Unnamed: 0 int64 0 40.2k | id int64 1 196k | chunk_id stringclasses 1
value | text stringlengths 18 6.44k |
|---|---|---|---|
4,200 | 181,432 | 76823_0 | I'd like to know what the difference is between "from the 16th century downward", "from the 16th century onwards", and "since the 16th century". > Many polyglot collections of the prayer have been published from the 16th > century downward. |
4,201 | 170,042 | 76823_0 | I would like to correct what I see as a frequent mis-speak from a friend of mine, but I first want to make sure that I am not the one in error. > I'd like to know whether the following use is correct, or rather if it is > incorrect. The above sentence uses both the words "whether" and "rather" as I expect them to be used, but this friend says things like "Rather you like it or not..." or "Rather you're black, white or Asian..." I wonder if this is just a regional usage, or is it incorrect as I suspect? |
4,202 | 170,043 | 76823_0 | Is there a specific rule of grammar or which makes the title "visitors to London grouped by mode of travel" better than "visitors by mode of travel to London"? The context for this question is a label for a chart/table which shows the mode of travel used by visitors to London. I'm trying to convince a colleague of mine that the former is preferable to the latter. My feeling is that if we're talking about visitors to London who are grouped by their mode of travel, it doesn't make sense to split "visitors" from "London" in the title. I'm not a pedantic follower of grammar rules but I'd like to be able to point to something specific to bolster my argument. Can anyone help? P.S. I have actually suggested we go with the alternative title "Mode of travel used by visitors to London" which I think works better but I want to be able to point out why "visitors by mode of travel to London" doesn't work. |
4,203 | 170,041 | 76823_0 | Is _me and you_ correct English? Lyrics: > _Me and you, > A little rendezvous, > That special something will carry you through, > That little reward for all the things you do._ |
4,204 | 140,438 | 76823_0 | Is there a word that means the " _pleasure from taking a risk_ "? " _rush_ " comes to mind but needs modifiers to make sense - thoughts? |
4,205 | 51,407 | 76823_0 | From native English speakers I often hear the phrase **"How are you?** " intonated differently. Sometimes the word **"are"** is stressed, and sometimes the word **"you"** is. What is the difference between these variants? |
4,206 | 77,102 | 76823_0 | The etymology of the word _parasol_ states that it arises _"from **para** \- (“to shield”) + **sole** (“sun”)"_. I would like to know what the two components, _para_ and _sole_ , are called in this example. Units/components might work. But, I suspect that there is a more fitting linguistic term for them ... Also, would this term also be applicable for the components of words such as _jaywalk_ which is a result of " _jay + walk_ "? |
4,207 | 172,572 | 76823_0 | Nouns of Noun vs Nouns of Nouns Example 1: I face different * types of financial constraints vs * types of financial constraint Example 2: Different kinds of reasons vs Different kinds of reason And here is a generalization version of the examples: Are there any particular rules as to the plural form of the two nouns in a of- phrase? Which case would it be in which circumstance: Nouns of Noun vs Nouns of Nouns? And when the first noun is in single form, could the second noun be in plural form? Thank you very much. |
4,208 | 77,106 | 76823_0 | I found the following on today's Wired edition: > Apple’s Software Boss Reveals the _Origin_ Story of iOS Can _origin_ be used as an adjective or some sort of modifier for other words? I couldn't find any source that defines it as an _adjective_. Am I am being thick or is there something wrong with the title above? |
4,209 | 28,498 | 76823_0 | I have learnt these words so far, please correct me if I'm wrong: * Dawn, maybe 4am–6am? * Morning, maybe 6am–9am? The food for the morning is called _breakfast_. People greet each other _Good morning!_ * Noon, maybe 11am–1pm? The food is called _lunch_. * Afternoon, maybe 2pm–4pm? People greet each other _Good afternoon!_ * Evening, maybe 6pm–9pm? The food for the evening is called _supper_. People greet each other _Good evening!_ * Night, maybe 9pm–11pm? However, _Good night_ means "have a good sleep". * Mid-night, maybe 11pm–1am? You see, I've missed some parts of a day, I may be not correct on the time boundaries of each part, though. I would like to complete the list, especially the part after the morning but before the afternoon. My teacher never told us to use the word _noon_ , and _good noon_ seems never used by anyone. I would like to know each part of a day, its corresponding food term (like _lunch_ , _supper_ , etc.), and its corresponding greeting words, thanks. **Summary** I'll update the table to reflect the answers: Part Begin End Meal Greeting ------------- ----- ----- ---------------- --------------------- morning/dawn 0:00 5:00 early morning 5:00 6:00 Good morning morning 6:00 9:00 breakfast Good morning mid-morning 9:00 11:59 elevenses/ Good morning morning tea/ brunch noon 12:00 12:00 - afternoon 12:00 17:00 lunch/ Good afternoon afternoon tea evening 17:00 21:00 supper Good evening night 21:00 23:00 night-time snack Good evening midnight 23:00 1:00 midnight snack Good night |
4,210 | 132,465 | 76823_0 | Google search gives about 19,500,000 results for "haven't known" and about 12,500,000 results for "haven't knew". So I am a bit confused about this. Could anyone please explain how should I say and why? |
4,211 | 132,463 | 76823_0 | Is there a suffix in _masquerade_? in _masquerade_ , _masque_ means mask, so is _-rade_ or _-ade_ its suffix? _-ade_ is a suffix in _lemonade_ and _blockade_ , meaning "product". Note: I have searched it in etymonline, but couldn't find my answer |
4,212 | 91,506 | 76823_0 | I usually tend to see the behavior in which someone takes an action, and people criticize, and even suggest what they should have done, yet when they take that same suggestion people still criticize. For instance: I'm slim; when I eat with my family, everyone exclaims at the amount of food I'm eating. When I eat normally, they ask "Don't you know, you should eat more so you can grow better?" When I don't eat, the same shouting takes place. So in other words, is there a word I could use to describe them or their behavior in this regard? |
4,213 | 91,501 | 76823_0 | In the dictionary, _how_ has meanings of _the manner or way in which_ and _to what extent, degree_. > By the end of the lesson, only Hermione Granger had made any difference to > her match; Professor McGonagall **showed the class how** it had gone all > silver and pointy and gave Hermione a rare smile. Did Professor McGonagall repeat what Hermione did (demonstrate how she did it), or did she just pick up the match that Hermione had changed, to show how much it had been changed? AND Can you _show me how_ I may tell which of these meanings is in play? |
4,214 | 177,060 | 76823_0 | Long story short: A player can choose from different items, and wishes to have the best one. Would the player say: > I want to have the overall best item. or > I want to have the best item overall. ? |
4,215 | 172,688 | 76823_0 | * _Mendoza said that's the way it worked._ In this sentence why are we using _that's_? Why not _that was_? Wouldn't _that was_ be much better? To clarify my question, Mendoza originally said * _"That's the way it works"._ |
4,216 | 177,064 | 76823_0 | I have the sentence fragment: > each in itself for achieving this pure abstraction of being-for-itself and I'd like to incorporate it into my paper so that the quotation reads as follows: > They eventually "achieve the pure abstraction of being for itself" I know that brackets go around any modified text, but I'm unclear if they "jump across" word boundaries. Do I render this as: > They eventually "achiev[e the] pure abstraction of..." or > They eventually "achiev[e] [the] pure abstraction of..." I also tend to use "verb[]" to indicate that a suffix has been dropped from a word. Would the usage be the same in that case? Say, for example, I want to make "She was reading the book" into "She read a book." Would this be: > "She read[] [a] book" or > "She read[ a] book" In both cases, the version with two sets of brackets looks awkward to me, but the version with a single set looks like it might be a typographical error. I looked at existing questions about brackets but I couldn't find any relating to brackets that cross word boundaries, I apologize if this is a dupe. |
4,217 | 124,459 | 76823_0 | In the expression "one or more of A, B, C, [and, or, and/or] D," what is the correct conjunction? Examples of all three choices abound with apparently equivalent intended meaning. |
4,218 | 185,019 | 76823_0 | I understand that the word "look" in "He looks happy." is a linking verb. As "look" here can be replaced by "is" My question is what is the correct question form of this sentence? Does he look happy? or Is he look happy? Thank you. |
4,219 | 101,638 | 76823_0 | What is the exact difference between "I went to bed hungry" and "I went to bed hungrily"? |
4,220 | 101,635 | 76823_0 | I know of some people in south Arkansas and north Louisiana that use this phrase. An example of its use would be when you have almost used up something, you have reached the "kamarka part." I hear it pronounced kah-MARK-ah. I have no idea of the correct spelling or where this comes from and can't seem to find anything about it and would like to know more. |
4,221 | 185,013 | 76823_0 | For many years I have tried to describe the great cricketer Ian Botham ("Beefy" Botham) to other people in my international language school. I try to think of a word to describe someone who always makes his team win even when other people team are not very good. I want this word to describe "Beefy" or maybe Michael Jordan in basketball, or Ronaldo in football. Can you help me please? |
4,222 | 101,630 | 76823_0 | I was watching the movie _Leon: The Professional_. The protagonist, Leon, is a hitman — not somebody we traditionally sympathize with. The antagonist is a crooked DEA agent, pretty despicable himself. Near the end, Leon is gunning down dozens of DEA agents who've been ordered by the antagonist to kill him. As the viewers, we're supposed to support Leon as he kills cops who have done nothing wrong themselves — they're just following (presumably reasonable, and since Leon is actually a hitman, perhaps _actually_ reasonable) orders. Just because the person giving the order is the villain, they end up dead, merely doing their usually noble job (and honest cops generally have the viewers' sympathy). **I'm asking specifically about the DEA agents here:** Is there a word or a phrase for this situation or literary device — where I'm made to feel that somebody is evil because of their association, where they've done nothing wrong, and they could even be considered the heroes from a different viewpoint? (Say, Leon were the villain and the cops had finally cornered him — I'd feel bad for these cops as they were gunned down). I checked the movie's entry on TVTropes.org and I don't see anything that seems to describe this situation accurately. |
4,223 | 101,633 | 76823_0 | What I'm looking for isn't quite the same as a Pyrrhic victory, as the action isn't necessarily done to obtain victory. Rather, it is any action that will ultimately result in the person taking said action to pay great (preferably terrible) cost either along the way or afterward, whether or not they realize it in advance. |
4,224 | 185,016 | 76823_0 | I'm programming a parser for a new language, and need a word which references all kinds of quotes and brackets: `""` `''` `<>` `()` `[]` `{}` Up to now I always used "quotes and brackets", but is there another, single- term word, that can be used? (Related: Bracket vs brace) **Edit:** The language will be relatively simple. However, it's commands are completly defined by modules, and they decide how delimiters are used. Here's an example: function "a subFunction" set background color #FFF //No semicolons - one command per line put image "/path/forest.jpg" size [1080px auto] position [0 0] //square brackets for additional information end set background color "black" animation [fadeIn 500ms linear] <$variable == 42.5> call "a subFunction" //function is only called, if the condition is true sleep 5.6s //dots and commas have no special meaning set background image /path/img.jpg //Quotes are always optional |
4,225 | 115,482 | 76823_0 | > Both of the boy's parents were happy with the new school. Is it proper English to say "both of the boy's parents", as in the above sentence, to mean "both parents of the boy"? Or do we have to use the latter? **Background** A similar question appeared on a private advanced-level English test. The task was to spot a mistake in a sentence similar to the above. The correct answer was apparently the place of the apostrophe: in terms of the above example, it should read "both of the boys' parents" (meaning "parents of both boys"), with the argument that, in proper English, "both" can only refer to "boys" in such circumstances. I found this argument a bit shaky though. I am not a native English speaker, but I have studied and spoken it for many years, and the above sentence looks perfectly correct to me. I also could not find any helpful references on the internet that address this scenario. |
4,226 | 181,700 | 76823_0 | I was showing off for a woman and I told her that I am falling for an older woman. She replied back saying, "Are you implying me?" I am confused about its meaning. What does it mean? |
4,227 | 181,703 | 76823_0 | What is it called in text when a character refers to someone as "son of_____" or "descendant of_____". Like when they refer to a person as the relation to someone else |
4,228 | 155,547 | 76823_0 | Why is _distro_ , rather than _distri_ , short for _distribution_ in Linux world? |
4,229 | 74,457 | 76823_0 | I used the word "renege" in a meeting the other day (something like, "the vendor decided to renege on their offer of shipping replacement SAN disks"), and got a few wide eyes. My supervisor sat me aside just today and told me that my word choice has racial overtones, especially in mixed company, and that I should avoid using it. I've heard that "niggardly" is somewhat taboo, but should I stop using "renege" as well? Is there a less offensive word I can use? |
4,230 | 56,335 | 76823_0 | I have read the Rules of a competition. The text of the Rules include a sentence as follows: > As per stated in the Rules the entrants will be notified by May 30th 2010. Does the sentence above mean that May 30th is included in the term of notification or not? |
4,231 | 65,531 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Does "notified by [date]" include the end date? For example, if John says: > Return it to me by March 24th. Does it mean that I need to return it to him before 23:59 p.m. March 24th, or before 23:59 p.m. March 23rd? |
4,232 | 67,802 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Does "notified by [date]" include the end date? Today is May 15. I have an email in my inbox that says > Please respond by May 15. My question is: what does 'by' mean in this context? Is it synonymous to 'no later than'? Or should I have done this on May 14 at the latest? |
4,233 | 107,558 | 76823_0 | I wasn't sure how to research this without being able to explain what I mean. When someone says something like "I will have it done by tomorrow", does that phrase mean that they will have it done before tomorrow, or does it mean before tomorrow is over? Also, how would less-defined times be affected by this? For example, "I'll have it done by tonight"... |
4,234 | 96,097 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Does “notified by [date]” include the end date? > “I will do it by Monday”. Does it mean before the beginning or before the > end of Monday? If something has to be finished " **by spring 2013** ," how long do I have? Does this imply the beginning, or the end of spring? |
4,235 | 193,777 | 76823_0 | If, in a contract fr example, the text reads: "X has to finish the work by MM- DD-YYYY", does the "by" include the date or exclude it? In other words, will the work delivered on the specified date violate the contract? |
4,236 | 173,849 | 76823_0 | In the following sentence: "It came into existence on or by 30 September." What does "by 30 September" mean? |
4,237 | 145,145 | 76823_0 | Here's the context, somebody has written this: > Quiet workplace... then - all of a sudden, a loud voice; complaints, > criticism, aggressiveness. Everyone's attention is drawn to an argument - > and sometimes the spotlight is on the person being publicly executed. And I want to say something like, 'That paragraph is a bit melodramtic and [uses creative writing for the sake of being entertaining to read], could you edit it to tell us what actually happened?'. |
4,238 | 74,458 | 76823_0 | Perhaps this is more of a Linguistics question, so I apologize if this is not posted in the right place. Why is it that these words in English sound so different? 1. _earth_ = /ɜrθ/ “urth” 2. _hearth_ = /hɑrθ/ “harth” 3. _heart_ = /hɑrt/ “hart” 4. _hear_ = /hir/ “heer” 5. _ear_ = /ir/ “eer” 6. _heath_ = /hiθ/ “heeth” Looking at the first two examples, the only difference is the preceding _h_ , which makes me think that’s the reason for the change. The second and third together sound the same, despite the removal of the trailing _h_ , which supports that — for now. Then the last three examples sound still different from those already mentioned; however, the differences in spelling are not consistent. My assumption is that there is some linguistic property of both the _h_ and the _rt_ , which I will describe like this: * A trailing _rt_ (not simply _r_ or _t_ ) will have an effect — let’s call it **“Effect A”** — on the sound of _ea_. * A leading _h_ will have an effect — let’s call it **“Effect B”** — on the sound of _ear_ , but only if already modified by Effect A. If this is more or less correct, what are these two Effects A and B, and what are they called? And if this is not more or less correct, please tell me what is. An alternative thought is that this really has nothing to do with phonology and instead more to do with orthography, and that the difference is just because someone at some point decided to transcribe a given word in one particular way instead of in some other way, such as _through_ vs. _threw_ (or even the non-standard _thru_ ). Any evidence to support either possibility, or supporting some alternative I haven’t thought of here, would be appreciated. |
4,239 | 42,032 | 76823_0 | > Please, do not edit this file. versus > Please, do not modify this file. Is there a difference? Is any of them preferred over the other? |
4,240 | 171,881 | 76823_0 | I want to say that we (as a company) choose only the best companies to join our partners program and I'm looking for a better way to say it. Something like: > We choose our partners by _____. Any other suggestions would be appreciated. |
4,241 | 128,923 | 76823_0 | I'm a teacher of English as a foreign language, and today I was reviewing some vocabulary from a book with my students. We found "irksome" and "pestering" to refer to something that is annoying. A student asked if there was a way to know when to use "irksome" and when is better to use "pestering". So, it occurred to me that maybe there is a way to know what word is the best fit to a given context, maybe a dictionary or another type of resource. |
4,242 | 171,884 | 76823_0 | How might one ask the cause of someone's death? Not regarding the verb to die ( it could be sonething like pass away too, I know), but about the structure... Is it correct to ask "What did your mother die of?" or " How did she die" ( meaning why, ex: an accident? An illness? Murdered? Etc). What would be a natural question in American English? |
4,243 | 128,926 | 76823_0 | any ideas? It's for use in an English Language class I teach. |
4,244 | 6,689 | 76823_0 | Can you, please, come up with some term that would be directly related to geography, but would have no relation to toponymy? |
4,245 | 165,170 | 76823_0 | I just read about the symbol of Venice, the winged lion of Venice. As a German the German word die Schwingen for wings came to my mind. English has the word in the verb to swing.The connection between wings and to swing is obvious. By means of its wings a bird can swing up into the air. To my amazement, etymonline does not see the connection of "wing" with "to swing" and German schwingen and the noun die Schwingen. In my view etymonline gets on a wrong track by trying to make a connection with wind. I would like to hear other views. |
4,246 | 155,545 | 76823_0 | I was think of narcissistic but this is a more general term describing someone's self-obsession with various aspects of himself/herself. I was wondering if there's not a more specific term, describing the fact of being self-obsessed with one's own face. |
4,247 | 6,682 | 76823_0 | > After six months of looking for jobs, she got a reply from a job application > she posted online from Macy's asking her to come to a interview. The sentence does not sound right to me, what would be the correct way to say this? |
4,248 | 6,683 | 76823_0 | First, a bit of context. Richard Stallman, father of the free software movement, has struggled all his life trying to explain that the "free" in "free software" is a "free" as in "freedom", not as "free beer". Now, let's say someone argues that the main reason for adopting free software is that it has no cost (free beer). How can I tell him that he would make Richard Stallman go mad by saying this? Is there an idiom that could communicate this effectively? (Obviously, this is a language question, not a free software debate.) **Edit** : I just realized that I am looking for a version of "to turn in one's grave" for alive people :) |
4,249 | 163,132 | 76823_0 | > How long will a man lie i' the earth ere he rot? The quoted line is Hamlet's. I wonder why the "rot" is not "rots". |
4,250 | 154,554 | 76823_0 | For example, does the below sentence violate any grammar rules? "Global Connections" will be showcasing internship opportunities, job openings and training programs at, challenges and issues facing, and the latest information on 30 leading global businesses. I realize that there may be alternative ("better") ways of phrasing the above but I am not interested in improving this specific sentence; I just want to confirm whether the above structure is generally permissible according to the rules of English grammar. I would like to emphasize that I am not looking to have the above example sentence proofread. I would like to know, first, whether it is acceptable to group nouns sharing a preposition in the fashion that I have and, second, whether it is acceptable to do this multiple times (i.e. for other nouns affiliated with other shared prepositions) in the same sentence. My gut feeling tells me that it constitutes an over-usage of "and" in the same sentence but does not specifically violate any grammar rules. I would like to know for sure whether this is the case or perhaps there exists some grammar rule I am not familiar with. |
4,251 | 121,382 | 76823_0 | How do you pronounce the << operator? For example it is used in here. |
4,252 | 121,381 | 76823_0 | I'm watching Suits TV Series, and there was something that caught my attention. 2 guys meet, have a drink, chat, and then one guy says: > I mean it's time **I told you**. I made a deal with Darby to take over the > firm from Jessica. Why is "told you" in paste tense? What exactly does it mean? He is saying that news right now. If I were to say that, I would say "it's time to tell you" or "it's time I'm gonna tell you". Thanks! |
4,253 | 121,387 | 76823_0 | I'm reading a technical documentation so every quirky detail, that a normal human being easily realizes to be a typo or just a less well chosen formulation, can, in fact, be a profound base for a concept and can fundamentally affect the future design. In the said document I can find the term " _numeric digit_ ". What is this? Also, what is it not? In my mind a digit is a character in the set of " _0123456789_ ", while something numeric is a a set of characters consisting of characters in the set of " _0123456789_ " (yes, it's the same set). Perhaps we can define the term in question by exclusion from all the other possible cases' definition. So what would be a good example of the following? 1. a non-numeric digit 2. a numeric non-digit 3. a non-numeric non-digit My guestimation is this. 1. NST, unless we switch the base (which is too mathematical). 2. NST, unless we declare a string of a digit (which is too programmatic). 3. Anything sans digits (which is a superfluous tautology). |
4,254 | 6,355 | 76823_0 | When I learned the word _busybody_ the first time, I was in 5th grade. It appeared in a story I had to learn for class. I figured it meant someone who was very busy, and didn't bother to look it up. When the teacher asked us if I had looked it up as I was supposed to as part of my homework, I lied and said I did. When I told her I found the meaning "in a dictionary" she asked me to bring her the dictionary. Needless to say, I was a very embarrassed 5th grader caught in a bad lie. |
4,255 | 182,542 | 76823_0 | I am writing an article about “things that nobody talks about.” I feel sure that there should be a single word which can replace the phrase _things that nobody talks about_? It’s rather clumsy as it stands, in my opinion. |
4,256 | 6,359 | 76823_0 | When used as an adjective, is it _step by step_ or _step-by-step_? Example, > Thank you for this step by step guide. or > Thank you for this step-by-step guide. |
4,257 | 125,589 | 76823_0 | Which is correct/better to state: > He was orally informed OR > He was verbally informed. What determines when it is suitable to use either, i.e. verbally or orally. |
4,258 | 137,664 | 76823_0 | Which of the following sentences is correct? > * We are glad to provide a recommendation of a good work you did. > * We are glad to provide a recommendation for a good work you did. > |
4,259 | 70,228 | 76823_0 | In the turn of phrase "scared the living daylights out of me" what does "living daylights" refer to? Where does this particular idiom originate? |
4,260 | 10,169 | 76823_0 | What follows is a hypothesis of mine. I'm wondering if there's historical merit for my hypothesis. It seems the English language has a much bigger change between the documents produced in the early 1800s to those produced in the early 1900s, than the early 1900s documents have until now. For example, in the late 1700s/early 1800s, the letter u was still sometimes represented as v (i.e. as in the US Constitution), but no such changes in the glyphs used to represent the language, nor "structure words" (words critical to language structure, i.e. "is" or "the" or "a"), have occurred in the last hundred years. There have been significant changes in typical vocabulary, but not in language structure. I suspect that a large reason for this is the spread of mass communication systems, such as office typewriters, Xerox machines, rail transportation, telegraph, and (most recently) computers. My guess is that the reason is that when you have mass communication at the scale these technologies span, standardized language becomes much more important. Consider if the letter u being represented as v (as I pointed to earlier) -- this would be a monumental change which would be unlikely to appear in the modern era, simply because of the number of standards (i.e. ASCII, Unicode, most all information exchange definitions, fonts, most programming language definitions, etc) which would be affected would be enormous. Couple this with the fact that English is already easy for computers to work with (no letters running together (like those which require complicated typesetting systems i.e. Uniscribe), relatively small number of glyphs, no stackable accent marks, etc.), and it seems like major changes to the language itself would be prohibitively expensive in the modern era. Does any of this make sense, and is there historical justification for it? Or is this my own subjective babble? :) EDIT: To clarify: I think the typical vocabulary of the language is still going to change (who ever heard of Googling something 15 years ago?), but that the glyphs and structure will not. EDIT: The reason for the bounty is that at this point th only posted answers have merely been opinions; I'm interested in historical precedent in either direction. |
4,261 | 10,166 | 76823_0 | I'm looking at the financial definition of series: _a group of stocks or options that have common characteristics_. Source How would I form the possessive and plural of this term? I'm guessing it is series' and series respectively. Sample sentences, not sure of correctness: > He purchased one series. > > He purchased multiple series. > > This one series' characteristics are worth researching. <\- This feels like > it should be series's, but it looks so wrong. > > These series' value is unmatched. |
4,262 | 10,165 | 76823_0 | We've been covering constituency tests in my syntax class and whenever it comes to doing the Coordination (also know as conjunction) test, it isn't making sense to me. I'm just not sure how it proves constituency. Does anyone have a concise explanation? |
4,263 | 169,555 | 76823_0 | I was watching the TV show _Fargo_, which takes place in rural Minnesota. Most of the locals on the show speak with a recognizable midwestern accent, and there are some regionalisms that are common. The one that I noticed most was how when some of the characters were talking about another person they knew, they said _he has **the** cancer_. Most of the English-speaking world does not put an article before the names of most diseases — we would say _he has cancer_. I believe that many of the early settlers in this part of America were from Scandinavia, and it heavily influenced the dialect and accent. Is this phrasing quirk related to this heritage? |
4,264 | 144,050 | 76823_0 | It is often said that co-hyponyms are incompatible. For example, here's Alan Cruse: > Very often a superordinate has more than one immediate hyponym, and among > these there is typically a set of terms each of which is related to all the > others by the relation of incompatibility. ( _Meaning in Language_, 2004, p. 162.) So, ‘apple’, ‘peach’, and ‘plum’ are co-hyponyms of ‘fruit’, and an apple **is not** a peach, which **is not** a plum, etc. They are "incompatible": that bit of fruit can't be _both_ an apple _and_ a peach. However, it is also often said that co-hyponyms _are not necessarily_ incompatible. A little later on that same page, Cruse offers this example: > For instance, _queen_ and _mother_ are both hyponyms of _woman_ , but there > is nothing to prevent someone who is a queen from at the same time being a > mother. I'm not so sure this is a good example, though. It implies this relation: > ? _A queen is a kind of woman._ But this isn't quite so. Mary, Queen of Scots became queen (just a few miles from where I type, in fact) at the ripe old age of 6 days ... which hardly qualifies as "woman"! So it leaves me wondering whether, in fact, ‘queen’ is a proper (?) hyponym of ‘woman’. So I have been trying to come up with ANY good examples of compatible co- hyponyms, and failing in the attempt. I have done my web-searches, and while it is easy to find the theoretical position explained, as I have done above ( _viz._ , that co-hyponyms are typically but not necessarily incompatible), finding examples of the less common "compatible" sort is proving elusive. Can anyone help me? (P.s. I would have liked to tag this with "hyponyms" or "hyponymy", but these aren't yet in use, and I'm too new to create them.) **UPDATE** [2014.01.09] : (This is prompted in part by EricS's suggestion below.) There is a further problem with suggesting _queen_ and _mother_ as examples of compatible co-hyponyms, and it arises in an article by Cruse himself [D. A. Cruse, ‘Hyponymy and Its Varieties’, in _The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective_, ed. by R. Green, C.A. Bean, and S.H. Myaeng (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002), pp. 3-21; the Google Books scan has some problems]. In it, Cruse points out that some apparent co-hyponyms belong to different taxonomic classes, and so are not co-hyponyms properly speaking. Cruse uses the example of ‘book’ for which ‘novel’, ‘textbook’, and ‘biography’ are hyponyms, but so too are ‘paperback’, ‘e-book’, and ‘hardback’: but ‘there is no embargo on something being simultaneously a paperback and a novel’ (Cruse, ‘Varieties’, p. 4). They are not, however, ‘co- hyponyms’ since they describe different aspects of the hyperonym. This also applies to the example I originally used above. 'Queen' participates in a taxonymy to do with status relations and involves gender (like duke/duchess, etc.), 'mother' in a taxonymy of family relationship (like 'father', 'daughter', etc.), and of course there is no problem with intersections of taxonomies, much as with 'novel' and 'hardback' both of which have a superordinate in 'book'. I am beginning to doubt, then, that Cruse was correct to assert that both " _queen_ and _mother_ are both hyponyms of _woman_ ". _Queen_ is a type of (hyponym of) _noble_ ; _mother_ is a type of (hyponym of) _kindred_ (= _family relation_ ). Or have I gone askew here? At any rate, I'm still having trouble thinking of "good" examples of compatible co-hyponyms! |
4,265 | 144,627 | 76823_0 | I have recently discovered the linguistic term 'mora' as a subset of a syllable and am thinking through some examples. How would the word 'stretched' be analysed? Is it one syllable? And what are its mora? |
4,266 | 14,884 | 76823_0 | Which one has red color in the following phrase? > the red bottle's lid the bottle or the lid? ## Edit Now I understand the actual sentence with which I am faced. > A more insidious attack strategy is to coerce **an unwitting third-party > visitor’s browser** to send unwanted HTTP requests on the attacker’s behalf, > abusing the identity relationship already established between your > application and that victim. |
4,267 | 182,375 | 76823_0 | > Do you have any knowledge _at_ photography? Is this sentence correct? I don't think so, the _at_ doesn't sound right, but my friend says some grammar checker tells that its correct? |
4,268 | 6,074 | 76823_0 | I always thought that a _comment_ would be, in comparison to other kind of response, such as an answer, something brief. However, it doesn't seems like Wiktionary says anything about it. Am I mistaken? |
4,269 | 45,265 | 76823_0 | Which is correct? > The thief carried the knife carefully **so as not to** cut himself. > > The thief carried the knife carefully **not to** cut himself. |
4,270 | 184,866 | 76823_0 | Why might this introductory (denoted 0L by some law students) law book be entitled Bramble Bush http://www.amazon.com/The-Bramble-Bush-Classic- Lectures/dp/0195368452 ? I'm regardful of the definition of bramble as a verb and noun. Here, I guess that it means 'blackberry bush', but this doesn't comport with law literally. What did I miss or misconstrue? |
4,271 | 45,268 | 76823_0 | (Preamble: this post is literally about the meaning of the word “correct” in this context, but also, of course, overlaps with the philosophy of prescriptive perspectives in the process. I hope that this is not considered off-topic, as I cannot think of a better group of people to ask. ) I do not understand the meaning of the word “correct” in this context, as I cannot think of any objective or meaningful standard that correctness could be derived from. I understand the notion of clarity in pronunciation or grammar. Pronouncing a word such that it might easily be confused with a different word is unclear. Similarly impaired communication can occur as a result of using a word or grammatical structure in a way that is likely to be interpreted differently than intended. But what miscommunication could occur by saying “Feb-u-ary” vs. “Feb-RU-ary” or by responding to “May I talk to Joan, please?” with “This is her,” vs. “This is she”? There is a large set of “errors” that have no seeming impact on clarity. So, “correct,” as it is generally used, does not exclusively mean “likely to be understood.” But I don’t understand the notion of the word apart from that. Language is a naturally evolving phenomenon. It is a brilliant social tool that began to emerge millions of years, and has been evolving in the form of verbal grammar for at least fifty millennia, and likely much longer than that. At some point very recently in development, scholars decided to document their languages, basically taking a descriptive snapshot of a moving force at a moment in time. Are these documents considered the source of what is correct? Or is there some other authority? Regardless of the source, why impose a regressive authority on an inherently progressive phenomenon? In brainstorming, I conjured a few possible reasons. One reason is to intentionally prevent a natural evolution of language that might lead to a divergence of tongues. By formally encouraging adherence to a linguistic standard, localized communities are in less danger (opportunity?) of evolving a divisive dialect. However, with the prevalence of television alone, I don’t think we have much to worry about there. The second reason is to create a badge of pedigree; a way to distinguish those who have been formally educated in a set of (arbitrary?) rules from those who haven’t. Is this a worthy goal? The third reason relates to the precision and artistry that come with mastery. A deep understanding of the nuances of different word meanings and grammatical structures can allow ideas to be communicated more precisely, and can allow the words to sing rather than simply communicate. However, this is mostly a case for learning word meanings, and doesn’t apply to unambiguous word “mispronunciations” or grammatical “errors.” And so, I ask humbly, with a true desire to learn: what does it mean to be correct in pronunciation or grammar? If it is not the native speakers themselves, then who is the authority that can be appealed to? |
4,272 | 141,074 | 76823_0 | My question is if I want to say > It is one of the most important things for me. In another way, can I say > It is one of my most important things. instead? And does the latter one sound strange to native speakers? |
4,273 | 184,861 | 76823_0 | I've googled the subject and got hits only along the lines of DRSVP and NRPSVP, which seem like an awkward mix-up of inter-linguistic confusion (the former) and incomprehensible abbreviation demanding understanding of foreign grammatic. Furthermore, I realized that, since RSVP means that **each** invitee should reply (independently of the attendance ability), there's no unambiguous opposite. There could be, e.g. _reply-only-if-you're-coming_ or _reply-only- if-you're-not-coming_. Moreover, that acronym is used mostly for confirmation of attendance at social gatherings and, sadly, is not that widely known to begin with (at least amongst people in the companies I've worked for). At one place, we used _MRIA_ (or, at another place, _ORIA_ ) at the end of an e-mail or SMS to declare that no reply (including, but not limited to, " _OK_ ") was needed **under the condition** that no changes were to be proposed. A, sort of, opt-out, so to speak. However, I've found that _MRIA_ is as seldom recognized as _RSVP's_ negations mentioned above. And I'm tired explaining that _MRIA_ stands for " _Missing Response Implies Agreement_ " (or " _Omission of Reply Indicates Acceptance_ "). Is there a term/acronym to be used at the end of e-messages to suggest that omission of reply is equivalent with accepting the contents? |
4,274 | 133,780 | 76823_0 | I want to refer to a number which comes after every 5 numbers, (eg. 5, 10, 15, 20 .. ). How can I say it it in a proper sentence? Thanks. |
4,275 | 85,704 | 76823_0 | Time magazine’s October 22nd issue carries the article titled “Paul Ryan on the campaign trail: More performer than _wonk_.” The article begins with the following lines: > “Mitt Romney's running mate was doing what he likes best: _wonking out_." > I'm kind of a powerpoint guy, so I hope you'll bear with me," Paul Ryan told > about 2,000 people at the University of Central Florida gymnasium in Orlando > in late September.” OALED defines “wonk” as noun, AmE, informal, disapproving, meaning (1) a person who works too hard and is considered boring. (2) a person who takes too much interest in the less important details of political policy. So I surmise the meaning of “wonk” in the headline as defined in (2) of the above. Please correct me if I’m wrong. However, I don’t understand what “wonking out” means in the beginning line of the body copy. OALED doesn’t show usage of “wonk” as a verb, while Readers English Japanese Dictionary at hand shows the usage of wonk” as vi. meaning ‘to study extremely hard,’ and vt. meaning ‘to give an answer from highly technical view point.’ What does “wonking out” mean? Does it mean hard-working like a wonk? Why “out” is necessary? What nuance is added to by adding “out” to “wonk”? |
4,276 | 80,955 | 76823_0 | What is the correct term for the panel containing standard indicators such as the altimeter and airspeed indicator in a jet aircraft cockpit? Is it called **console** or **instrument panel** , or are both terms equivalent? From reading on the subject, it looks like _console_ refers to an individual set of instruments (one for pilot, another for co-pilot), but I don't know if this is correct. **EDIT** I'm looking for the term used by a civilian pilot of a private jet. |
4,277 | 133,783 | 76823_0 | Apparently some parts of the US routinely pronounce the name of our island state as 'Hawaya.' At first, I thought this was just incorrect, but apparently it's a regional usage. Where do they call it Hawaya? |
4,278 | 44,138 | 76823_0 | An interesting observation that has always fascinated me: it is only in software industry and drugs industry where we refer to customers as "Users". I don't know of any other. For instance, we talk of "User Acceptance Testing" as opposed to "Customer Acceptance Testing" when referring to final software acceptance testing. What are the origins of this? |
4,279 | 133,787 | 76823_0 | How say correctly? I want buy a micro usb type b connector **in lunchtime**. I want buy a micro usb type b connector **at lunchtime**. |
4,280 | 133,788 | 76823_0 | New York Times (October 31st) reported Red Sox’s victory in the World Series under the title, “Red Sox Rout Cardinals to Win World Series” It begins with the following sentence: > For much of the 20th century, the Boston Red Sox were a symbol of > frustration and pain for an entire region. As popular as they were in their > corner of the nation, either **they were good enough to lose** in agonizing > fashion on baseball’s grandest stage, or they were just plain bad. > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/sports/baseball/boston-red-sox-rout-st- > louis-cardinals-to-win-world-series.html?hp I’m comfortable with the expression, “they are good enough to win,” but feel somewhat uneasy with “they are good enough to lose,” no matter whether it’s in agonizing fashion or in happy fashion. If you are good enough (at game"), logically, you shouldn't lose (the game). Is “good enough to lose” a common expression? What does it mean? Can I say "My son was “good enough to fail" the college entrance exam," / "He was good enough to be fired because of frequent boobs," by the same token? |
4,281 | 44,131 | 76823_0 | How has the word "pigs" come to be used as slang for feet? As in the phrase: > My pigs are killing me! It seems to me that "pigs" and "feet" have very little in common. I'm not sure how common this usage is. I've certainly heard it on several occasions. |
4,282 | 44,130 | 76823_0 | I've often heard the phrase " _Cleanliness is next to godliness_ " used but as far as I know, while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion, in spite of mentioning God the phrase doesn't have a Biblical basis. Where did the phrase come from and does it have its roots in Christianity or somewhere else? |
4,283 | 139,630 | 76823_0 | Which of the following is correct? _Context:_ I left AMD in early 2008. > I have, since, been the CTO of a large software firm near Oregon. or is it > I have since, been the CTO of a large software firm near Oregon. |
4,284 | 164,502 | 76823_0 | When you are delineating a set of statements which come one after another, could you use ordinal numbers but omit some of them in between ? For example, consider I want to describe the limitations in my study: > However, these results should be interpreted considering certain limitations > existing in the study. First, the small sample size ... ... . In addition, > our sample consisted of young people residing ... ... . The third limitation > is that ... . Is this style correct ? |
4,285 | 1,608 | 76823_0 | My question concerns when to use what of the above. |
4,286 | 164,500 | 76823_0 | I'm an international student and I have had this question for a long time: When I'm trying on clothes in a store fitting room, the store employee sometimes knocks on the door to see if the fitting room is occupied. How should I response to that? Also, is there another way to refer to the people who works in the store other than" _store employee_ "? |
4,287 | 84,257 | 76823_0 | > Your patience on this matter _behooves_. Is it okay to use the word "behooves" in this way? |
4,288 | 1,600 | 76823_0 | Why do you say _masterpiece_ , and not _piece of art_? |
4,289 | 1,602 | 76823_0 | What is the origin of _xox_ used to mean _kisses and hugs_? |
4,290 | 96,932 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Is there an accepted rule for naming all of our various distant relatives > (Kinship Terms)? What is the difference between _second cousin_ and _first cousin once removed_? Is "[ordinal] cousin once removed" generally used in English? |
4,291 | 51,127 | 76823_0 | > **Possible Duplicate:** > Is there an accepted rule for naming all of our various distant relatives > (Kinship Terms)? My relationship to my cousin's dad is nephew-uncle. My relationship to my cousin is cousin-cousin. What is my relationship to my cousin's child? Is it still cousin-cousin? |
4,292 | 134,789 | 76823_0 | > He was in our late army a lieut. Colo. & he performd the duties of that > office with reputation. It is probable that he may feel wounded at being > offerd the same grade under others whom he then commanded & who are perhaps > **in nothing** his superiors. It is presumd that officers in the actual army > will command those of the same grade in the eventual army. If we are correct > in this then Colonels Bentley & Parker who were both subalterns when Colo. > Cropper was a field officer, & who are not supposd to have manifested any > superiority over him, will now take rank of him. (Source) Could someone please explicate and demystify **in nothing**? My guess would be that Colonel Cropper's superiors admittedly possesses nothing that would make them veritably superior? |
4,293 | 134,785 | 76823_0 | A example sentence from Oxford dictionary: > Shoot - exclamation > North American informal > used as a euphemism for ‘shit’: > > **shoot, it was a great day to be alive** What is the tone of this sentence? How to paraphrase it? |
4,294 | 134,787 | 76823_0 | Is there another common way of saying: _with his/her back facing me?_ For example: > The person was standing in the middle of the clearing, **[...back...]** me. I don't want to use **his/her** because I don't want to reveal the sex of the person. Any suggestions? |
4,295 | 40,308 | 76823_0 | What is considered the correct usage of _mix_ versus _mixture_? As an example, is either of these two sentences considered to be more correct grammatically than the other? 1) _The trip was a mix of hiking and climbing_ 2) _The trip was a mixture of hiking and climbing_ To my ear either is acceptable, but I presume one is better than the other? |
4,296 | 162,838 | 76823_0 | I'm sorry if that question seems quite obvious for some of you, but I'm not native from english country and have some trouble with some expressions. Today, I found this sentence : > In the end, all software systems that need any type of authorization will be > authorizing against activities In this context, I can't manage to understand the meaning of against, it is supposed to show some kind of opposition, but where do you find an opposition in this sentence? |
4,297 | 71,173 | 76823_0 | I searched for the following two expressions and came across both being used in various places. > She **smiled at me** at the grocery store. > > She **smiled to me** at the grocery store. What is the difference between the two? |
4,298 | 178,677 | 76823_0 | Not to mention the amazing embellishments that are sure to spark the interest of our well-healed clients: flowers, butterflies, crystals, and feathers. |
4,299 | 178,671 | 76823_0 | In in the following sentence, what does the "v." stand for? > The new system was partially indebted to Stanley v. Georgia Does it mean "Stanley and Georgia" or "Stanley against Georgia"? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.