Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
39,600 | 149,408 | 76823_0 | The words _nearly_ and _almost_ seem to be interchangeable to me. I can't think of any instance when one can be used where the other cannot. eg: * I almost fell * I nearly fell Are there any circumstances where this is not possible and if so, what is the reason? |
39,601 | 111,245 | 76823_0 | Could you please tell me why and when people use "on a magazine"? I thought it should be _at_ but it seemed that many people use _on_. Thank you for your reply. |
39,602 | 91,909 | 76823_0 | I'm referring to densities of materials, not the number of particles per unit volume. |
39,603 | 131,772 | 76823_0 | A question popped up on GIS.stackexchange.com ("geographical information systems") asking "Is there a name for a situation when the place is clearly or unclearly named?". The example given there was the fictitious "Red Rock Mall", which would either be an accurate descriptive toponym if the mall was actually located near a red rock, or misleading if it wasn't. There's the term aptronym, "a person's name that is regarded as amusingly appropriate to their occupation", and inaptronym has been suggested as the antonym for that. However, the use of those terms seems to be limited to names of people, not places. I also came across the term semantic fitness, "the degree to which a name is perceived to fit with the object it identifies". The name "Red Rock Mall" would have a high semantic fitness if there were a red rock nearby. It seems that that's not a very wide spread word, though, especially in the context of toponymy. Is there a better word to describe that a descriptive toponym is accurate or that it is misleading? |
39,604 | 143,323 | 76823_0 | I'm writing a piece that relates to food and eating and am looking for adjectives that describe both. I just picked up the word _prandial_ and that piqued my interest. Are there any similar words out there? |
39,605 | 143,322 | 76823_0 | I saw the following sentence: > Something unknown has blocked the progress of the biggest diameter tunnel. 1. Then, can I replace these words as follows: > Seattle has progressed the biggest diameter tunnel. 2. Before I read this material, I thought the word "progress" was used to mean something like "start". But it seems to be wrong, because people can't "start" the "biggest diameter tunnel". Am I right in thinking "progress" can work as "start"? If not, what should it be? |
39,606 | 91,900 | 76823_0 | Growing up in the 80s, I ended up hearing/using this phrase a lot whenever I wanted to express that there was more than one way to do something: "there's more than one way to skin a cat." I have recently been in situations where I need to express the same thing, but am realizing that the phrase is actually quite grotesque. Is there a well- known euphemism to express the same thing - that there is more than one way to get something done? This questions is slightly related, but only asks for the origins: Origin of the phrase, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." |
39,607 | 131,778 | 76823_0 | What is the difference between _retreated into_ and _retreated back into_? > They retreated into Pakistan |
39,608 | 114,505 | 76823_0 | Is there any difference in the meaning between _concision_ and _conciseness_? Is one preferred over the other? My friend claims that _concision_ is more correct. |
39,609 | 107,376 | 76823_0 | Does anyone know the origin of idiom _full of hot air_. Was it created by Kipling in 19th century? I need it for 6th grade assignment. |
39,610 | 67,864 | 76823_0 | Let's say, DirectX 4.0 is never released; Microsoft launches DirectX 5.0 instead. So DirectX 4.0 is like a very special version of DirectX that is never made public for whatever reason. Is there a word for an act like this (preferably a verb), or for an unreleased version of that kind (preferably a past participle)? More generally, you have made a product, version 1.0. But you decide that it should stay unreleased. You make a better version 1.5 and release that one. Is there an apt word that describes (what happened to) version 1.0? |
39,611 | 108,427 | 76823_0 | I am changing a piece of text which current reads: > Payment not deducted to also include the situation where payments are withheld. The suggested revision of text given to me is > Payment not deducted or withheld Is this semantically correct? To me it reads: > Payment not deducted and payment not withheld when what it should really read as is: > Payment not deducted or payment withheld The ambiguity can be removed by rephrasing as: > Payment withheld or not deducted but I’m curious to know the rules regarding the word _not_ preceeding an _or_. |
39,612 | 107,378 | 76823_0 | I’m looking for a word that could be used to describe someone that does whatever he wants and doesn't listen to anyone else. Someone like Julius Caesar maybe? |
39,613 | 107,379 | 76823_0 | I know there's been an earlier question What is the meaning and usage of the word “beknownst”?. But nothing there satisfies my curiosity about that extra **-st** at the end. I might have supposed the "extended" version to be dated / formal / literary, but I just heard it on the UK Channel 4 news. C4 newsreaders are normally far more relaxed about diction than those on other major channels (with glottal stops and dropped aitches aplenty). So, what's the situation as regards actual usage? Is there a UK/US difference? And how does that extra **-st** come about in the first place? It doesn't seem connected to the archaic the second-person singular (as in Macbeth's _"Thou com’st to use thy tongue; thy story quickly."_ ). |
39,614 | 67,860 | 76823_0 | My question stems from a conversation on _sympathy_ and _pity_. My girlfriend and I agreed that sympathy is feeling for someone, but without taking action or desiring to take action. _Pity_ , then, overlaps with _sympathy_ except there's a desire to take action to help the person in need. But _pity_ , can also be more cynical, and it can demean, intentionally or otherwise, the person receiving pity. So, this is where I'm curious, **is there a word that means specifically _disdainful or demeaning pity_?** |
39,615 | 67,861 | 76823_0 | I know that an adjective can come after some verbs, such as: be, become, feel, get, look, seem, smell, sound. These verbs are "stative" verbs, which express a state or change of state. For example: > Dinner smells good tonight But I also find this kind of sentence. > Seventeen years of war left the country bankrupt > > The company was later declared insolvent In those sentences, an adjective can follows other dynamic verbs (leave, declare) as well. Is it right for those sentences? Or who knows what is another grammar point being used in those examples? Thanks. |
39,616 | 67,862 | 76823_0 | I would like to know the difference between _past perfect continuous_ and _past continuous_ in these examples: 1. We were playing tennis when it started raining. 2. We had been playing tennis when it started raining. |
39,617 | 180,078 | 76823_0 | The Persian word **مست** (romanized as 'mast') is a staple of mystic poetry. Literally, it means drunk or inebriated. More accurately, it is used to mean a state of spiritual euphoria. It has very positive and active connotations. Despite the Islamic prohibition of alcohol, it is considered a great compliment. How can it be translated into English? |
39,618 | 180,079 | 76823_0 | I've seen someone respond with "They're welcome" to "X says thanks" where X is another person and/or group of persons. The reply seemed okay to me, but its correctness has been immediately contested by a few others. The fact that I cannot find instances of it being used anywhere on the web got me to doubt my initial belief, and now I'm starting to think it's some sort of rookie mistake that nobody (else) does. There are no real arguments given by the people contesting its correctness, but I don't have any to support its correctness either. My guess is the confusion started because "You're welcome" is always translated as "Cu placere" in Romanian, which literally means "With pleasure" rather than "You're welcome (to...)". Even so, the expression still seems appropriate. |
39,619 | 145,864 | 76823_0 | Is this sentence correct? > The test would be kind of homework activity like last time. |
39,620 | 51,942 | 76823_0 | I am stumped in trying to remember the British expression used as a derogatory slant on being relegated, demoted, assigned to a lower position, reduced in rank, or (quite literally) being reassigned to the unsophisticated and remote regions or villages. I get stuck with "sent off to the 'colonies'," but I know _colonies_ is not the term involved. |
39,621 | 180,737 | 76823_0 | Can "presently" and "currently" be used interchangeably? For example which is better: I am presently teaching Grade 12 or I am currently teaching Grade 12 ? |
39,622 | 145,861 | 76823_0 | **Two sisters went away to college for four years.** In restating the above, which of the following sentences is correct? 1. Both sisters went away to college. 2. Each of the sisters went away to college. I've been told "both" implies that the girls went to the same school (they didn't). I maintain that "each" should be used with _more than two_. |
39,623 | 145,862 | 76823_0 | I am looking to name a Canadian corporation that is the holding corporation for a group of companies, a conglomerate. I am wondering whether to include the word "the" in the company name. For example, would you use: The Smith Group Inc. or Smith Group Inc. |
39,624 | 28,482 | 76823_0 | Is the English adjective "whole" genealogically related in any way to the adjective "holos", which means "whole" in Koine (and possibly other varieties of Greek; I'm not sure), and has a similar pronunciation? If so, how are they related? |
39,625 | 188,688 | 76823_0 | Consider the following use case: * Please check the username and password are correct. * Please check _that_ the username and password are correct. In this case, I would say that _that_ is required because it feels more natural to me and so the flow is better. However, is the lack of _that_ wrong in this case? The question boils down to: when is _that_ optional? See here. A quick summary: * _That_ is optional if the pronoun is the object. * _That_ is required if the pronoun is the subject. I think that we fall into the second case: _that_ is required because the relative pronoun is the subject. But I'm not sure if I'm interpreting these rules correctly. Can someone please advise? |
39,626 | 1,521 | 76823_0 | I said, "Hopefully, I will get better" to a friend and he said that I was using it incorrectly, stating that _hopefully_ is an adverb meaning "full of hope" that modifies a verb. It sounds right, but I'm pretty sure that this usage of _hopefully_ has become prevalent enough to be accepted for this use case. Am I right, is he right, or are we both right? |
39,627 | 23,174 | 76823_0 | What is the difference between "Bobsled" and "Bobsleigh"? Can they be used interchangeably? Which one is used more widely? |
39,628 | 1,523 | 76823_0 | Is there any connection between _bourbon_ , the name of the American whiskey, and _Bourbon_ , the French monarchy, or is it just a coincidence? |
39,629 | 110,685 | 76823_0 | I came across someone noting that an English term for the training area of Sumo wrestlers is "sumo stable", and that "stable" is usually a word used for horses. She found it a bit funny. I'm not sure whether she meant "funny" as in "haha", or "funny" as in "strange". Wiktionary doesn't have any definitions of stable other than a place for animals, or the horses from a stable. Do English-speakers view sumo wrestlers as being like animals, or is there a meaning of "stable" that I'm unaware of? |
39,630 | 188,687 | 76823_0 | Example: > The barbecue tasted incredible, with that unique aroma that only [...] gives > to the meat. I thought of using the word _campfire_ but in the sentence the barbecue isn't taking place in a camp; it’s just some grilling on the beach. I also thought of _open air fire_. But I wonder if there’s a shorter phrase or a single word for it? |
39,631 | 104,076 | 76823_0 | I have a set of three images, which I have put on top of each other in an image editing program and made transparent. I would like the filename to describe what I have done with the component images. Which is the correct phrase to use for the filename in this situation: "Overlain Images" or "Overlaid Images"? |
39,632 | 22,225 | 76823_0 | I am trying to develop a Tetris clone. However, I am unsure what to name the panel where the user places the pieces. _Game panel_ seems too generic since the entire frame is in fact the panel of the game. Are there any other options? |
39,633 | 61,424 | 76823_0 | I am refereeing an academic paper where the authors constantly use the construct "it is shown that (blah)" immediately followed by a demonstration of (blah). I don't recall seeing this construct used in this way; the demonstration is usually anywhere other than immediately after (another paper, another book, a previous paragraph, whatnot). Is this usage correct? If not, why? * * * I can't quote the paper, but here is a more concrete made-up example of their construct: > First, it is shown that there is at most one foo in this list. Consider any > bar from the first sequence, they all fall into one of the three cases > above. Since these three cases lead to the same foo, there is at most one > foo in this list. > > Next, it is shown that there is at least one foo in this list. Note that odd > bars are guaranteed to lead to a foo. Since there is an odd bar in the first > sequence, there must be a foo in this list. |
39,634 | 77,506 | 76823_0 | The King James Bible has numerous instances of _from thence/hence_ , including the famous line of Psalm 121: > _I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my help_. Do _thence/whence_ linger only as rhetorical variants for _there/where_ in reference to place? Or are these words only old-fashioned? |
39,635 | 73,686 | 76823_0 | Grammatically, "It is fun to write English letters." is correct. But is the following also grammatically correct? > It is fun writing English letters. |
39,636 | 151,262 | 76823_0 | In the absence of a clear context regarding how known or unknown is the number of books available for me to read, should I use _what book to read_ or _which book to read_? > I don't know _what_ book to read (= I don't know how many books there are > for me to choose from.) > > I don't know _which_ book to read (= I know how many books there are for me > to choose from, and choose one from that specified number.) Are these assumptions correct or not? If not, why? |
39,637 | 151,269 | 76823_0 | In an app I am writing the user can book/reserve tickets for riding a bus. Which of the following terms does fit this process best? 'Reserve Tickets' or 'Book Tickets' Also, in some cases the user would need to make a change/transfer, but can buy tickets for both buses together/at the same time. How would one best describe this process? |
39,638 | 24,686 | 76823_0 | Hopefully this is a simple question, although possibly too simple for this site - if so I apologise! Which, if any, are acceptable phrases: > ...stand for election **on** a place on the group > > ...stand for election **to** a place on the group > > ...stand for election **for** a place on the group I'm immediately drawn to the final option, but the use of 'for election for' bugs me somewhat - I don't know why. |
39,639 | 28,159 | 76823_0 | If you do a search for _chandler_ , most of the results are for suppliers to boats. Dictionaries suggest that one of the meanings of the word is a dealer or trader for a specialized market. Both dictionaries there mention a _ship's chandler_ as one example, without saying that it's the predominant example (the other example given is _corn chandler_ ). Both of these dictionaries, and the Online Etymology Dictionary also define a chandler as one who makes or deals in candles. The etymology dictionary gives only this definition. My guess is that _chandler_ broadened from _a dealer in candles_ to _a dealer in any specialised trade_ and then narrowed to _a supplier for boats_. Is that right? Just to confuse matters further, Wikipedia does not mention the _any specialised trade_ definiton, suggesting the word moved directly from describing a candle-maker to describing a ship's supplier. |
39,640 | 28,155 | 76823_0 | How should I pronounce the following things? (These are complexities of algorithms.) > * O(n) > * O(n*log(n)) > * O(n^2) > |
39,641 | 38,909 | 76823_0 | The words _to_ and _too_ have rather different meanings but from what little information I can gather (from their Dictionary.com references) they seem to potentially be from the same old-English root. If these two words are related in origin, how and why was the original word divided into two different spellings? |
39,642 | 38,907 | 76823_0 | It makes sense to say "library of books". Is it legitimate to use the word "library" in other contexts. For example, could one have a "library of hedgehogs" or a "library of apples"? |
39,643 | 38,903 | 76823_0 | This is my first question at _English Language & Usage_ and I'm glad! My English is not so good and sometimes I feel myself very helpless when facing phrases like > How do I get featured? What does it mean? I've heard this phrase in Google I/O 2011 presentation and I can't figure it out. |
39,644 | 114,037 | 76823_0 | Here is an example from an old book. I know it’s old but it can’t be simply discarded, I hope. > "I never dare have spoken — never dare have told you that my love for you > was killing me" So, I wonder if the following three all mean the same thing? 1. I never dare have told you. 2. I never dared to have told you. 3. I didn't ever dare to have told you. I would like to know how popular in terms of the usage frequency the combination of _dare_ and a perfect infinitive is. |
39,645 | 114,036 | 76823_0 | Is there a difference between " ** _pace_** " and " ** _speed_** "? I have a feeling that with "speed" we usually specify the actual value, while with "pace" we talk more relatively. Am I right? |
39,646 | 35,508 | 76823_0 | What is the difference between _partly_ and _partially_? An example of usage for each word would be great. |
39,647 | 35,509 | 76823_0 | I am trying to learn JavaScript, but my English is not that good. While reading _Simply JavaScript_ by Kevin Yank & Cameron Adams, I came across this paragraph, and I want to know what one sentence in it means: > Thanks to the wide adoption of the Document Object Model (DOM) standard, > accessing HTML elements in your JavaScript code works very similarly in > every browser. **If only the same could be said for every aspect of > JavaScript!** As it happens, running JavaScript code in response to an event > stands out as one of the few remaining features that are implemented in > wildly varying ways in current browsers. What does "If only the same could be said for every aspect of JavaScript!" mean? |
39,648 | 35,507 | 76823_0 | I've been wondering, what is the difference between _seek_ and _search_? When should one be preferred over the other? |
39,649 | 114,038 | 76823_0 | I'm working on some project that deals with natural disasters. I need to find the most proper word that can be used to refer to someone who either was injured or died in a disaster. Can I use _casualty_? Or maybe _involved_ is better? |
39,650 | 101,233 | 76823_0 | I was creating a domain for a website, but I couldn't understand the difference (if there is any) between the words _coded_ and _encoded_. What's the right use of them? Or are they just synonyms I can use interchangeably without worrying about context or register? |
39,651 | 93,503 | 76823_0 | Let's say I am having a telephone conference with rest of the team, and somebody asks me "Dude, are you there?" How should I reply? > Yes, dude, I am there. or > Yes, I am here? It is difficult for me to see the difference. |
39,652 | 93,504 | 76823_0 | In the sentence: > My car **as well as** my lap top were stolen last night. What part of speech are the words in the phrase _as well as_? I believe the first _as_ is the preposition of the phrase, that _well_ is an adverb, and that the last _as_ is again a preposition. But I am not sure. Or do the three words function together as a syntactic element? If so, what would that be called? |
39,653 | 93,507 | 76823_0 | I am wondering whether the word _genocide_ can also be used for the killing of a group of people based on their religion, for example: 'the Sikh genocide'. I have never seen it used that way, I have seen 'Armenian Genocide', 'Kurdish genocide', so on and so forth. |
39,654 | 93,508 | 76823_0 | It seems to me that both the forms are used but I don't know if they have the same meaning or not. |
39,655 | 167,071 | 76823_0 | when writing out invitation cards would it be "Alans' first birthday" or "Alan's first birthday"? |
39,656 | 181,308 | 76823_0 | I was googling the reason for why it's called " _shotgun_ " to ride beside the driver when it suddenly hit me - why on Earth is the firearm called " _shotgun_ "?! Is there any other kind of a **gun** than one used for **shooting**?! Why is it called " _shotgun_ " instead of just a " _gun_ " or a more technical term (9-gauge, barrel gun etc.)? |
39,657 | 27,080 | 76823_0 | I am writing an essay on Political Correctness currently, and striving to find a word fitting this description. I want to say that something **wasn't nice,** but it **wasn't breaking the law**. It wasn't legally wrong. But, in the sight of people around me, it was illegal, disallowed, inappropriate, taboo. But after then, I proceeded to say something else that was actually "legally illegal". What is a term that would replace the words in the quotation marks? Here is an example: It's recess, and there's joking everywhere. Then someone cracks a joke at someone else. Everyone laughs. The person whom the joke is against laughs as well, then shouts,"You Jew!" What he said was actually prosecutable. It was "legally illegal" I need a term/adjective fitting this description |
39,658 | 51,733 | 76823_0 | This question came to my mind, while working with StackOverflow. Whenever a solution to a question is posted, I usually see people writing: _"It's working for me"._ I somehow do not like this expression. It also forces me to think, whether it is a grammatically correct expression? I personally would write: _"It's working in my case"._ |
39,659 | 27,088 | 76823_0 | Recently I came to hear the term "Charlie Brown management" in a news article. I tried searching the net on this term, but didn't get anything useful. Please help me to decipher this idiom. |
39,660 | 56,709 | 76823_0 | Can someone tell what does this time format "10 to 10" mean? Is it 9:50 or 10:10? |
39,661 | 56,701 | 76823_0 | What is the difference between "Hope you don't mind" and "Hope you won't mind"? What could be a contextual difference between the two? In a situation like the following, which one seems more approproitae? > * Expect me to knock on your door sometimes. "Hope you don't mind(my > knocking on your door)" Or "Hope you won't mind" > |
39,662 | 56,702 | 76823_0 | What is the meaning of _sniped in_? Can I use it in the following sentence to replace _bought_? > John has **bought/sniped in** a new BMW. |
39,663 | 56,704 | 76823_0 | What is the opposite of **_free_** as in "free of charge" (when we speak about prices)? We can add _not_ for negation, but I am looking for a single word. |
39,664 | 175,730 | 76823_0 | Can I use _on this occasion_ to start a sentence? For example: > I worked for three years as administrator of XXXX. **On this occasion** I > managed. . . . |
39,665 | 25,798 | 76823_0 | When watching medical television shows, I often hear the doctors (actors) using the term _"stat"_ , which I understand to mean _"do [action] quickly/immediately"_. Where did this term originate, and where is it derived from? |
39,666 | 17,029 | 76823_0 | Does "he has some issues to work out" have some special meaning? Is it an idiom? How is its meaning different from "he has some problems to solve"? |
39,667 | 143,606 | 76823_0 | Saw this thread.  In the thread, **poor** is implied in a sense that it is more severe than **bad**. I myself would choose to replace **poor** with **terrible**. But I don't see anything implying that in dictionaries. Is that always the case— **poor** is worse than **bad** —if the two words are used under the same context? |
39,668 | 186,823 | 76823_0 | I read a book in which a character wrote a poem. She told herself > I should fix the first part, but that's the idea. What does this mean, "but that's the idea"? Does it mean 1. she should fix the first one, but she is doing well over all. 2. she should fix the first one, and this idea (to fix the first part) is good. |
39,669 | 25,790 | 76823_0 | I've been reading Scott's _Ivanhoe_ , and in it Cedric has been complaining of the general lawlessness of England at the time, when an alarm sounds... > "To the gate, knaves!" said the Saxon, hastily, as soon as the tumult was so > much appeased that the dependents could hear his voice. "See what tidings > that horn tells us of - to announce, I ween, some hership and robbery which > has been done upon my lands." I wonder if anyone could explain what _hership_ means? I have tried to search for it but my attempts are corrected to _hardship_ or _heirship_. |
39,670 | 155,964 | 76823_0 | Isn't it about time you left the hospital? vs Isn't it about time you leave the hospital? or Isn't it about time you forgave yourself? vs Isn't it about time you forgive yourself? |
39,671 | 140,740 | 76823_0 | I've never heard someone say it. I'm more interested specifically in British English, but also in general. |
39,672 | 128,528 | 76823_0 | _" **guerrilla** : a member of a usually small group of soldiers who do not belong to a regular army and who fight in a war as an independent unit"_ (M-W)  Surely there are specific historical reasons behind the peaks #1, #2 and #3, and it is not difficult to see that the peaks #2 and #3 are connected respectively to the WW2 and to the Vietnam War. I don't know what is due peak #1, neither I want to know that. Instead I would like to know the reason why, contrary to what happened during WW2 and VW, during 1860 to 1870 the plural _guerrillas_ was more common that the _singular_. |
39,673 | 140,747 | 76823_0 | Are these sentences grammatically correct? (I feel as though "it" should refer to something in the first one.) 1. It is certain that the weather will change. 2. The weather is certain to change. Thank you. |
39,674 | 85,217 | 76823_0 | I'd like to know the correct word for converting PowerPoint presentation slides into a PowerPoint slideshow which consists of images of the original slides (so that the contents does not shift when presenting on a different computer). Please help me to find the word describing such a transformation. |
39,675 | 128,526 | 76823_0 | For example can I say something like: "We were at the restaurant. Then Bill came with the birthday cake. Applause filled the room." If not, what's a better word to use? |
39,676 | 140,749 | 76823_0 | I have heard it used in a negative sense. For example, "rudeness does not become you" etc. Is this phrase used in a positive context as well? (like "generosity becomes you")? |
39,677 | 85,213 | 76823_0 | > If you tripped every time someone mentions your name, you would have been > dead by now. My question is about the subordinate clause of the above sentence, "If you tripped everytime someone mentions your name...". Is the mixture of the subjunctive _tripped_ and the indicative _mentions_ correct? |
39,678 | 60,742 | 76823_0 | Why is it called an **adam's apple**?  |
39,679 | 75,901 | 76823_0 | > The key relationship in the C team model is the centrality of the link > between political sovereignty and fiscal authority on the one hand and money > creation, the mint and the central bank on the other. A key fact in the > proposed Euro system is that the link is to be weakened to a degree rarely, > if ever, known before. … There is to be an unprecedented divorce between the > main monetary and fiscal authorities **… the C team analysts worry whether > the divorce may not have some unforeseen side effects.** I came across this sentence in _The Economist_ but couldn't make out the actual meaning of it. Can anyone explain? What can we tell about "C team analysts"? Also about the usage of "whether...may not." |
39,680 | 75,903 | 76823_0 | Is it correct to say something like this? > I used to use the knife to open things like cans. |
39,681 | 27,334 | 76823_0 | I'm curious about newscasters using the term "shot dead" in describing the death of a gun shot victim. Is this correct? They would never describe a survivor as "shot live". |
39,682 | 75,908 | 76823_0 | Is "ought to" still used in modern English? If yes, in what contexts is it used, and is it used more in formal or informal cases? |
39,683 | 180,075 | 76823_0 | I was reading this article when I came across the following quote: > "it’s a savvy and interesting thing to not **perform** the legitimacy of The > Professor. Because this is the double thing: you’ve got people saying, > 'You’ve made a bad choice, but we have to keep sacred this term professor so > you have to **perform** this cultural capital.'" Twice in succession she's using "perform" in a phrasing that sounds unusual and stilted to me. Is this an example of "perform" being used as jargon in a particular technical sense that's unfamiliar to me? Or is it just one person's slightly unconventional turn of phrase? |
39,684 | 146,744 | 76823_0 | If someone writes in a manner such as "U hve to run daily ... only then U will lose weight" and you correct it to "You have to run daily, only then you will lose weight." I suppose you can't say you have corrected grammar. What can you say you have corrected? Punctuation? |
39,685 | 25,243 | 76823_0 | Take a look at this meaning: > By the way, I marked position 2854 (in the code. It's the slash). Is is correct to start a new sentence within a parenthesis like this? Or another, worse, example: > By the way, I marked (a lot of things of which you are unaware. Please try > not to eat) the semicolon. If it's not possible to do this, is there than any other solution (except rephrasing!). |
39,686 | 185,557 | 76823_0 | This question arose from why sentence #1 is correct and why sentence #2 is incorrect - > I pity those who lost their money in gambling. > > I pity them who lost their money in gambling. I have asked the question in ELL forum, as well as in Linguistics forum. But the answers their made me more confused. **RULE 1** > Jlawler's comment contains the direct answer to the question. Definite > personal pronouns (I/me, you, he/him, she/her, it, we/us, they/them) cannot > take a restrictive modifier. In other words, they cannot take a dependent > that narrows the set of entities that they denote. This trait of personal > pronouns underlies their use as test words for constituent structure. For > example: > > > (a) The man with the hat knows the woman with the scarf. > > (b) He knows her. > > (c) *He with the hat knows her with the scarf. > > > Sentence (a) is the starting sentence. Sentence (b) shows proform > substitution; the personal pronouns _he_ and _her_ have been substituted in > for the noun phrases _the man with the hat_ and _the woman with the scarf_. > Based on the acceptability of sentence (b), one concludes that both _the man > with the hat_ and _the woman with the scarf_ are constituents. Definite > pronouns such as _he_ and _her_ (and _them_ ) take the place of > constituents, in this case of complete noun phrases. > > The unacceptability of sentence (c) reveals that the strings _the man_ and > _the woman_ in (a) are not constituents. In other words, the definite > personal pronouns _he_ and _her_ cannot take dependents (=modifiers), since > they necessarily replace an entire noun phrase. This fact explains why _them > who lost their money_ in the question is bad English. The relative clause > _who lost money_ is a postdependent (=postmodifier), and as such it cannot > modify _them_ (because _them_ as a definite personal pronoun cannot be > modified). > > The plural demonstrative pronouns ( _these_ and _those_ ) behave > differently. They can take postdepndents (=postmodifiers, i.e. a modifier > that follows them), e.g > > > (d) These with hats know those with scarves. > > > This is simply a trait of the plural demonstrative pronouns ( _these_ and > _those_ ) -- there is no good explanation why plural demonstrative pronouns > behave differently than definite personal pronouns; they simply do. Note > that the plural demonstrative pronouns also behave differently than the > singular demonstrative pronouns in this regard, e.g. > > > (e) *This with a hat knows that with a scarf. > > > Singular demonstrative pronouns ( _this_ and _that_ ) are behaving like the > definite personal pronouns; they cannot take dependents. > > The combination **plural demonstrative pronoun + restrictive relative > clause** can actually be viewed as a particular construction in English and > related languages. That is, it is a combination that occurs relatively > frequently and has therefore been lexicalized. German has a very similar > construction, e.g. > > > (f) Diejenigen mit einem Hut kennen diejenigen mit einem Schal. > those with a hat know those with a scarf. > > > By acknowledging that one has a particular construction, one is in a sense > admitting that there is no real grammatical "explanation" for the > phenomenon. It simply exists. > > Finally, note that there are certain apparent exceptions to the principles > mentioned above. There are uses of personal pronouns that actually allow > modification, e.g. > > > (g) He who studies a lot gets a good grade. > > > In this example, the personal pronoun _he_ is not referring directly to a > specific entity, which means it is not definite; it is, rather, being used > as an indefinite pronoun; it means 'the one, anyone', e.g. _Anyone who > studies a lot gets a good grade_. **MY CONFUSION** Reading this answer make the following sentence consider wrong - > It is she who stood second in class. So another person came up with another rule - **RULE 2** > Nominative personal pronouns can be modified by relative clauseas just like > demonstrative pronouns; it's the objective personal pronouns that can't. _He > who, she who, they who, you who_ are all grammatical, if archaic. _Him who, > her who, them who_ , however, aren't. **MY CONFUSION** Now this rule create a conflict with the rule 1 I quoted first. In the first rule it says - **_He with the hat knows her with the scarf_** \- sentence is wrong, but if we consider the second rule then this particular sentence should be correct. Another problem with the second rule is that it makes the following sentence incorrect - > The action was performed by her who is the secretary of XYZ company. So another rule came in picture - **RULE 3** > "Them," combined with the "who," has to be used with a preposition like > "to," "from," or "with." > > "I pity them," by itself, is a grammatically correct sentence, but when you > connect the dependent clause with "who," it is no longer correct. Now I am really confused. Can anyone here please help? |
39,687 | 74,369 | 76823_0 | I usually see this phrase used interchangeably with the prepositions _in_ and _on_. I know that their meaning isn’t the same, but I can’t think of situations where we should use one instead of another. Can anyone shed some light on any differences between these two: > 1. In the menu. > 2. On the menu. > Just to clarify, I’m talking about menus of computer programs. |
39,688 | 25,245 | 76823_0 | I always thought that _intense_ has a positive meaning, meaning something that has no tensions, therefore _an intense activity_ is actually a fun activity. So, what does _intense_ exactly mean? A few days ago I was having a sub for breakfast and my colleague said to me "that's intense". I'm really confused now, what did she mean? And if _intense_ has a negative meaning, then is _tense_ positive? _Tense_ is not an adjective, is it? |
39,689 | 139,352 | 76823_0 | Is there any English single word that can be used to indicate a poem with invented words, like Jabberwocky? I am looking for a single word rather than a two-word expression like "nonsense poem", "nonsense verse". Also, it doesn't have to indicate necessarily a Limerick. (Of course, should this word _not_ exist, please feel free to invent one …) EDIT: I have found that in Italian this is called "metasemantic poetry" which is not a single word but it sounds ok to me. However, apparently this expression is not used in English. |
39,690 | 139,355 | 76823_0 | When holy cows are used in the phrases? Any sample phrases with holy cow. Also, the meaning of those phrases. |
39,691 | 139,354 | 76823_0 | I am writing a column for publication in a widely circulated newspaper, and would like to use a phrase meaning something like "call bullshit". I can't think of one that captures the meaning so succinctly. I certainly don't want to use the original phrase (not my style, and it's partly aimed at school students of varying ages). To aid in finding options, the intended excerpt is something like: > If you claim to have compiled such a list then I know I can always call > bullshit by finding an item you missed. NB: the deception was not intentional on the part of the list compiler — they _missed_ an item, not omitted it. |
39,692 | 139,357 | 76823_0 | What are the meanings of "about all..." and "hold on to the hand of" in the sentence "There are many times in life when about all we can do is to hold on to the hand of the Divine Guide until we have run through the storm zone." ? Thanks. |
39,693 | 139,359 | 76823_0 | I am writing a paper about a geometric algorithm where one of the main operations is dividing a rectangles to two smaller rectangles. It is important that there are two pieces, and that the pieces don't have to be equal. I am looking for a single verb that I can use in this context. There are many English words that are specific to the number 2, for example "couple" (a group of 2), "half" (one of 2 equal parts), "both", etc. So, I thought there may be a word specific for dividing to two parts I thought of _bisecting_ , but according to Meriam-Webster it means "two equal parts". _Bipartite_ seems like a good candidate, but according to Meriam-Webster it is an adjective, and I need a verb. I asked in ell and got many answers ( _splitting_ , _cleaving_ , _dividing_ , _separating_ , _breaking_ ), but none of these imply that there are exactly 2 pieces. EDIT: In the future I may change the algorithm to cut into 3 parts, so, it could be good to have a verb that can be naturally modified to indicate 3 parts. |
39,694 | 166,778 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for a word for sentient beings that are smarter than ordinary human beings. This word should at least include the following: * Geniuses with artificially enhanced intelligence * Alien lifeforms that are smarter than normal human beings * A.I.s that are smarter than normal human beings The words "overmind" and "posthuman" have come to my mind, but "overmind" seems to be generally understood as "being controlling other beings", while "posthuman" doesn't include super-smart aliens. **Edit:** Fixed misleading wording. |
39,695 | 70,627 | 76823_0 | Can the word ' _represent_ ' be used to mean 'present again'? Is the usage in the following sentence correct? "You cannot _represent_ a bounced cheque.' |
39,696 | 70,624 | 76823_0 | I read this phrase in Alan Bennett’s Diary years ago and found it so unusual I’ve never forgotten it. Italics mine: > 8 December. Trying to find someone a Meccano set for Christmas, I’m reminded > of a couple, friends of Russell H., who had a son of twelve or so who they > were worried might be growing up gay. However, they were greatly heartened > when the boy said that what he wanted for Christmas was a Meccano set. > Delighted by what they saw as an _access of butchness_ , they bought him the > biggest set they could find … The Free Dictionary provides this fifth and final definition for the noun access: 5\. An outburst or onset: an access of rage. And Dictionary.com this: 5\. an attack or onset, as of a disease. My Shorter OED lists ten definitions of access, of which: 1\. A (sudden) coming on of illness b. _spec_ an Ague fit (LME-L19) and 10\. An outburst of anger or other emotion. In four decades of extensive reading in English, I have never come across “access of” until this reading. Given the definitions, whether outburst or onset, I think Bennett’s use of it in context is brilliant. I’m curious to find other examples of this usage. Is it archaic? Precious? Fully contemporary? Is it more British, more American? Doing an internet search for “access of” does not lead to obvious examples. Typically you’ll find “access of (subject) to (object).” This has me thinking it must be used more in literary contexts. And if so, does anyone have any contemporary examples of its use? |
39,697 | 70,621 | 76823_0 | I am writing an email, in which I would like to ask for something but I don't want to be very direct. I came up with the following two constructions: > In addition, I will not be receiving my stipend while working. So _please_ > consider my remuneration package carefully. > > In addition, I will not be receiving my stipend while working. _So I would > like you to_ consider my remuneration package carefully. Any additional improvements are welcome. |
39,698 | 53,381 | 76823_0 | _Head_ or _tail_ sound fine to my ESL ears. What's the reasoning behind the plural usage? I looked it up on etymonline but didn't find anything interesting. |
39,699 | 145,629 | 76823_0 | I am writing my first official email in English which happens to be my second language. I am unsure about the correctness of the following sentence. Please help. **The detected error is false positive, and I have verified this against the source. I believe you have updated your system to check against improper pricing, but the same was never conveyed to us.** explain--> The situation is that we send our stock related information to another site for selling. the format of data that we send was agreed between us. Now suddenly they had changed the system without telling us hence the error came. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.