Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
39,800 | 12,194 | 76823_0 | I appreciate that the correct name for a group of bees is 'swarm', which is accurate whether the bees are clustered together or not. With that in mind, how correct is it to refer to the same group of bees as a bunch, as opposed to a swarm? |
39,801 | 12,195 | 76823_0 | I've been trying to formulate a question for quite some time, and I haven't been able to come up with a better way to describe it. I hope it's not too confusing. There are a number of ways to use markup languages to convey information like emphasis in text files. Stack exchange uses 'Markdown' for example. In this case, adding `*` (in Markdown) or `<emph>` (in HTML) is simply called 'markup' I suppose, but is there a name for this? That is, making something stand out in the text, be it logically like "emphasis" or explicitly like "bold" or "underline", etc. The only thing that comes to mind is to emphasize, but (to me at least) that implies stressing the word, not what you're doing with the text to achieve that result. This has been bugging me for quite a while, I hope someone can help me out here. |
39,802 | 81,273 | 76823_0 | I know that in general people say > How are you? I find out that people used "are" for showing politeness and respect to the person. But one of my friend always say > How is you? so, can I ask "How is you?" for not showing respect and politeness to the person. Sounds bad, though it is singular question. Should it be "is" or "are"? |
39,803 | 159,053 | 76823_0 | This is a bullet point in a presentation: > Coronary angiography **is a poor predictor of** the hemodynamic relevance of > stenosis "is a poor predictor of" feels very round-about, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it. Is there one? The phrase is meant in the sense of "is not a good method to decide". |
39,804 | 81,279 | 76823_0 | Consider the following usages of relative pronouns: 1. The lecturer introduces a study _in which_ participants were asked to choose one attractive picture. 2. At the university I met famous professors, _many of whom_ were fluent English speakers. One of my grammar textbooks says that these usages are bookish. The question is whether I sound strange if I use relative pronouns in these ways in speech (I have TOEFL speaking section in mind). This may not be a relative pronoun technically, but people sometimes write _I have no pen with which to write letters_ instead of _I have no pen to write letters with_. Is the former expression too formal to be used in speech? |
39,805 | 43,427 | 76823_0 | Can someone give me an account of the word _wherewithal_? According to etymonline it is a combination of _where_ and _withal_. But _withal_ means "in addition." So how does _wherewithal_ come to mean "having the means?" Additionally, what is the name of the phenomenon of two words joining into one - _where_ \+ _withal_? |
39,806 | 49,648 | 76823_0 | I know a trivial difference of "that" and "this" uses. Such as the difference between "this chair" and "that chair". But I don't understand one case. When one person is coming into a room and another has been doing something. And the first one asks him "Why are you doing that?". I heard about the same questions with "that" in many analogous situations in different movies. And the main question is why "that", not "this". I think that "this" more fits here, because a situation is in front of an asking person. |
39,807 | 191,896 | 76823_0 | What is the word to describe this? I was reading up about the differences between jealousy and envy and this doesn't seem to fit either, when you don't actually want what the other person has, nor do you have it, but you're just kind of bitter and angry because you don't think they deserve anything at all. For example: Your crappy neighbor wins a new car. You have a much better car, or don't even need a car at all, but you're still mad about it since he doesn't deserve to win anything at all. Or, you break up with a real jerk, are more than happy to be rid of him and find a new wonderful partner, and then later see him out with a really attractive person. It's not like you want the guy back, or you want the person he's with, or that you're even wanting a relationship, but you just are angry that this jerk is getting anything at all. A friend suggested "begrudge", but it still sounds like you actually want what the other person has. Is there a simple word to express resentment/biterness over another person's good fortune without investment in actually wanting what they obtained? |
39,808 | 49,640 | 76823_0 | What does this sentence mean? > The private sector is seeking to **run down** its **debts**. A similar construction is the following one: > The Janets must be prepared to **dissave** , to **run down** their > **assets**. Is "to run down your assets" the same as "to dissave"? Do these expressions more broadly mean "to spend", or is there any subtle difference between them? For reference, the above quotes were taken from http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/death-by-accounting-identity/ and http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/death-by-hawkery/. |
39,809 | 21,791 | 76823_0 | What is the difference between _hide_ and _conceal_? |
39,810 | 21,792 | 76823_0 | If I recall correctly, the Académie française states that, for French, quantities comprised within [-1,1] are singular, and anything else is plural. This means, for instance, that we should say (in French) 0.3722 apple, instead of 0.3722 apples. I know the plurality for 1 and -1 in English, but what is the plurality of real numbers between them? |
39,811 | 49,644 | 76823_0 | In my understanding, many European cultures have compensated for the lack of certain characters on keyboards (especially old typewriters) by “anglicizing” some characters. For example, the German _ß_ becomes _ss_ , the Danish (and others) _Å_ becomes _aa_. Is there a list, official or not, of these “compensations”? (And yes, I do realize that this could very well fit in any other language SE than English, but English would be the common trait to these). |
39,812 | 41,866 | 76823_0 | _Sorry_ has two pronunciations in my dictionary: `ˈsärē` and `ˈsôrē`. The first is the one I am interested in because, as someone pointed out to me, the _or_ pattern in English is nearly always pronounced as "oh-r" not "ah-r". At the time, I couldn't think of any other words that pronounced _or_ as "ah-r" but overheard someone say "tomorrow" and realized there are a few others: * tomorrow * sorrow * morrow * horror (the first _o_ and only in some places) The question is this: Is there a commonality between these words that allow for a `är` (ah-r) pronunciation? Perhaps a similar history? Does the double-r make the difference? |
39,813 | 41,860 | 76823_0 | What is the difference (semantical or local/cultural) between _cancel_ , _close_ vs. _abolish_ when referred to a debit/credit card? |
39,814 | 17,668 | 76823_0 | If Alice and Bob each has a house, are these "Alice and Bob's houses" or "Alice's and Bob's houses"? Does that change anything if each of the houses belongs to both of them? |
39,815 | 41,863 | 76823_0 | I am trying to make a script that can dissect an English sentence. Problem is, I have no idea how to dissect an English when the words are not familiar. I know what the nouns, verbs, etc are, because I reconize the words. I can give the script a large set of words so it can reconize them as well, but surely there are certain "patterns" that one can check to see what part of a sentence the noun or verb is, even though the noun or verb is not known at the moment. Are there such patterns for the English language? Can one dissect a sentence by only "recognizing" a few words? Thanks to the comments. I can specify this question a bit better. Understanding the whole language is not necesary, seeing how nobody really understands everything of a natural language. Having simple patterns and "rules" should be enough, I understand that, because English is a natural language, about every rule or pattern would have some kind of exception and mapping each one of those would probably take forever. But ignoring those exceptions (apart for the most common), I could make the script understand quite a lot. If necessary, I could theoretically then add exceptions until done (read: forever). EDIT Thanks to the feedback on this question, I've managed to find a few examples of patterns. (not sure if these are exactly what I need, but as an example they should be fine) * Subject + Verb (S-V) * Verb + Subject (V-S) * Subject + Verb + Direct Object (S-V-DO) * Subject + Verb + Complement (S-V-SC) * Subject + Verb + Indirect Object + Direct Object (S-V-IO-DO) * Subject + Verb + Direct Object + Object Complement (S-V-DO-OC) Reconizing in what pattern a sentence falls, is probably first thing I should aim for. Of course, this is much easier said then done, also, fo every pattern I find, questions seem to be missing for it, but that is another issue I can deal with later. From what I can tell, the best course of action is to match the verb in the sentence, then check if the words before it match as a the subject, then check the words behind it. Etc. While finding the verb should not be that big an issue, matching a subject seems quite hard, it can't come from a database since, thanks to names, there are infinite possibilities. Still.. shouldn't a subject follow a pattern just aswell? Also, if I were to go this route, wouldn't it end up being a maze of patterns? (not that thats necesarily a bad thing) |
39,816 | 1,318 | 76823_0 | I am still a bit confused how to receive an external phone call at work. Browsing the internet I find: * Hello? (informal) * Thank you for calling Boyz Autobody. Jody speaking. How can I help you? * Doctor's office. None of those work for me well. "Hello?" is certainly too informal. The second seems more for a receptionist...and the third...I don't know what's that supposed to mean. What are your standard phrases? |
39,817 | 41,868 | 76823_0 | When we ask an indirect, closed question we usually use _if_ : > 1. _Will he be home soon?_ > 2. Can you tell me **if** he'll be home soon? > 3. Do you know **if** he'll be home soon? > Why do we not use _if_ with _do you think_? > _Do you think he'll be home soon?_ |
39,818 | 17,663 | 76823_0 | Does the verb “skid” take an object? So is it OK to say: > He skidded his car on the road. |
39,819 | 90,505 | 76823_0 | Where ordinal indicators are not used, which of the following is correct? 1. We will go ahead _on the 7 January 2013._ 2. We will go ahead _on 7 January 2013._ |
39,820 | 90,504 | 76823_0 | As it pertains to a dress shirt, which is the correct usage or do these terms have different meanings? |
39,821 | 172,129 | 76823_0 | For instance, a French person is coming from a different culture and hence may come across as being rude in a British person's eyes. Moreover, he is ignorant about the different culture in Britain and claims French superiority over Britain's present day culture based on events that took place in history. I am not sure if, when I dislike this French person for these treats, it could be considered racism (because that's what I am being called all the time when I say what I don't like about that type of foreign people) or if there is a more accurate term for disliking these kinds of rude, ignorant and foreign people. They visit this country with a disrespectful attitude and indifference towards adapting or awknowledging Britain's own culture. |
39,822 | 13,571 | 76823_0 | This question deals with the proper possessive for words that end with _s_. I am wondering how common it is to restructure a sentence as to avoid the awkward possessive form. For example: > I visited **Paros' lighthouse**. appears less attractive than: > I visited **the lighthouse of Paros**. I am particularly interested how this affects spoken English. |
39,823 | 109,772 | 76823_0 | Sometimes to start a conversation or to bring up a subject I ask a question. I ask it in hopes that they know the answer, I'm not seeking knowledge or an explanation, but instead I'm looking to create a context for the conversation. An example question might be something as simple as "Remember yesterday when we talked about [something we talked about yesterday]?" Obviously I don't expect them to just say "yes, I remember" and that's that. I'm bringing that conversation into mind as the context for this conversation. I imagine it's a question and not a command or a statement because 1) they may not actually remember the the conversation from yesterday and 2) courtesy. Is there a name or phrase for this kind of question? |
39,824 | 13,572 | 76823_0 | Is it correct to say "cold temperature"? |
39,825 | 101,577 | 76823_0 | I will be specific. I am trying to frame a sentence to include in a blog post. Instinctively it feels lame and wrong. Word keeps asking me to consider revising the fragment. As I am not a native English speaker, I realize I have to ask questions when I get stuck and practice writing better sentences, step by step. That is the idea behind writing this post. Here is my sentence: > Type out the below code in your favorite code editor or simple old NotePad > and save it in a convenient location on your hard drive. What is a better way to write it, both from the point of view of grammar and user friendliness? |
39,826 | 101,571 | 76823_0 | Consider the following piece of dialogue: > **Peter:** Hello, Mary! How do you do? > **Mary:** Hi, Peter! Fine, and you? What is the term for the part in bold, the specification of who is to speak a particular line? |
39,827 | 53,102 | 76823_0 | I am trying to answer a question from a library patron who remembers the entire phrase, "bread is" that she and her friends used in the 1960s. She accepts that "bread" was used for money or "dough," another slang word. However she remembers use of the entire phrase, "bread is." |
39,828 | 58,139 | 76823_0 | Suppose that there is a company named Megasoft. Megasoft has just launched their new software application to the public called Softronic. Which is correct: _Softronic by Megasoft_ or _Softronic from Megasoft_? |
39,829 | 62,543 | 76823_0 | I found myself saying the following sentence the other day: > I always fasten my seat belt because my car won't let me not — it starts > beeping loudly. If I were to use _allow_ instead of _let_ , I would say: > I always fasten my seat belt because my car won't allow me not **to** — it > starts beeping loudly. The latter sentence sounds natural to me because of the additional _to_ that makes it clear what _not_ refers to. Since _let_ takes the bare infinitive, I suppose that using _to_ in the first sentence would be incorrect: > I always fasten my seat belt because my car won't let me not **to** — it > starts beeping loudly. Wouldn't it? What would you say about my first sentence? The words "won't let me not" sound strange to my ear. Is it grammatical? Is it clumsy? Is it perfectly natural? What is the general rule of using _let_ \+ negative verb with the actual verb omitted? |
39,830 | 54,453 | 76823_0 | Can we use "As far as I'm concerned" in place of "As far as I know"? Or, are there some specific scenarios where in we do not have to use one in place of the other phrase? |
39,831 | 160,351 | 76823_0 | {This question came to mind because of the recent question .. What do you call the interconnecting bits of a puzzle piece in English? } In my opinion, in English, it's reasonably common that—strangely enough—there is _no word_ for a certain reasonably common thing. And indeed, speakers prefer to use an **ad-hoc description** for the thing in question on an ongoing basis, rather than, as you'd probably expect, a specific or technical word falling into general use and coming to be "the word" for the _thing_. {Contrast milieu such as say Germany or Japan, where the culture, within 12 seconds, codifies exact, specific, universally-accepted terms for anything that comes along, whether a cultural phenomenon, technical object, or the like.} I think of this as "the _Thingy_ substitution", or the things in question as ' _thingy things_ ' because, well, they are usually referred to as > the thingy that... The perfect example is > the _thingies_ on jigsaw puzzle pieces. (Note that, 100% of English-native speakers will understand _exactly_ what I am referring to.) To repeat, native English speakers—in my opinion—prefer to stick (even over decades) with _ad-hoc thingy-esque multi-word_ descriptions rather than adopting a new word generally accepted. {On the other hand, of course, the etats-unis in particular is notorious for generating zillions of acronyms and other coinages—however, I don't think the two concepts are at odds, both are true.} Now there's possibly a term for this phenomenon among linguists e.g., "grasp words", "thingy words" or "ad-hoc non-naming conventions" etc. * (a) Does anyone know such a term? * (b) Indeed, does anyone agree that this is a phenomenon amongst particularly English speakers? * (c) Indeed, is this all well-known and explored by academic linguists/etc and I'm just behind the times? |
39,832 | 190,277 | 76823_0 | I am asked to list "the best things in our company". I want to say that the team I am in is great. But I think it should be a noun to be filled in the blank to answer the question. So I think "being in a great team" should be filled in, am I correct? |
39,833 | 160,356 | 76823_0 | In an answer on ELL it reads: > Here - **and this is a reach** \- but it could technically be understood to > mean that my mother thinks this girl is the prettiest I can find, though > there are prettier ones out there in general. In that context it sounds to me like this statement makes some reservation, for that reason I believe the meaning is "far-fetched" as in "The whole story sounds very far-fetched."; in other words, that it's unlikely to be understood in this way. And though, the opposite meaning might be equally likely. However, trying to confirm one or the other by searching the Internet, especially dictionaries (Oxford Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster), I can't find anything which gives me a clue. _Reach_ undoubtedly means the distance over which something or someone is – well – reachable but then I actually expect a saying (with the meaning that I suspect) to be like "This is out of reach" or for the opposite "This is within reach"; but in any case I wouldn't go with "a reach". So, what is "a reach"? Is it something I can achieve because it's still within reach, or is it something I won't achieve because it's beyond reach? |
39,834 | 160,355 | 76823_0 | My dictionary defines the following: yarn: thread that has been spun, used for knitting, weaving, etc. I am unsure of the meaning of the plural form "yarns". To illustrate, I'll use two examples: A. "He sold yarns of many colours---red, blue, and white." B. "She found that five yarns corresponded to a width of one centimetre in the knitted fabric." After consulting with people that speak English well, I get two different answers: 1. "yarns" refers strictly to several different types of yarn, as the word is used in example A. However, "yarns" can not be used to refer to several threads of yarn as in example B. (This makes the "yarns" somewhat similar to the "peoples".) 2. "yarns" may refer to both several different types of yarn and several threads of yarn. Both example A and B show correct usage of "yarns". Which of these definitions of the plural form is correct? (Or maybe the answer is something different?) If "yarns" cannot be used to describe several threads of yarn (as in example B), then what should example B look like? Is the term "threads of yarn" ok? The text I am writing is rather formal, so I would appreciate answers that are appropriate in a formal context. |
39,835 | 190,274 | 76823_0 | I need to describe a parameter in a program and i am struggling with grammar. The parameter is called "delta" and is supposed to be an amount that changes a certain value. So my trys are: * The delta which to change the value by * The delta of which to change the value by * The delta by which to change the value I can't figure out which is correct (if one of these is correct at all). At least they sound wrong to me. |
39,836 | 165,779 | 76823_0 | > The person who marries for money usually earns every penny of it. ...anonymous quote. What does this phrase mean? It seems to suggest that if you marry for money, you will earn all of the money you married for, which would be a lot. That doesn't make sense. |
39,837 | 124,763 | 76823_0 | What is the difference between "splitting something" and "dividing something"? When do people say _split_ and when do they say _divide_? |
39,838 | 124,760 | 76823_0 | I'm translating some Buddhist texts to English and I'm wondering if there are any subtle differences in usage between the words **deity** , **divinity** , and **god** (in the lower case sense)? What is the word for their _"earthly" counterpart_ (by which I mean "natural being" or "ordinary people")? Thank you! |
39,839 | 169,943 | 76823_0 | 1. I expect John **to** reply to your email. 2. I expect John **will** reply to your email. 3. I expect him **to** reply to your email 4. I expect him **will** reply to your email (ungrammatical) 5. I expect he **to** reply to your email (ungrammatical) 6. I expect he **will** reply to your email Why do some of these sentences take _will_ and others take _to_? * * * There is a question "Expect to" vs "Expect will". That post doesn't ask the question I've asked in this one. |
39,840 | 20,775 | 76823_0 | There is a song called Toy Soldiers by _Martika_ of which a part of the lyrics goes: > Step by step > Heart to heart > Left, right, left > We all fall down > Like toy soldiers > > Bit by bit > Torn apart > We never win > But the battle wages on > For toy soldiers This song was later remade by _Eminem_ , retaining the original chorus lyrics, but being renamed to **Like Toy Soldiers**. What does this phrase mean? Who are the toy soldiers? I know the literal meaning - the toys - small soldiers - with which the children play, but I believe there is a deeper meaning to it. |
39,841 | 164,842 | 76823_0 | If I've paid somebody $100, the $100 is my _payment_. If I owed someone $100, would the $100 be an **_owement_**? Is there a better word? I could call it _debt_ or _loan_ , but it doesn't quite suit the following example: Say two people Alice and Bob maintained a common expenses spreadsheet online to track who owed who how much. Would it be appropriate to name that sheet ' ** _Alice-Bob Owements_** '? |
39,842 | 20,776 | 76823_0 | Which variant is better? > We have a chance to get new experience talking to new people. or > We have a chance to get **a** new experience talking to new people. |
39,843 | 164,847 | 76823_0 | Is there a word for one side in a pair? In a conversation it would the the interlocutor, but I'm looking for a generic term. |
39,844 | 120,869 | 76823_0 | > A dedicated web server may be required, depending on XXX, YYY, ZZZ, and the > total number of concurrent **_Web users_** |
39,845 | 191,891 | 76823_0 | Are there any specific rules for using those 2 words? Like, in some situations, purview could be better, and in some others, ambit may seem good. |
39,846 | 145,392 | 76823_0 | Is there a single English word for an activity a person does to try and get closer to someone? This someone might be: > * Someone they get a crush on, so they're like trying to be her/his > boyfriend/girlfriend. > >> or: >> * Someone they want to know deeper. Like what a teacher does to her student, a mum does to her kids, a friend does to another friend. >> In Indonesian we would call it: **_pendekatan_**. In English, I can only think of: > * _trying to get closer_ (which is not one word) > * _approaching_ (which is merely translated to English) > * _flirting_ or _seducing_ (which is not the kind of _approaching_ I'm > looking for) > I suppose there is a more "English" word for this. (?) |
39,847 | 190,143 | 76823_0 | The implementation of the algorithm on the GPU is introduced. The implementation of the algorithm on the CPU is also introduced. If I want to combine the two sentences above into one, which of the following sentences is correct? (a) The implementation of the algorithm on the GPU and on the CPU is introduced. (b) The implementations of the algorithm on the GPU and on the CPU are introduced. (c) The implementation of the algorithm on the GPU and the CPU is introduced. Many Thanks! |
39,848 | 152,341 | 76823_0 | I have a cylinder and a nail. If an instruction says 'the nail is inserted from the top' what is the correct meaning? Does the verb refer to the cylinder or the nail? |
39,849 | 128,640 | 76823_0 | Can one use _embellishing_ as an adjective? For example, “He gave an embellishing speech.” |
39,850 | 128,643 | 76823_0 | Words exist to label periods of time - like **week** which represents 7 days and **fortnight** which is used for a 14-day period. Are there other such words used for certain numbers of consecutive days? |
39,851 | 121,195 | 76823_0 | You hear it in most safety demonstrations. "In the unlikely event" ... of a water landing, of an emergency evacuation, of a fire etc. etc. etc. Did this phrasing come from somewhere specifically? |
39,852 | 152,348 | 76823_0 | > Did I really believe she would agree? and > Did I really believe she would have agreed? What's the difference between the two? Is one more common/grammatically correct than the other? |
39,853 | 122,421 | 76823_0 | What is the opposite of change ( _change_ as in "change for currency")? If I say, "Give me change for $10" what is the opposite of 'change' in that sentence? |
39,854 | 122,420 | 76823_0 | If I want to say that I have to scan my computer for virus filtering but some information tell me that there is no virus issue in my system and saved my time because I don't need to do virus filtering then is this the correct sentence to say It save my time of virus filtering? or is there any other way to say that more accurately and neatly? |
39,855 | 122,427 | 76823_0 | Is there an English term to describe someone that acts as a "mediator" between two people, i.e someone that connects two people together? |
39,856 | 122,425 | 76823_0 | Hillary Clinton said as follows: > If the Voting Rights Act is not fixed, Clinton warned, "Citizens will be > disenfranchised, victimized by the law _instead of served by it_ , and that > progress — that historical progress toward a more perfect union — will go > backward instead of forward." Is " _instead of served by it_ " grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be " _instead of being served by it?_ " |
39,857 | 122,424 | 76823_0 | Friends, would you please tell me if I use "Not only,but also" correctly? 1- Not only have these conditions been not prepared in developed countries, but developing countries also have not accepted them. 2- Not only have not these conditions been prepared in developed countries, but also have developing countries not accepted them. 3- Not only have these conditions not been prepared in developed countries, but (also) in developing countries. Could you tell me which sentence is correct, where is the right location of 'not' in the above examples and can we ignore the verb after 'but also' like example 3? In the end, do you have any better idea to write the mentioned example in a more formal form? Thanks a lot. |
39,858 | 48,519 | 76823_0 | When is one used instead of the other? Is there a reason to use one or the other? Or is just two words that can be used without problems? |
39,859 | 48,511 | 76823_0 | Is there a term that covers grave and acute accents, umlauts, cedillas, tildes and all other characters that can be added to normal letters. I have come across the word _diacritics_. But this seems to include things like commas and apostrophes. |
39,860 | 175,697 | 76823_0 | The American Heritage Dictionary states that the origins of "sheeny," a pejorative slang word for a Jew, are unknown. As a Jew, I am interested in finding out where and when this word developed. Any clues? |
39,861 | 175,693 | 76823_0 | What would be the correct or most appropriate word for each social media form (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Blog, etc.) Social media platform? Social media venue? Social media account? "Among multiple social media platforms, Facebook is most effective in ....." |
39,862 | 44,614 | 76823_0 | I was reading this phrase "will never have been" and I was wondering what grammatical structure does it belong to / is it grammatical? I'm not sure why but it sounds weird. What is the difference between "will never have been" and "was never"? > **1 Kings 3:12 (NIV)** > > I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, > so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. PS: This question is about English usage, and no, this question has nothing to do with exegesis. |
39,863 | 7,255 | 76823_0 | What would you call: * latex (a type setter) * MS Word (a word processor) * iWork Pages (a word processor) What about: * latex * MS Word * iWork Pages * Powerpoint * Excel Is there a term for these programs? |
39,864 | 44,610 | 76823_0 | The past tense of a number of verbs changes from _-end_ to _-ent_ : * _bend_ → _bent_ * _lend_ → _lent_ * _rend_ → _rent_ * _send_ → _sent_ * _spend_ → _spent_ * _wend_ → _went_ However, most do not, notably _end_. Granted, I say “I ent up” (facetiously?), but how did this sound change come to happen to some verbs but not others? Of the examples above, all but _spend_ come to us from non-Latin origins; but _end_ and _blend_ and _trend_ and many others are all non-Latin as well, and _don’t_ exhibit this change. I gather that this happened some time in the transition from Old English, because (if I’m up on my Old English conjugation, which is questionable) these verbs all used to have regular past forms: * _bend_ : _bendan_ → _(ge)bended_ * _lend_ : _lænan_ → _(ge)læned_ (?) * _rend_ : _rendon_ → _(ge)rended_ * _send_ : _sendan_ → _(ge)sended_ * _-spend_ : _forspendan_ → _(ge)forspended_ (?) * _wend_ : _wendan_ → _(ge)wended_ Can anyone offer some insight? Is this related to _learned/learnt_ , _dreamed/dreamt_ , &c.? |
39,865 | 29,315 | 76823_0 | In my language when a question is asking something really obvious we are using a phrase that if translated means: > What is making a "meow meow" sound on the roof/rooftop? Is there an equivalent phrase to that in English? Kind of slang but with nothing that can be considered rude in the sense of "Do bears shit in the woods?" |
39,866 | 139,016 | 76823_0 | The superlative forms imply that they are the ONLY ones. For instance, if we say, that John is the _best_ football player. We mean, he's _the_ best. So, how is it appropriate to say, "one of the best", when that phrase implies plurality. |
39,867 | 139,015 | 76823_0 | In any living language the change in meanings of the words and phrases is a natural phenomenon. But sometimes this change is very essential and a certain word or phrase loses its original meaning during the time and accepts a new meaning in the opposite direction. My question is about such idioms in English languages. **Question:** Is there any word/phrase/idiom/sentence in English language which was offensive (respectful) in the past and is respectful (offensive) nowadays? Please introduce some references for the offensive/respectful usage of each word/phrase/idiom/sentence in the texts. |
39,868 | 168,129 | 76823_0 | It makes sense to say, "My working hours are from 9 am to 6 pm." But is it right to say, "My working hours is from 9 am to 6 pm." My argument is that from 9 am to 6 pm can be treated as a singular subject, as is "butter and bread". |
39,869 | 163,716 | 76823_0 | I frequently want to express a feeling of pleasure to be associated with someone who is doing something exceptional. The phrase that comes to mind is, "I'm proud of you," but I am troubled by a certain sense of the word that suggests that I am responsible for the success of that person. It has a bit of a patronizing, parental feel to it. So for years, I've been hunting for something that expresses some of the same sentiments, without the troublesome patronizing connotations. Any suggestions? |
39,870 | 168,125 | 76823_0 | I know that "stuff" is a collective noun, but other collective nouns like "family" can be pluralized, but "stuffs" doesn't sound quite right to me. However, the spell check on my browser says that "stuffs" is a word. If "stuffs" is correct, why does it sound wrong to me? If it isn't, then why is it different from other collective nouns? |
39,871 | 168,120 | 76823_0 | For those who don't know, collective nouns are words like "family" that refer to a group of things. As I understand it, "stuff" is also a collective noun; that is confirmed by this question. Essentially, my question is: "Can I say 'my stuff' when referring to a single item that I posses?" If I can, does this technicality apply to other collective nouns, or just "stuff"? |
39,872 | 57,862 | 76823_0 | This is an extract from the subtitles of a television series (Bones) in which Brennan have a talk with Booth: > Booth: The director will create a special unit. If I line my ducks up, I can > head it up. > > Brennan: I think I could be a duck. > > Booth: No, we stick to the book. Cops in the street, squints in the lab. > > Brennan: In this case, the Jeffersonian will issue a press release. > > Booth: You do that, I'm a dead duck I understand the meaning of the whole dialogue in principle, but the multiple use of the word _duck_ in different ways makes me confused. Because Brennan said " _I could be a duck_ " I thought that " _line my ducks up_ " means _to line up a team_. But this makes no sense to me at all. In the TV series, there are always the same people involved in investigations. According to these idioms " _get your ducks in a row_ " means " _to organize things well_ ". This makes sense. But now Brennan's answer is nonsensical. Which meaning has _duck_ in the first sentence by Brennan? Note: I understand the latter _duck_ (dead duck); it is explained as " _someone or something that is certain to die or fail_ " and, likely, just used to complete this wordplay. |
39,873 | 169,657 | 76823_0 | In a form we have today: * from * via * to I think it'd be better if we used other terminology. So I went with this. * from --> origin * via --> ??? * to --> destination What'd be a good noun corresponding to the adverb " _via_ "? |
39,874 | 169,653 | 76823_0 | > We provide here a synopsis of the measurement process, for an in-depth > description, please refer to XYZ. I'm not a native speaker. How do I write that as the first sentence of a chapter in an academic, technical paper? Also, do I use the word "please" or omit it in formal, technical writing? As in "for an in-depth discussion, please refer to XYZ". |
39,875 | 161,409 | 76823_0 | In our English language listening circle, we unanimously heard AP Radio News (aired on March 31) refering to Russia’s action on Crimea anexation by force as follows: > Former ambassador, Michael McFaul tells the NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that > Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to be using a tactic from Soviet > times - **No give bucks and muddy the water**. "They’re changing the > subject. They’re saying O.K. Crimea’s done. We’ve taken that. Now let’s > start negotiating about the Ukrainian constitution.” I’m not certain whether we heard out the line, “No give bucks and muddy the water” rightly, or not. Does our hearing make sense? If no, what should Mr. McFaul have said?. If yes, what does it mean? Is it an idiomatic expression? |
39,876 | 129,066 | 76823_0 | Seeking a list of several foreign words (usually names, but any noun) that have been borrowed from other languages, but originally transliterated/pronounced incorrectly and are now being improved into a closer approximation of the original. I used to be able to rattle off four or five such examples, but have forgotten most. Examples: * Peking (now corrected to Beijing) * Mao Tse-tung (now corrected to Mao Zedung) * Bombay (now corrected to Mumbai) Note: Modified the question to replace "~correction" with "~improvement", as suggested in comments. |
39,877 | 59,662 | 76823_0 | Yet another grammar question. I know that 'remains' can be a linking verb in many contexts, but I'm undecided on whether it is linking in the sentence "Xenophobia remains in our society". I feel that "in our society" doesn't restate or rename xenophobia, and I feel it answers the question "Where does xenophobia remain?", making "in our society" an adverb of place. But certainly you can describe some societies as xenophobic. So what characterization is appropriate in this case? |
39,878 | 161,402 | 76823_0 | I work at a factory that manufactures drapes and window treatments, and we hired a marketing team to revamp our corporate identity. The slogan they came up with is: "Dressing the Perfection" To me that sounds wrong, I believe it should be "Dressing Perfection". They claim it's to give emphasis to the word "Perfection" (As in _**the** perfection_). Thoughts? |
39,879 | 59,665 | 76823_0 | There, I did it myself. Instead of asking "Why are some questions written in this funny way?", I produced what strikes me as bad English ever so often: Questions that are formed by starting out with "Why" (or other interrogative words), followed by what seems to be a normal subject-verb-object sentence. A few examples are quickly drawn from some other SE sites (missing question marks included), but this seems to be quite common all across the board: * “Why we need SELinux?” * “Why ATM and MPLS are at level 2.5” * “Why Turn Collate Off” * “Why BitTorrent uploads simultaneously?” * “Why the letters in keyboards are arranged like this?” I do have the impression that the actual article beneath such a question is often written in quite good English, so the writer is not necessarily a beginner of the language. Therefore my question, mainly aimed at the native speakers of English: Is this considered to be good style? Or do you find it sloppy? What's your impression when you read such a construct? |
39,880 | 121,732 | 76823_0 | Usage: "I would not like to eat that pie as it looks all **festy** since you dropped it on the ground." Is the colloquial Australian term ' **festy** ' actually a word? Also, is it used elsewhere in the world? |
39,881 | 178,761 | 76823_0 | I'm looking for a word to describe people who are attending an event, or who have attended, and would like a less formal term than attendee. I would strongly prefer a single word to a phase, but can be flexible. Any suggestions? |
39,882 | 121,738 | 76823_0 | Why is **being** used in the sentence below, and what does it mean? > Lisa is upset about not **being** invited to the party Are they trying to use the passive voice? If yes, how would the sentence look if we use the active voice to frame the same sentence? |
39,883 | 176,920 | 76823_0 | Not bibliophile, or really anything "biblio-" because that means a love of books, which might mean a collector or someone who loves the books themselves, but not necessarily their content. Also, not words like bookworm, because they refer to the person who loves reading, whereas I'd like a word that describes the act or state of loving to read. |
39,884 | 10,558 | 76823_0 | A person can **indulge in _something_**. Is he therefore an **indulger of _something_** or an **indulger in _something_**? Are both okay? If both are okay, is there any difference between these two phrases or are their meanings exactly the same? |
39,885 | 174,464 | 76823_0 | Typically when something is reversed or inverted we say it is "upside down", could we also say that it is also "downside up"? For example... > "The picture is upside down" could we also say it like this... > The picture is downside up Are there any sort of rules for the latter? I know it doesn't get used much (if it all) but is it still valid? |
39,886 | 178,766 | 76823_0 | I'm quite sure that I can say _the Onegin's score_ meaning the opera “Eugene Onegin”. However, i feel that it's wrong to say _the Onegin's leg_ meaning the character Eugene Onegin and that the correct form is _Onegin's leg_. Do I understand correct? Does that mean, that we can use _the + possessive_ only if we talk about inanimated concepts? |
39,887 | 63,232 | 76823_0 | I previously worked in a bookstore and at around this time of the year, we did an inventory of the bookstore, counting our stock and shipping back old stock to corporate. There was a term we used to describe what happened when there was a difference between our computer stock read as and what we actually had on-hand in the store. This term essentially meant "unanticipated loss of stock due either to theft, misplacement, or other reasons." What was this word? |
39,888 | 94,998 | 76823_0 | What can this phrase possible mean? > And I didn't know kiwis had hair I have parsed this as well as I can and cannot come up with anything that makes sense. Reference for context: comment under this StackOverflow Question Is it a phrase or structure commonly used in some corner of the world? |
39,889 | 8,758 | 76823_0 | When I was learning English back in school (in the nineties), there were _pupils_ and _teachers_. Now there seem to be _students_ and _professors_ , where a "professor" can be anyone who happens to teach people in a school environment. Maybe this strikes me as odd because of the fact that both "Student" and "Professor" are used in German, too. However, "Student" refers to someone at studying at a university, and "Professor" strictly is reserved for someone who has earned a habilitation or has been appointed to a professorship (possibly _honoris causa_ ). * Has that strict use ever been the prevalent case with English? * Is it the difference between AE and BE usage? * Or is it just to euphemism-creep? |
39,890 | 111,086 | 76823_0 | The Home page of today's (April 11) New York Times carries an article titled ‘In the President’s Budget’ written by their Editorial Board, which is followed by the lead copy - > “The plan for 2014 includes a troubling cut **_to_** Social Security and > other better ideas that put Republicans on the spot.” Though this might be a primitive question, as usual, from a non native English speaker, if I replace the preposition ‘to’ in “a troubling cut to Social Security” with ‘of,’ what difference of meaning would come out from the original line? |
39,891 | 111,084 | 76823_0 | In the famous leaked video, Mitt Romney says > My job is not to worry about those people An equivalent sentence probably is > It is not my job to worry about those people Some media in my home country have translated it to something roughly like > My job is: not to worry about those people The difference is that the _not_ can be assigned to "my job is" or either to "to worry about those people. I actually do not know how this difference can be demonstrated by two proper English sentences, so I hope you get the idea. Question: Can these different shades of meanings be rendered in English just by word order or grammatical particles? Is there any ambiguity in Mitt Romney's statement? |
39,892 | 94,992 | 76823_0 | "Officially" (or so I believe) English doesn't have comparative adverbs (a single word rather than "more" + an adverb), but _faster_ is in common usage as one, for example: > Do it faster When strictly speaking one should say: > Do it more quickly Is the former an error in grammar? Or has English (d)evolved to such an extent that _faster_ may be used as a comparative adverb? |
39,893 | 8,755 | 76823_0 | What's the difference between _yet another_ and _another_? |
39,894 | 164,153 | 76823_0 | As a native speaker of Spanish I am confused because we don't have two different words for these terms |
39,895 | 8,750 | 76823_0 | I want to decry an act or object as having heathen-like qualities. I would call it *heathenous, except apparently this word is neither in the dictionaries nor oft-seen by google. |
39,896 | 94,994 | 76823_0 | I really have looked, but the best I can come up with is this > To say that something is "for the birds" is to call it horse manure. Dating > from the days of horse-drawn traffic, the expression is the answer to a > child's question: "Mommy, what's all that stuff in the street?" Perhaps I need to get out more (not that there's much of it around where I live), but I find it hard to believe that of all the things it might be known for, _bird food_ should be considered an archetypal use for _horseshit_. Is that really the origin? |
39,897 | 123,772 | 76823_0 | Is there a word that mean's the equivalent (or close to) the expression "treat the problem rather than the symptom" ? If not, is there a concise way to say this? For example, in discussing healthcare costs i might advocate that we treat the problem (lack of exercise) rather than treating the symptoms of the problem (obesity). I need to explain this clearly and concisely in a bullet point.... Thanks in advance, any tips appreciated. -Joe |
39,898 | 119,259 | 76823_0 | What does "these things are in the ether" mean? The context of the sentence is > My own daughters' names are Freya, a more popular name across the pond than > in the US, and Calla, which last trended as a baby name in 1880. Although > the week Freya was born we learned of two other baby Freyas in our Brooklyn > neighborhood. And a former colleague also had a little girl named Calla. > **So these things are in the ether somehow.** Thank you. |
39,899 | 119,256 | 76823_0 | At the top of a bottle of pop, there is a corkscrew pattern into which the plastic cap is twisted, tightened and sealed. What is the name of this feature of the bottle? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.