean the proof of payment. Sometimes I am told to pay my "bill", and sometimes they may refer to the similar paper (physical or virtual) as "invoice". The only difference I can think of is that "invoice" seems to be something you pay before you use while "bill" is the opposite. But this distinction is not clear since my university also calls the tuition fee as invoice now (I am already studying when I pay the "invoice"). Could someone tell me the difference? |
38,891 | 18,993 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for a single word to use instead of _can't_ or _won't_. (Single also meaning no hyphenation or conjunctions/contractions. The differences between the words in regard to _being unable to_ vs. _being unwilling to_ can be ignored) **Edit:** Some background into this question, when writing Unit Tests in C# I have found it very easy to misread method names that differ solely based on Can vs Cannot. Since many times a unit test will exist with both the pro and contra side. Contractions aren't acceptable for the fact ' is not an allowed character in a method name. |
38,892 | 14,231 | 76823_0 | I have a statement. And after that statement I have: > This is further acknowledged by the consolidation of the material. But I want to remove the "This". What preposition can I use here: > Further acknowledgement **arrives** from the consolidation of the material. . I'm not sure if "arrives" should is correct or formal enough. This is for a PhD thesis. |
38,893 | 18,999 | 76823_0 | Nouns can modify nouns: _cat food_ , _coffee cup_ , _gold ring_ , _laser surgery_ , _flood insurance_. It seems to me there are even cases where a noun sounds better than the corresponding adjective: _sociology papers_ sounds a bit better than _sociological papers_. Some noun-noun combinations don't work. You wouldn't say _America gangsters_ or _measurement spoons_ or _greed crimes_. If you spilled water on your keyboard you probably wouldn't call it a _keyboard spill_ or even a _water spill_. Are there rules that tell which combinations are acceptable? |
38,894 | 122,117 | 76823_0 | Gabe Rottman , a legislative counsel and policy adviser at the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union contributed an answer to the question, “Is it wrong for credit card companies to process donations to extremist organizations?” in the Room for Debate section of New York Times (August 8) \- http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/08/the-ethics-of- doing-business-with-hate-groups/cutting-off-financing-to-hate-groups-is- unwise-censorship Rottman says; > " Credit card companies are private businesses. They generally have the > right, including possibly the First Amendment right, to refuse to deal with > anyone. While superficially appealing, that answer is wrong. Pulling credit > card services helps the haters and hurts free expression. > > First, there’s the “martyr” problem. Back in 2010, PayPal threatened to cut > off Pamela Geller, the anti-Muslim blogger, for violating its “acceptable > use” policy. Geller immediately **draped herself in the First Amendment** — > and put out a call for donations. PayPal eventually relented, but it’s clear > that the denial of services to a “hate speaker” transformed her modest > soapbox into a wider broadcast." As I was unfamiliar with the expression, 'Geller immediately “draped herself in” the First Amendment,' I consulted Cambridge, Oxford, Merriam-Webster online dictionary, none of which carries “drape oneself in stg” as an idiom. Google Ngram shows incidence of usage, ‘drape oneself’ though at low 0.000000032% level during 1930 to 1950, then tailoring down further to 0.00000001% level at present. What does “Geller draped herself in the First Amendment” mean? Does it mean she armored herself with the First Amendment (or any cause / law / back-up theory), or resorted to the First Amendment? How popular is ‘drape oneself in stg.” as an idiom? |
38,895 | 5,489 | 76823_0 | On our website's homepage we have the following sentence: > We make our software to be as flexible as possible so you can maintain and > visualize the data that is important to YOU. One of my friends insists it should be: > We make our software as flexible as possible so you can maintain and > visualize the data that is important to YOU. Which one of these is grammatically correct and why? Are both wrong? In case anyone's interested, our beta homepage is http://intellectpersonified.com/ |
38,896 | 5,486 | 76823_0 | I read a book and came across "caught you unawares". I kept thinking it's supposed to be "caught you unaware". Is this an acceptable form or was that a typo or something? |
38,897 | 160,161 | 76823_0 | > I have been working here for 5 years. or > I have been working here since last 5 years. Does the word "last" have any effect on period of time, thereby changing the context to the point of using "since" instead of "for" just because of adding last to the sentence? I have much difficulty dealing with the educationists related to English discipline. All this happens because I live in a country where English is used as a second language. |
38,898 | 175,364 | 76823_0 | > Studies on genetic factors of schizophrenia are characterized by high > heterogeneity and non-reproducibility. Is the usage of term 'non-reproducibility' appropriate in the above sentence? Is there any other way to write this? |
38,899 | 36,633 | 76823_0 | I do not often come across the word _catsup_ , but I do see it every once in a while, and I know it means _ketchup_. What I don't know is why they both came to be words for the same thing (though _ketchup_ is much more popular). Dictionary.com says _catsup_ was invented later as an anglicization, but even that raises questions. Why and when did someone try to anglicize _ketchup_ , and why didn't it ketch on? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.