title: Is “curate the market” common usage of “curate”?

text: I found New York Times (November 25) article titled “Helpful definition of modern author” intriguing. It provides humorous definitions of book-related terminologies such as authors, publishers, publicists, readers, books, bookstores, Amazon.com, etc. For example: > You, Author: Act as Book’s Publicist, responsible for promotion. Your > Publicist: Acts as your Mom. Tells you that you’re special and talented but > makes you do everything for yourself. Your Mom: Acts as Book’s Audience, > buying most of the copies. > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/helpful-definitions-for- > modern-authors/ However, I was drawn to the usage of the word, “curate “in the following sentence: > "Your Publisher creates book’s mold ahead of time, in so far as it **curates > the existing market** into which book must fit. (Additional duty: being > dumbfounded by that market.)” I’ve seldom seen the case of ‘curate’ being used as a verb in such a context to mean assess or evaluate. As I checked dictionaries online; Cambridge English Dictionary defines ‘curate’ only as a noun to mean ‘a priest of the lowest rank, especially in the Church of England, whose job is to help the vicar, with _no mention on verb usage._ Oxford Dictionary defines it as ‘a member of the clergy engaged as assistant to a vicar, rector, or parish priest.’ _No mention on verb usage._ Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as noun: a clergyman (or assistant clergyman) in charge of a parish, and ‘to act as CURATOR of a museum’ as a transitive verb. Is it common to use ‘curate’ as a verb like “curate the market the book fits in,”? Can I say just casually “You must carefully curate the offer whether you can fit the job before applying for it,” or “I seriously curated her whether she fits to my life-long partner,” without raising your eyebrows?


title: What are the main differences of swearing between American and British English?

text: Can anyone please tell me what are the main differences of the swearwords usage between American and British English?


title: "In a broad range of positions" or "on a broad range of positions"?

text: I'm writing a cover letter and need to know the proper way of saying this: > Over the last ten years I had the opportunity to work for multinational > companies **in/on** a broad range of management positions.


title: "by" before the gerund, when is needed

text: Please consider the follow two sentences: >   1. It is hard to agree that **by** increasing sports facilities is the > best way to improve public health. > >   2. The best way to improve public health is **by** increasing the number > of sports facilities. > > Why the first sentence does not need the preposition "by" while the second one does.


title: using a preposition after verbs such as "enter" and "control"

text: consider the two sentence below: "Elizabeth Taylor entered the room" and "she entered into the room". here is another pair: "the rebels control the city" and "they control over the city". my question is whether the second sentence in each pair is appropriate, and therefore correct. should we not use a preposition after verbs such as "enter" and "control"? I can say that "her entry into the room" and "their control over the city" is correct. but what about those I mentioned above. I admit it looks odd but what is the real deal? .


title: Is 'entrance ticket' used metaphorically?

text: I want to say something about parenthood being constructed in our culture as the thing that allows one to enter adult society. Could I say parenthood is an entrance ticket to adult society? Would a native English speaker say that?


title: What is the difference in meaning between "I play" and "I do play"?

text: What is the difference between _I play_ and _I do play_? For example: If someone were to ask to me, do you play soccer?


title: "I understand you" vs "I do understand you"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the difference in meaning between "I play" and "I do play"? What is the difference between "I understand you" and "I do understand you", and what kind of grammatical structure is the last one?


title: sentence pattern clarification

text: I am really confused with indirect and direct object...   I am in need to find the sentence pattern for this sentence. _He showed kindness to his parents._


title: Parenthetical statement that expresses a condition

text: I am studying a book and one of the lines (which was written in the 30's) is, > We had admitted that we were powerless over alcohol -- that our lives had > become unmanageable. My question is whether or not it is to read this as two separate statements -- meaning one could be true and not the other; or does it mean if the first is true then the second is also true?


title: What term describes "a loss of immersion" while reading?

text: If a book is good, readers can easily imagine the story and forget they are reading. If they encounter a problem, perhaps a spelling error or something unbelievable within the universe of the story, the reader suddenly loses this immersion.   * Is there a formal term which means "something which causes a loss of immersion"?   * Is there a technical or more formal phrase meaning "to lose immersion"?


title: Veracity in terms of accuracy

text: I want one word which indicates "Something with great veracity". Here, the emphasis of veracity is more towards "accuracy" than "truth". It's a thing, an instrument that has good veracity. I want to use this word as a name for such an instrument.


title: What is more commonly used in US? "Cum Laude" or "With Honors"?

text: I understand that the terms _Cum Laude_ and _With Honors_ are interchangeable, but which one is better understood in US and more commonly used?


title: Does "What did you get up to?" make sense?

text: Someone texted me the following > What did you get up to? And when I asked what that meant, told me it meant _What are you doing tonight?_. Now to me that doesn't make any sense, but I'm not a native speaker. The other person is. Before I entrench myself in an argument, I want to make sure I'm right. Does that make sense?


title: Meaning of “make labor of”

text: When someone says _not to make labor of it_ what does it mean?


title: What are the different kinds of objectionable contents?

text: I am working on a project which categorizes the different articles by its objectionable content types. Is there a list of objectionable content types available in english? I tried googling it, but the closest thing i found was this from wordnik. Its quite different, where it shows the words similar to the word `objectionable`, but what i want is different words those categorizes different `objectionable` contents? check out the list which shows different objectionable contents (its not 100% correct, feel free to correct).               {         "Objections":[             {                 "name":"Inaccurate",                 "desc":"The statements expressed in the underlying content is not correct. "             },             {                 "name":"Misleading",                 "desc":"The content is giving the wrong idea or impression"                           },             {                 "name":"Offensive",                 "desc":"The content is very offensive and hurtful"             },             {                 "name":"Controversial",                 "desc":"The statements expressed in the underlying content is controversial"                           },             {                 "name":"Derogatory",                 "desc":"The expressed content in the article is intentioally offensive and demeriting the subject"             },             {                 "name":"Inflammatory",                 "desc":"The expressed content in the article is intentioally arousing violent feelings"             },             {                 "name":"Religious hatred",                 "desc":"The expressed content in the article is proposing blasphemous and arousing public violence"             },             {                 "name":"Disgust",                 "desc":"The expressed content in the article is showing something unpleasant"                            },             {                 "name":"Racism",                 "desc":"The expressed content in the article contains racist statements"                        },             {                 "name":"Corruption",                 "desc":"The expressed content in the article somehow encourages corruption"             },             {                 "name":"Anti govenrment",                 "desc":"The expressed content in the article is propaganding anti government sentiment"             } ,             {                 "name":"Terror",                 "desc":"The expressed content in the article is encouraging terrorism"             },                       {                 "name":"Adult",                 "desc":"The article/video showcasing the adult content without the adult rating"                             },             {                 "name":"War crimes",                 "desc":"The content expressed in this article/video showing war crimes"         ]     }      any help much appreciated!


title: Can I replace "that is/are (supposed) to" with just "to"?

text: Is this sentence grammatically correct? > [This method] binds a handler to one or more events **to be executed** once > for each matched element. source Is it just a contraction of the following sentence? > This method binds a handler to one or more events, **that is (supposed) to > be executed** once for each matched element.


title: Is “Now I lay me down to sleep” grammatical?

text: This is in a song I’ve heard. Is it grammatically correct?


title: Australians and SR1

text: This Article in question. Do Australians still use the Spelling Reform 1 (SR1) officially or unofficially? > It calls for the short /ɛ/ sound (as in bet) to always be spelt with E. said→sed, jeopardy→jepardy, bury→bery, etc.


title: What does "sell x for value" mean?

text: In the sentence _"We sell you clothes for value."_ , what does "for value" mean? Is the above sentence even grammatically valid?


title: What's the difference between "inferencing" and "inferring"?

text: I have encountered the words "inferencing" and "inferring" in literature on educational research. Is there a difference in meaning between the words _inferencing_ and _inferring_? Just as an example, > "The teacher asked the student to **infer** some detail from the text." If " _inference_ " is used instead, does that change the meaning?


title: Should we treat "information" as a plural term in the following context?

text: I'm writing a thesis on web information extraction. I use the term information a lot in my thesis, but I'm not sure I should treat it as a plural term or singular term. The following are some cases where I have doubt. > How are faculty member information presented in web pages? > > Information extracted from multiple sources are integrated based on some > rules. As you can see from the examples, I use it as a plural term in the context. However, I don't feel right when I actually read it. Anyone please shed some light on this?


title: Should I put a definite article before a scientific term?

text: Which is (more) correct? >   * (I am with the) Laboratory of Biochemistry of Hydrobionts. >   * (I am with the) Laboratory of the Biochemistry of Hydrobionts. > Is there any rule for using or not using _the_ before _Biochemistry_?


title: What term describes a story set within a foreign culture, but described by an outsider?

text: Many stories and films contain elements of foreign cultures, or are supposedly set in foreign lands, yet were written by outsiders to those cultures. For example:   * _Tikki Tikki Tembo_ was set in ancient China, but was written by an American author.   * _Sagwa, the Chinese Siamese Cat_ was set in ancient China, yet was written by Canadians.   * _Avatar: The Last Airbender_ , contained many subtle references to Chinese and Japanese cultures, but was written by Americans. Is there any term which could be used to describe such works collectively or to describe the resulting "culture not-quite-matching-the-real-thing"?


title: How to merge two sentences?

text: I need your help in merging these two sentences in one and short.                 For the evaluation, three statistical criteria were used: correlation coefficient        (R), root mean squared difference (RMSD), and bias. Global R, RMSD, and bias maps         were averaged taking into account contrasted biomes and vegetation (via the Leaf           Area Index; LAI).


title: "At" or "in" the office?

text: When do you use _at the office_? And when do you use _in the office_? What's the difference between the phrases?


title: Adjective "displaced" applied to an object

text: Can I apply the adjective _displaced_ to an object, when I mean it is being used out of its typical environment? For instance: "the displaced ball floats around". (Assuming we're talking about a ball used in a football match played on the moon. Typical usage would be on earth, with gravity.)


title: What term means "to imagine one is someone else"?

text: I am looking for a professional term, used to describe a situation in which a person imagines that they are someone else. E.g., someone playing a first- person game will imagine that they are within the game, and "super-impose" their personality onto that character. Or, a child might imagine they are a superhero from their favorite story and consider what they would do with the superhero's abilities. The term "role-play" is related, but not precisely what I am looking for. "Role-play" seems to emphasize the "playing" or "acting" aspect. I want a term that just means, "imagining you are someone else".


title: what does it mean to be cheerleading a project when you are the boss?

text: I've heard the expression "the boss is cheerleading a project" where the boss is not really managing the project, but is just encouraging their people for the project to happen. Where does this come from and why would the boss be the cheerleader when he/she is still the superior?


title: Everybody had a different opinion. Is there an idiom for this?

text: I'm searching for an idiom (in a negative sense) that means that a group of people have different opinions, so it's difficult for them to solve a problem, to decide on something or agree on something. Example: >   * They couldn't decide where to go, because everyone had a different > opinion. >   * Since the members of the political party have different opinions about > its name, we'll have to wait before designing the campaign. >


title: What is the correct usage? "Ever so often" or "Every so often"

text: A colleague asked to check in with me every couple of weeks. I would like to respond that it would be wonderful if they checked in ever so often. But, I don't believe that sounds correct. How should I phrase it?


title: What are the rules of capitalization and article usage with building names?

text: What are the rules for building names? In particular, does the word "building" need to be capitalized when a part of a building's name? How about article "the" - what are the rules for using it as a part of the name, and does it get capitalized in the middle of the sentence? For instance: is it "the American Radiator building" or "The American Radiator Building" or "American Radiator building"? How about when the address is the name of the building, like 7 World Trade Center?


title: How should I refer to people who have had something shared with them?

text: In the application I am developing, I'd like to refer to people who have had something shared with them (link, photo etc.) but I couldn't figure out what word or phrase to use.


title: What is the difference between "citizen" and "denizen"

text: Citizen: 1. A legally recognized subject ornational of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized. 2. An inhabitant of a particular town or city. Denizen: 1. An inhabitant or occupant of a particular place. Same thing?


title: Difference between "computation" and "calculation"

text: If the words _computation_ and _calculation_ are not perfect synonyms what is the difference between them? Which one describes more accurately what is done by a person computing or calculating something on a piece of paper?


title: Why "themselves" and "himself"

text: In the earliest grades of elementary schools, students learn that "hisself" and "theirselves" are not words. I do not understand why this is. If you wanted to refer to 'his' sock, you would say "his sock," not "him sock." Similarly, you would say "their socks," not "them socks." Why do you not call 'his' self _hisself_ and 'their' selves as _theirselves_?


title: "Invoke" and "invocation"

text: We invoke something using an invocation. Is the use of a _k_ and a _c_ in words of the same root like this unusual? Might I reasonably expect _invocation_ to be spelled _invokation_?


title: Having or eating one's cake

text: Which is it? "You cannot eat your cake and have it, too," meaning you can have it or you can eat it, but once it's gone there's no cake left to eat. "You cannot have your cake and eat it, too", meaning, as I understand it, you actually own the cake, so you can eat it if you want to. A brief Google search suggests the second option is common usage (though I would argue misusage.)


title: Can a hypothetical "could" main clause stand on its own without an expressed conditional?

text: I have been reading Meaning and the English Verb (Leech, Geoffrey N. 2004). I like its systematic treatment on tense, aspect, mood, and modality. I think it's a must-have for any advanced ESL learners. It's just amazing and extremely accessible, really a perfect complement to Practical English Usage by Swan. But only one thing I still feel uncertain about is whether **could** can be used alone without adding "if-clause" to express irrealis thoughts. I know it is true of **would** (e.g. it would be fantastic to get to the moon), but I'm not sure it's also true of **could** or **might**. > Meaning and the English Verb §183 > >> HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY. Used hypothetically, **could** and **might** are substitutes for **may** in expressing factual possibility (see §121): >> >> There **could** be trouble at the World Cup match tomorrow. | The door **might** be locked already. | Our team **might** still win the race. >> >> The effect of the hypothetical auxiliary, with its implication ‘contrary to expectation’, is to make the expression of possibility more tentative and guarded. Our team **might** still win the race can be paraphrased ‘It is barely possible that…’ or ‘It is possible, though unlikely, …’. > > Meaning and the English Verb §186 > >> To conclude, the following sentences illustrate this multiplicity with examples of **seven different** meanings of **could** : >> >> #1, #2 and #3 are omitted here.   >  #4. Hypothetical equivalent of can (= ‘possibility’) (cf. §176)   >  The house is one of the most beautiful that **could** be imagined.   >  #5. Hypothetical equivalent of can (= ‘ability’) (cf. §176)   >  Do you know anyone who **could** repair this clock for me?   >  #6. Hypothetical equivalent of can (= ‘permission’) (cf. §176)   >  I’d be grateful if I **could** borrow your electric drill.   >  #7. Tentative equivalent of **may** (= ‘factual possibility’) (cf. §183)   >  The weather has been terrible up there in the mountains. You **could** find > climbing very difficult. >> >> The last meaning is rather more **anomalous** than the others, as it shows could extending its range of meaning into the epistemic territory of ‘factual possibility’ which is the domain of may, not can. I would think Leech is making clashing points here. Isn't the usage of **could** in the three examples in §183 identical with that in #7? If so, why does Leech say #7 is more anomalous? or, to put it another way, why does Leech separate #7 from #4 and #5? I would think #7 is the most common usage of **could**. Is the usage of #7 derived form #4 or #5? For #4 and #5. I would think they are just the same as: > The house is one of the most beautiful that **can** be imagined.   >  Do you know anyone who **can** repair this clock for me? What are the unexpressed conditionals implied in #4 and #5 respectively? If we used **can** , would any nuances be suggested? Why bother to use hypothetical mood there?


title: Word for transportation of only people and goods and not data?

text: Is there a word for transportation of only people and goods, and explicitly not data? Example: "On the internet you can't transport physical and material payload like passengers and cargo."


title: Why use the term "Sister sites" instead of "Brother sites"?

text: This came up recently on programmers.SE, when someone (a Russian, presumably non-native English speaker) asked why we used the term "sister sites", instead of "brother sites". Of course, I'm a native English speaker, and I have no idea _either_ , hence this question. The full question, for context, was "Several of our sister sites have taken to featuring Questions [...]". It does seem odd, considering that English (usually) uses masculine terms as the default.


title: Is "what a badass of a barber!" correct?

text: If one wants to informally exclaim about the excellence of someone, say a barber, using the word _badass_ , should one say "What a badass of a barber!"? Or is "What a badass barber!" more correct? Are both correct enough? Are there other alternatives one should consider?


title: What does "with" mean in this sentence?

text: In the sentence: > He just called me to confirm everything with his father and also they have > selected which company they will contact "he" is a third person pronoun and "his father" is the father of "he". So "they" is "he & his father". What troubles me is the preposition "with" in this context. Does it mean: he called me to confirm everything **_together_** with his father, or does it mean that his father also confirms everything?


title: Does one "laugh out of enjoyment" or "laugh of enjoyment"?

text: Does one "laugh out of enjoyment while watching a movie"? Or does one "laugh from enjoyment"? Or "laugh of enjoyment"?


title: What does “I don’t think we figured in his day at all” mean?

text: In the film 127 hours (screenplay) the character Kristi says: > Know what? I don’t think we figured in his day at all. What does she mean by _I don’t think we figured in his day at all_?


title: Is there a term for referring to an organization by its city rather than by its name?

text: This happens specifically often in the technology press: >   * There's no point trying to ascribe motives to what Redmond [instead of > "Microsoft"] does. >   * We'll see shortly if Cupertino [instead of "Apple"] thinks likewise ... > I'm certain its use is much wider though I can't think of many examples right now. Using "Detroit" as another name for the US auto industry is slightly wider: >   * Who says that Detroit does not sell cars Americans want to drive? > Anyway, I have a suspicion there is a name for this so what is it?


title: What is the figure of speech called when there is a conjunction of things that are actually in subset relation?

text: For example "animals and cats", "plants and flowers", "stars and suns" etc. It’s similar to tautology but the things aren’t synonym. Is there a name for this figure?


title: Is there a specific word or term for the two dots (":") between hours and minutes?

text: Is there a specific word or term for the two dots in this "14:23"? Edit. I know it's a colon. :-) I mean specifically related to date and time display.


title: Synonyms of "that's it"

text: I often use _that's it from me for today_ to summarise and finish my report on daily standup. Are there any other, similar phrases?


title: Posting a letter and sending it via e-mail

text: I am sending a formal letter to a recipient by registered post and e-mail. Is it convention to include within the e-mail/PDF such text like: "As sent via post on " or something similar to inform the recipient to also expect the letter via the postal system?


title: Can a human "bless" anything?

text: Does the word "bless" apply only to God? For example, can a human bless anything (such as "bless the day")? Or can only God bless? Note, I am asking about the usage of the word "bless", and not about religion. Is there a definition of the word _bless_ that describes an accepted usage of the word in a secular way?


title: Is there any alternative phrase or sentence to -with reference to the subject above-while stating an official communication?

text: I have been using the sentence -with reference to the subject above- for all my official communication. Is there any better sentence to start a official note with?


title: Odd, affected pronunciation of "realtor"

text: A while back, I noticed that the voice-over on a commercial repeatedly used an odd pronunciation of the word realtor - "real-TORE", with a long O as opposed to "real-tur", like "doc-tur" or "inven-tur". The pronunciation was plenty rhotic, so it's not like it was a British English thing. Anyhow, I wrote it off as a single strange person until I heard the head of whatever the national organization of realtors is use the same odd pronunciation. All I can figure is that there must be an influential figure in the realtor community who is pushing hard for this odd pronunciation. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


title: What is the "material holding" in a company'?

text: I am working on a text and it confuses my mind. I do understand the meaning and yet can not be sure about it. It says: > The arbitrator holds shares, either directly or indirectly, which by reason > of number or denomination constitute a **material holding in** one of the > parties or an affiliate of the parties that is publicly listed. Is there any other word for material holding, or is it the same thing with 'to material influence on a company' ?


title: Are words like "freaking" and "flippin'" adverbs or adjectives when used like this?

text: As far as I understand it a present participle used like the one in the example ould be functionally an adjective > The barking dog. I am wondering about intensifying words like "freaking" or "flipping" or "god damn" > Take the flippin' train. To me, they don't convey very much about the noun but rather something about the speakers thoughts that go beyond the statement. As such they feel just the same as their adverb-instances > Just freaking go. Seeing that "freaking" does not have the usual "-ly" ending, I have the following questions.   * Is the first use really an adjective?   * Are intensifying words categorized totally disregarding their semantic function?   * What are they?   * What are they in combination with verbs?   * If adverb, why not "-ly".


title: Looking for idiom/expression to describe an instance where one makes something seem better than it really is

text: Maybe the example would help to describe the expression I am looking for: Say - a sub-par school or organization makes a promotional video, whereby they make the school look way better than it really is. They accomplished this by interviewing a few successful students, showing only the best parts of the school/classes, picking a few angles, and omitting 80% of what really represents the true situation. I have heard the following expression, but not sure whether it's appropriate, or even phrased correctly: > Turn chicken into a chicken soup. EDIT: actually the expression was > Make chicken salad out of chicken $#!%" coined by Brock Lesnar. Obviously it's less befitting than others mentioned on the thread.


title: "chance" as a verb in context

text: In the following text, is "chance" a verb or a noun? > Very few did better than chance in spotting which was which. Could I replace it with "guess"?


title: Where does "can't be arsed" come from?

text: I've only heard it from Kiwis, but I am told it's used in other countries as well: "I can't be arsed" means (IIUC) "I can't be bothered". Where could the expression come from? It's the only expression I know of that uses "arse" as a verb -- assuming that is the correct spelling. Is it from "arse" (British English for "ass") or some weird mangling of "ask" or something even stranger? Also, do the Brits even still say "arse"?


title: How should I interpret the word "read" when it is in parentheses?

text: I understand that in the following sentence, "read" in brackets is meant to indicate that the adjective outside the brackets should be replaced with the adjective within the brackets:               His approach was lacklustre (read: terrible)      But what I'm wondering is whether "read" should be, well, read as the past tense of "to read" /rɜd/, which would make it short for the declarative "This is read as..." or the present tense /riːd/, which would be short for the imperative "You should read this as...". Not that it matters terribly, but I'm curious: could anybody shed light upon this?


title: What's the proper way to dedicate a paper with a "to the memory of"?

text: I am writing a scientific paper and want to dedicate it to my former supervisor who passed away recently. The standard practice in this case is to write the dedication phrase just below the title of the paper. What I am not sure as I am a non-native speaker is the exact wording. It would be terrible if I write something offensive or inappropriate out of my ignorance. I have the following suggestions:   1. To the memory of ...   2. Dedicated to the bright memory of ...   3. Dedicated to the memory of ... My questions are   1. Is option 1 ok without the word "dedicated"?   2. Is the word "bright" fine here? I like this choice, but my worry is that it might be reserved for the people who were very close to him, or "bright" would imply some strange meaning that I am unaware of.   3. What would you write?


title: Questionee? Inquiree? Interrogatee?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What do you call somebody who asks a question and somebody who answers a > question?   >  What do I call a person who is participating in a survey? What's a proper but simple one-word description of a person to whom a question is being asked?


What do you call somebody who asks a question and somebody who answers a question? I have exhausted the thesaurus with no real luck... any ideas? EDIT: It is in reference to this - or any other StackExchange - site in which the question is posed by X and answer is submitted by Y. EDIT 2: In the context of StackExchange, and the fact I need plurality (something I neglected to mention oooops), I have decided upon "Posters" and "Respondents"...


title: Terminology of roles in a Q&A: The "asker" and "answerer"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What do you call somebody who asks a question and somebody who answers a > question? If you have one person in the role of asking questions, and another person in the role of answering questions, are there one-word names for their respective roles? In other words:   * The term for someone who asks a question = ('Asker', 'Questioner', ?)   * The term for someone who answers a question = ('Answerer', ?) They all seem like awful terms- is there another way to refer to them?


title: What to call a person who replies to your comment

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What do you call somebody who asks a question and somebody who answers a > question? In a conversation, if person A replies to person B, what do we call A and B? EDIT: Sorry I wasn't clear. I need to know what to call "A" and "B". I'm involved in a project to create a comment system. So, B makes a comment... A replies to B's comment.


title: Is "Forgive my being late" grammatical?

text: Is it grammatically correct to write "forgive my being late to this discussion" as an alternative to "sorry that I'm late to this discussion"?


title: Should "that" and "the" be used in these situations?

text: I'm always uncertain whether or not I should use "the" and "that" in the following cases: > There is no guarantee **(that)** measurement values are the cause of . . . and > Which will lead to **(the)** correct evaluation of the measure . . . Yes or no?


title: the verb of taking from before and putting after

text: Let's think we have 3 bottles. A bottle of cola, a bottle of milk and a bottle of water. We put them in line. First is cola, second is water and third is milk. Now, I change the place of cola with milk. I put milk before water, and cola after water. What did I do? I ??? cola and water... Do we have a verb to replace with `???` in that sentence?


title: "I would have never said" vs. "I would never say"

text: I know a lot of questions have been asked about _would_ or _would have_ but I haven't found any answers that help me understand this three-party conversation, with C possibly a native speaker: > A: How do I ask for a cup of tea in the USA?   >  B: Bring me the tea, please!   >  C: No, I would have never said that. or > C: No, I would never say that. What's the difference? Which form is preferred by native speakers?


title: Proverb or expression for someone taking on too much

text: What is an appropriate proverb or expression that means one has:   1. Taken on too many tasks   2. Set out to do something that one isn't qualified to do and hence probably will fail   3. Set out to do something that probably is impossible to begin with


title: Usage of "break off one's plans"

text: I have heard the expression _break off one's plans_ in the context of breaking off one's holidays due to an emergency. > He had to **break off** his holidays to come back for the meeting. What are other examples of its usage?


title: Present continuous to discuss action's frequency

text: I saw the following on an ESL test: > John: How often …………… ?   >  Dave: He …………… at least five days a week. > > a) does he exercise - swims   >  b) is he exercising - is swimming   >  c) is he exercising - swims   >  d) does he exercise - is swimming I think both _(a)_ and _(b)_ are acceptable and the test isn't standard. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.


title: Number that should be used here

text: Ok, this question came from another question, in which my answer has a "problem". In this question, three conditions were given. In my answer to this question, I stated: > You have listed a very specific criteria... However, at the bottom, in the comments, a user stated that "Just FYI, the singular of _criteria_ is _criterion_ ", seeming to indicate that I should use "criterion" instead. Which would actually be correct to use in this case, "criterion", or "criteria" (I'm pretty sure that since there's multiple conditions, _criteria_ should be used, unless there's an exception here I am not acquainted with). And can someone please explain how the grammar behind all this works.


title: How do you call the crunching sound from bone joints?

text: When I wake up and do stretching I hear some sounds from my joints. How do you call this crunching sound from bone joints?


title: Is there a polite alternative to "No thanks, I'm full"?

text: English is not my native language, but when I was studying in the US, I was always trying to find an alternative to > _I'm full!_ I felt that it was a very improper way to express that I have eaten enough, especially when I was invited for dinner. I remember having difficulties demonstrating my gratitude towards my hosts when using this expression. Being _full_ feels to me a bit like a car that has been filled with gasoline and gasoline is just used to continue working. That's not what I want to say... Is there a better word I can use? I haven't found one in the dictionary. There are, of course, long forms: > _I have had enough [, thank you]._ that I have learned to use, but I wonder if there is a short one. Other Languages have _rassasié_ (French), _sazio_ (Italian) and _satt_ (German). Should I use _satiated_? * * * **Update:** Thank you all for the overwhelming response! After 13 answers, I feel I got a better understanding of the phrase. I'm grateful for _@Andrews_ answer, because he took the cultural aspect into consideration. This was the decisive part that I missed. I can also understand @MT_ Head that saying _No thank you, I'm full_ while smiling isn't offensive at all. Thanks for that. I conclude that there is not a single wide spread word I can use which doesn't sound stilted or strange (or even has a touch of sexual pleasure). I now have a repertoire of polite responses available. I'm accepting the most helpful answer for me, but most of you got my up-vote. :)


title: A data compromise

text: I know that security people use the verb "to compromise" with the meaning of "to break", for example in "the integrity of the account has been compromised". But is it okay to also use the noun "compromise" in this context? My dictionary only has that meaning as a verb ("to weaken"), but the noun seems to be reserved for "middle state between conflicting opinions". On the other hand, you get a lot of hits on Google for "data compromise".


title: What does "run of house" mean with regard to hotel room type

text: I have seen a room type at a hotel like below; > Family Room 2 Bedrooms & Living Room Run of The House Everything is OK except the `Run of The House` thing. What does it exactly mean here? AFAIK, it is whatever room is available when you check-in. Is that true? Or does that have some other meanings?


title: "For all" or "for each"

text: In mathematical context, or in the context of mathematical logic, is there a difference between: > This is valid for _each_ x. and > This is valid for _all_ x. ? If both have the same meaning, which is preferable?


title: When a question is followed by a bulleted list, where does the question mark go?

text: Where do I put the question mark when I want to ask about a list of items? For example: > Should we mention other books by Charles Dickens, such as: > >   * _A Tale of Two Cities_ : a novel describing the chaos of the French > Revolution from the perspective of a handful of people from England and > France. >   * _A Christmas Carol_ : a novella following Ebenezer Scrooge as he is > haunted by spirits that teach him what his avarice is doing to those around > him. > In particular, the question mark doesn't seem to have a home because:   * The text at the beginning can't be punctuated by a question mark, since it wouldn't form a complete sentence. A workaround might be to go ahead and ask the question, followed by "Examples include:" .   * The list items are sentences of their own, rather completing the beginning of the question in alternative ways. Although the points above offer ways to avoid this construction, one or both might not work for a given scenario (e.g. if the bullet points consist of several sentences each, not just one). Is it possible to keep the construction above and put the question mark somewhere, or do I have no choice but to reword in some situations?


title: "Sites like Facebook do/does use ..."

text: When I am talking about plural ("Sites"), should I use does or do? In case I'm talking in plural, I should use "do". But "like Facebook", is singular. So which one is correct?


title: Post-hyphenation of split compound words

text: Assuming that these two words > off-topic > > on-topic _must_ be hyphenated, which of the punctuations in the following sentences is correct? (crucial part emphasized) > Regardless of whether it is an **off or on-topic** example, it is a > brilliant consideration in the definition of this proposal. > > Regardless of whether it is an **off- or on-topic** example, it is a > brilliant consideration in the definition of this proposal. I know you can get around this with a verbose constuction like _off-topic or on-topic_ , or by not hyphenating either and treating _off_ and _on_ and _topic_ as separate words, but neither suggestion really does anything to answer my question.


title: Is the first hyphen in "Anti- and pro-American", "bi- and tri-monthy", "country- and state-specific" correct?

text: Those prefixes "Anti", "bi" etc would look odd as separate words, but then, even complete words like "country" or "state" ending with a dangling hyphen look odd. So what is the correct rule for this? Should I play safe and use it like "Anti-American and pro-American"? Please suggest the correct way to do it. Wikipedia article on English hyphens was of little help over this.


title: What word describes a university class in both the UK and the US?

text: In the US words like _class_ , _subject_ , _course_ are used to describe a university class, while in the UK, words like _subject_ and _course_ are used to describe the name of the whole university degree. Instead in the UK words like _module_ or _unit_ are used to describe a university class. Is there a word that will be understood by both British English speakers and American English speakers? UPDATE: by university class I meant a series of lectures on a topic e.g. "Economics 101" or "Introduction to Statistics".


title: Is the saxon genitive missing in the song title "Hells Bells"?

text: I am confused by title of song by AC/DC: _Hells Bells_. Shouldn't it be _Hell's Bells_ (meaning "bells from hell") or _Hells' Bells_ (meaning "bells from hells")? Or is it just a slack language common for rock songs lyrics?


title: Does this sentence seem weird?

text: A line from William Golding's _The Lord of the Flies_ : > All round him the long scar smashed into the jungle was a bath of heat. Is it just me or does the sentence seem grammatically off?


title: Usage of "elliptical" sentence

text: Please explain an "elliptical" sentence. Is it used as a shortcut of implied ascription?


title: Is there the gerund of the verb "can"?

text: I would like translate a Portuguese phrase into English: > Esta técnica é bem poderosa, podendo ser extendida para várias outras > questões. In English I got: > This technique is very powerful and can be extended to several other > questions. _Podendo_ is the gerund, in Portuguese, of the verb _poder_ ( _can_ , in English). It looks like there's no gerund for the verb _can_ , in English. Is this correct? What's the suggestion to translate this phrase?


title: Meaning of a mixed metaphor from "The Gift of The Magi"?

text: This is from _The Gift of The Magi_ by _O Henry_ (William Sydney Porter). > Oh, and the next two hours tripped by on rosy wings. Forget the hashed > metaphor. (part 4, paragraph 5 in the reference above) I fail to understand what the _hashed_ Metaphor is, in the context of this story. Apart from this line, the rest of the plot is clear to me (and so is the context). I found a reference according to which the metaphor was actually a _mixed metaphor_ , but I am not well-versed with the types of metaphors and their relative differences (or meanings). I also went through a reference which stated that this metaphor might have stemmed from the fact that this story was written while meeting a strict deadline. I fail to see the connection between the meaning of this metaphor and the haste with which it might have originally been written.


title: "Dad's corner" or "dads' corner"

text: Which is right: _dad's corner_ or _dads' corner_? I see _dad's corner_ used regularly so I am assuming that's right, but in my mind _dad's_ is singular whereas the corner belongs to multiple dads as it's a place for dads to go to meet.


title: Plural of "fleece" when referring to fleece jacket

text: Is the word _fleece_ when referring to a fleece jacket also the plural form, or is that _fleeces_?


title: How to pronounce LINQ?

text: How to pronounce LINQ? Or should I just say L-I-N-Q? (LINQ is a .NET extension for queries.)


title: Meanings of 'killing moon' and 'killing time' in song by Echo and The Bunnymen

text: I was wondering what the meanings of the expressions _killing moon_ and _killing time_ on the song _Killing moon_ by Echo and The Bunnymen are. > Under blue moon I saw you So soon   >  you'll take me Up in your arms Too   >  late to beg you or cancel it Though I   >  know it must be the killing time   >  Unwillingly mine > > ... > > In starlit nights I saw you So cruelly   >  you kissed me Your lips a magic world   >  Your sky all hung with jewels The   >  killing moon Will come too soon I assume the song does not refer to some sort of ritualistic murder on full moon. What then are the meanings intended for these expressions?


title: What's the meaning of “astrung”?

text: What is the meaning of _astrung_? I’ve read it from this passage from _Of Human Bondage_ : > She was terrified. She wanted him to reassure her; She looked at him > pleadingly, not daring to ask for words of comfort but with all her nerves > **astrung** to receive them: he had none to offer her. In the dictionary I have there is no word such as _astrung_. What does this word mean? Actually, I am afraid it’s just misprinted.


title: How do you usually interpret "egregious"?

text: OED's entry about "egregious" indicates it can mean remarkable in both good and bad ways. Vocabulary.com's entry, in contrast, emphasizes to not use it for meaning positively outstanding. How do you usually interpret and use "egregious"?


title: What is the point of prescriptive grammar?

text: There seems to be a distinction and even rift between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, though wikipedia points out that they can apparently "inform each other": > Despite apparent opposition, prescription and description can inform each > other,[3][page needed] because comprehensive descriptive accounts must take > into account speaker attitudes (including prescriptive ones), and some > understanding of how language is actually used is necessary for prescription > to be effective. But I've just never really understood prescriptive grammar -- it seems like language is constantly being added to (and to a lesser extent, losing some words because they're becoming so archaic it's not even really the same language anymore), so saying what's "right" or "wrong" in terms of grammar is basically choosing some specific moment in time and arbitrarily deciding that that's the "proper" form of the language, and the one to strive for. It just seems like an inherently losing battle, and one that makes no sense to fight -- if 100% of people understand a word, what's the point in saying it shouldn't be used? E.g., "I ain't" is definitely not considered correct, but there's no real reason it shouldn't be allowed as an alternative to "I'm not". I understand one reason for prescriptive grammar, essentially to make communication possible. It essentially establishes rules, and speech would quickly get confusing if we had no rules. But some of the things it prohibits seem to have little to do with facilitating communication, and more with just upholding some arbitrary status quo. "Swag" is a really annoying word, but it doesn't really make sense to say it's not an "official word" or something if millions of people are using it and all know what it means among each other. Why exactly do prescriptivists even really want this? Is it some sort of weak attempt at "seeking permanence in an impermanent world"?


title: "One of the courses I took that year was x" where "x" is a unique identifier

text: I have a vague feeling that there is something wrong with this sentence I wrote: "One of the courses I took that year was John Doe's Introduction to Literature." I feel that the following sentences are OK: "One of the courses I took that year had very difficult exams." "One of the courses I took that year was taught by John Doe." "One of the courses I took that year was titled Introduction to Literature." But the first sentence I gave doesn't sound right. I thought the reason for this might be that when you say something like "One of the courses was x." and "x" defines the course uniquely (like "John Doe's Introduction to Literature" does), there is no way there could be two such courses, and thus "one of them was ..." is bad usage. But I'm not sure this is a valid reason to reject this usage, and I don't know whether this explanation really captures the reason behind my feeling that this usage is wrong, or at least, not ideal. So my question is: Do you think this usage is indeed less than ideal, and if so, do you think the reason I gave is the right one? (I'm a non-native speaker of English.)


title: Proper usage for the word "obverse"

text: I believe "obverse" has several meanings, with one being "the flip side of something (coin)." I'm trying to cleverly contrast opposite approaches of a person's management duties. "From a wide angle view, she oversees the organization's operations and business developments, while obversely attending to the concurrent needs of individual clients." Is this the right usage of the word "obversely" to contrast "wide" with "individual?" Is there one word that means both obverse and concurrent? What I'm trying to say is "while on the flip side at the same time." Is there more eloquent way to make the statement. I really want to juxtapose the manager's effectiveness in her broad (wide) management duties against the individual (narrow) needs of clients. Thanks to all who respond!


title: Why is this wrong? I have become sick for 2 days

text: I am an Assistant English teacher and today my co-worker(main English teacher), asked me why this sentence is not ok; **I have _become_ sick for 2 days**. I told him that you should use **been** instead of **_become_** , but I could not tell him why.


title: Four-word phrase stress

text: I'm interested to learn why the following four-word phrases have stress on different words. >   1. "Little Red Riding Hood" (stress is on little and riding) >   2. "Infamous National Rifle Association" (stress is on infamous and rifle) >   3. "heavily bearded young man" (stress is on heavily and man) > Here are the sentences: >   1. There was a cute little redhead named Little Red Riding Hood. >   2. She was a recently paid-up member of the infamous National Rifle > Association. >   3. The heavily bearded young man jumped out. > Only the third sentence has its stress on the last word of the four-word phrase: "man". Can someone please tell me how the four-word phrase stress works based on the examples provided above?


title: struck out the one time he was at bat - meaning

text: > How did Timmy do yesterday?   >  He struck out **the one time** he was at bat.   >  Aw. That's too bad.   >  I know. He did his darndest though. I can't understand that line I put in a bold-type font.


title: Why were "skin" and "niggle" slang words meaning to hurry?

text: I've read in a book _From Flappers to Rappers: The Study of American Youth Slang_ two words used commonly within the same decade 1900-1910 meaning to hurry were "skin" and "niggle". I'm puzzled as to why these words would be selected and used to mean hurry: "Let's skin!" or "Let's niggle!". Any ideas?


title: Inconvenient though this might sound, ... phrase structure

text: > The value of $_inputType is set internally by the class at the time of > instantiating the object. If you attempt to change it directly, PHP > generates a fatal error, bringing everything to a grinding halt. > **Inconvenient though this might sound** , this preserves the integrity of > your code by preventing an attacker from tricking a validation routine to > handle variables from the wrong type of source. Does this type of phrasing sound alright to you as native speakers of English?


title: Is there a more formal term for a "hand-waving explanation"

text: I wish to describe an explanation, which is broadly correct, but which glosses over some potentially important details. The nearest term I can think of is "hand-waving explanation". Is there something more formal I could use instead?


title: Word/name for rhetorical technique to give appearance of expertise where none exists?

text: For example, the speaker states "Anyone that has taken probability and statistics in college _knows_... blah blah blah", implying the speaker has such a background, with the intent to assert some authority in the subject / lend more weight to the rest of the statement, when in fact the speaker has no such expertise. Is there a word or name for such a device?


title: The expression "not so much"

text: I have noticed the appearance of the phrase "not so much" in the language recently. It strikes me as both grammatically incorrect and humorous when used. For example,"Jim is very smart; his brother, not so much." Or,"That girl has a beautiful face; her figure, not so much." Has anyone else noticed this new colloquialism?


title: Why do rivers 'burst' their banks?

text: We have had a lot of flooding in the UK in the last week or two, with reports, among other things, of rivers 'bursting their banks'. The verb 'to burst' implies 'breaking or splitting as a result of internal pressure or puncturing' (ODE). But that is not what happens when a river floods. The water simply rises above the banks and floods the surrounding countryside. So why do rivers 'burst' their banks? What would be a more accurately descriptive way of saying it?


title: "Simple marketing software" or "Simplified marketing software" - which is correct?

text: I have built http://www.inboundio.com/ which is a simplified marketing software. Now I am not sure in < title > tag of home page if I should use > Simple inbound marketing software OR > Simplified inbound marketing software ? which is more correct ? I am using simplified till now but curious to know what the English SE community think Thanks


title: Use of the word "panic-stricken" for self

text: which would be the correct use of the word "panic-stricken" in the two sentences below: > I was panic-stricken at the thought of missing my trip to usa OR > I got panic-stricken at the thought of missing my trip to usa Also, please explain why! Because I'm trying to improve my English vocabulary and usage of words in everyday English. Thank you


title: "On Mac OS X" vs. "in Mac OS X"

text: The NY Times uses both "on Mac OS X" and "in Mac OS X". Can someone explain which one seems more appropriate if there is no difference?


title: "I feel bad for you" versus "I feel badly for you"

text: What is the correct usage? Apparently it is "I feel badly", but but wouldn't that mean you have an inadequate ability to feel?


title: Bad or Badly, which is correct?

text: Consider this sentence: > I want to join the contest.. Which is more correct, "so bad" or "so badly"? I'm leaning towards the latter because it is an adverb and an adverb is required to describe a verb or an adjective. As with the case above, badly should describe want. I am not sure though if the former is acceptable. And if it is, why so?


title: Can we use "bad" as an adverb in writing and formal speech?

text: Should a lecturer say > "He felt bad" or "He felt badly"?   >  "His tooth ached so bad he couldn't sleep" or "His tooth ached so badly he > couldn't sleep"? Are both forms acceptable in formal speech?


title: The use of "bad" vs the use of "badly."

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "I feel bad for you" versus "I feel badly for you" Which of the following is more grammatically correct? > I feel bad for her. or > I feel badly for her.


title: Origin of "eye teeth"

text: Today in a UK court Mr Justice Cooke, in passing judgement over three disgraced cricketers, said > The image and integrity of what was once a game but is now a business is > damaged in the eyes of all, including the many youngsters who regarded you > as as heroes and would have given their **eye teeth** to play at the levels > and with the skills that you had. I understand that giving your eye teeth means that you want something a lot, but what is the origin of the expression? (As a native English speaker, I had always thought the expression was "hind teeth" — as in the ones at the back that are painful to extract. It seems that I was wrong in this.)


title: Is there a word better than "exotic" to describe languages that are little known and little studied but have many speakers?

text: I'm looking for a word to describe languages which are not easy to study or find books about in Western Europe or North America. On example language, which I'm currently immersed in, is Georgian, with no major related languages and its own alphabet, most people have never heard of it though it is a national language with millions of speakers. I'm looking for a word that can work OK everywhere, even in the countries where the languages are not in the minority. Georgians for instance are aware most people might not have heard of their language but it's certainly not a minority language in Georgia. **Is "exotic* the right word to use or is there a better one?** * * * **Here's some other languages I think of in the same way:** Albanian, Armenian, Burmese, Hungarian, Khmer, Kurdish, Lao, Latvian, Lithuanian, Mongolian, Persian, Sinhala, Tibetan. (I used the tag "single word requests" because I couldn't find a better one. It doesn't have to be a single word.)


title: Why "off to hell in a handcart"?

text: I can understand the meaning of the phrase _off to hell..._ , but I was wondering why, of all the possible vehicles that may have been chosen, it came to be in a _handcart_?


title: Is this correct English?

text: If the sentence "My thoughts on religion exactly" correct or is "Exactly my thoughts on religion" correct?? Or are both correct??


title: Using a comma before with "with"

text: I am trying to document some code and this sentence sounds confusing. > Replaces the existing item associated with the provided key with newItem. I am tempted to put a comma here but I am not sure if it would be correct. > Replaces the existing item associated with the provided key, with newItem. If it's incorrect, how can I state my intention clearly?


title: "Strikes me a great deal" in a negative way

text: Is it correct to use the above expression that connotes a negative feeling. > The rude behavior of the officer _struck me a great deal_. I didn't expect > this from a professional person.


title: Why does the word 'calculative' not exist in the Oxford dictionary?

text: My friends and I have been using 'calculative' and not 'calculating' to describe a person given to doing or planning things only for their benefits; but it seems like we have been wrong for so long. Anyone with the same problem?


title: The expression "Pitch a loaf"

text: I would like to know where the expression "pitch a loaf" came from, what its origin is, and if people really use it nowadays. I heard it in a movie, and I believe it means to go to the bathroom, by its context; it's just that I have ever in my life heard someone say that.


title: "Lyrics to a song" vs. "lyrics of a song"

text: I've seen both being used interchangeably. Are both valid? Is only one correct? >   1. Lyrics **to** a song. >   2. Lyrics **of** a song. >


title: Past Simple or Past Perfect Continuous?

text: If an action started in the past and lasted for some time, which tense should be used Past Simple or Past Perfect Continuous? For example, I worked out for two hours yesterday or I had been working out for two hours yesterday?


title: Use of "nay" - still current?

text: I get the sense that the interjection _nay_ is seen as outdated and used only for humorous effect. Is this assumption true, or is it still acceptable in serious writing?


title: "accuracy" or "accurateness"?

text: Do "accuracy" and "accurateness" have the exact same meaning? When is one of them preferred over the other one? "accurateness" does not exist as an entry in Oxford Dictionary of English and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (the iPad version of these two). It does however appear in Merriam Webster dictionary (the online version) as the noun for "accurate". Is "accurateness" a new-born word (perhaps in American English)?


title: What is the etymology of the word "snooker"

text: I have heard that the word "snooker" originally meant "beginner" and was coined at the time when the game was first invented. Is there any truth in this theory?


title: Origin and usage of "nu-" (e.g. nu-metal)

text: Not every dictionary I checked has "nu-" but here are a few examples: > **nu-** > > dictionary.com -- indicating an updated or modern version of something: _nu- > metal music_ > > Bing -- new: new, or modern > > Google -- respelling of ‘new,’ used esp. in names of new or revived genres > of popular music. Where did this orginate? Etymonline shows no entry. Also, how does this differ from "neo-"? > neo- -- a combining form meaning “new,” “recent,” “revived,” “modified,” > used in the formation of compound words: _Neo-Darwinism_ ; _Neolithic_ ; > _neoorthodoxy_ ; _neophyte_. Why do we have "nu-metal" instead of "neo-metal" or "neometal"? Would it be appropriate to use "nu-" for non-musical genres (e.g., classifying films as "nu-western")?


title: In which countries is that “long time no see” greeting common?

text: I used to hear this greeting several times a day when in Singapore. In other English-speaking countries, is this idiomatic expression known, do people consider it funny, or just a terrible misconception of English?


title: Meaning of "precise-looking"

text: In George Orwell's novel _1984_ , Part one, Chapter IV, there is a sentence: > In the corresponding cubicle on the other side a small, **precise-looking** > , dark-chinned man named Tillotson was working steadily away. I've looked up 'precise' in dictionaries, but still cannot understand what a precise-looking man is like. Can you guys help?


title: Can I say "Draw a triangle around the strawberry"?

text: Can I say "Draw a triangle around the strawberry" when I want someone who is reading a book, in which there is a picture of a strawberry, to draw a triangle in that book in such a way that the strawberry is inside of the triangle (in which case the triangle must, of course, be bigger than strawberry)?


title: Word that means that someone is too powerful

text: More specifically, if they have the power to wiretap your communications, powerful as in power, not as in strength. > A _**___ __ ___ _**_ [powerful] person who holds a menacingly huge amount of > power who makes them _**___ __ ___ _**_. _This is the 2nd question where I had to disclose that I used Google to research, before asking this question. I searched for "word that means having a lot of power"_


title: What does “adorkable” mean? How popular is this word? To what kind of objects and occasions can I apply “adorkable”?

text: I happened to find the paperback book titled _Adorkable_ , by Sarra Manning, on the GoodReads site. There is no entry for _adorkable_ in the Cambridge, Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionaries, or in GoogleNgram, which often carries words and phrases that dictionaries don’t. A Japanese online English-Japanese dictionary happens to register this word with the definition as an adjective combining _adorable_ and _dork_ and meaning “野暮 ( _yabo_ \- "unrefined") but かわい（ _kawai_ -"adorable"). From this, I wonder if “ _adorkable_ ” is similar to a Japanese word recently getting international currency: _Kawai_ , meaning "unrefined (childish) but lovely." Its implication is positive and affirmative, but _Kawai_ is used most often in conversation among young females and high teens. What exactly does _adorkable_ mean? To what kind of objects or occasions is _adorkable_ applied? Is this an adult word, as against a youngsters’ word like Kawai? Sara Manning is a British woman; so is this a just a recent British English neologism, whose life may be ephemeral? For instance, what kind of characters - person, animal, item, or whatever object can be called "adorkable"?


title: Term for "a pattern that repeats once induced"

text: For example, let's say that I went to sleep one night at 5:00 am. Out of exhaustion, I would most likely sleep until the late afternoon. Since I woke up so late, I wouldn't be tired until very early in the morning, maybe 5:00 am again. This pattern would repeat over and be hard to break out of. My question is, what would we call this type of pattern? Another example would be smoking; you begin to smoke and it's very hard to stop. I'm not looking for "addiction", because that implies that I am physically and mentally dependent on the object.


title: "If someone...they can" vs. "if anyone...they can"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How to know when to use “someone” or “anyone”? In what contexts would it be correct/appropriate to say, "If someone [does or wants to do something] they can" as opposed to "If anyone... they can"?


title: There is / are; Questions > Answers; is > are ; are >is

text: If someone asks me **Are there any phones in the room?** Can I answer **yes there is / no there isn't** to possible indicate .... let's say that there's just one phone or none or for any other reason If someone asks me **Is there a phone in the room?** Can I answer **yes there are / no there aren't** (same idea as the first example)


title: Origin of "on the QT"?

text: I was watching the movie L.A. Confidential last night, and was reminded of the phrase "on the QT", which Danny DeVito's character says several times. > Off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush... I was wondering if anyone can shed any light on the origin and meaning of this phrase.


title: Are curly braces ever used in normal text? If not, why were they created?

text: Are they actually used in normal text? I mean something like a 'normal' book (not a manual, or a technical document). I don't think I've ever seen them yet they clearly predate programming which is the context in which I tend to use them. Wikipedia only mentions technical uses (such as music and mathematics) or > In mathematics they delimit sets, and in writing, they may be used > similarly, "Select your animal {goat, sheep, cow, horse} and follow me". However, that example is not something I would expect to find in a novel for instance. So, are curly braces `{}` ever used in normal text and, if so, when and how? If not, why are they standard? Did they become so only with the advent of computers and programming? A brief history would also be appreciated (when were they introduced to the language for instance).


title: Is “either” only used with two options?

text: Does “either . . . or” apply to only two options? For example, can I say, “It can provide _either_ 100, 150, or 400 amps of power”? Or should it just be “It can provide 100, 150, or 400 amps of power”?


title: How to express three alternatives?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Is “either” only used with two options? I'm trying to find a way to express that there are three alternatives in a sentence. For example, if there were two alternatives, I could say: > That person could be either Alice or Lily. But what if I want to add a third person? Can I say: > That person could be either Alice, Lily or Lucy. I looked up in the dictionary and it says: > either/or: an unavoidable choice between two alternatives. Well, how do I express an unavoidable choice between three or more alternatives?


title: Correct use of either

text: Can either be used with a lists? Example: > A process can be either in the state A or state B or state C ?


title: What's the best way to use "either" on more than two options?

text: I've searched for whether "either" can be used in a context on which the possible options are made of more than two, and found the answer here over English Language Usage. It says that it is informal to use "either" on more than two options, but is used widely especially in oral communication. However, he didn't mention that what is the best alternative to "either" in three or more options in formal context, and hence I posted this question here. So, on the situation where there are multiple options possible, how should I express my sentence? For example, I want to know the alternative to this sentence:               I classify all pitches as either fastballs, breaking balls, or off-speed pitches.


title: What is meant be, "I've have taken a stab at editing"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Meaning of "take a stab at doing something" Recently, a guy edited a question asked by me on SE network and commented: "I've taken a stab at editing it to (hopefully) clarify what you are looking for." What does the usage of a word like "stab" means here? Is there well- attested etymology for the expression "take a stab at"?


title: Should words be capitalized for being religious terms?

text: While googling about whether "atheist" should be capitalized, and skimming past posts by people blogging about atheism rather than about English grammar, I came across http://uwf.edu/writelab/reviews/capitalization/ It says > [Capitalize] Religions and religious terms > > Examples: > > Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddha, the Bible, Christian, the Ten Commandments, > Baptist church, Mt. Zion Methodist Church > > NOTE: Do not capitalize the following: > > Examples: > > church, communion, atheist, agnostic, spirituality but I don't recall hearing of such a prescription before. Wouldn't most of the examples listed be capitalized because they're proper nouns? Are there good examples of words being capitalized solely because they're religious terms? I'm mainly interested in modern English, rather than days of past where a lot more words were capitalized than they are nowadays. Somewhat related: When should the word "God" be capitalized? \- use "God" when referring to the name of the god of Judaism and Christianity (a proper noun), but "god" when referring to the general concept of a deity (common noun).


title: A different word for "meaninglessness"

text: This is where I want to apply that word: > "He discovered the meaninglessness of consumerism and work" I looked in dictionaries and reverse dictionaries but for some reason I can't find a word that is easier to pronounce and shorter than _meaninglessness_. Any suggestions?


title: To make sense vs. to be making sense

text: - Hey John, what do you think?     - I think that sucks!     - It doesn't make any sense.      vs.               - Hey John, what do you think?     - I think that sucks!     - You're not making any sense.      What's the difference between these? Are there any emphases in the meaning?


title: Formal saxon genitive usage

text: since James Jeans was that famous British physicist, shouldn't there be:               Jeans's instability       instead of:               Jeans instability       (wiki link) I have read couple (maybe not all) of saxon genitive related topics here but I haven't found the answer.


title: Is it correct to omit this verb?

text: Can I omit the "are" in this sentence? > Instead, a linear combination of these two priors gives the maximum success > rate, the optimal weightings for which [are] given by the values of lambda > at the maxima in figure 2 in each regime. It sounds kind of OK to me, but I'm not sure what the rules are here. Can anyone explain them or provide a link to them?


title: what is the meaning of "might sound"?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "May" & "Might": What's the right context?   >  May, might confusion I can not understand this sentence and how it differ from may sound. > OK, well, the shack - not as horrible as it might sound. I was actually born > in the city, and yeah, grew up on the edge of the city of Glasgow, and my > parents ... Can any one explain it?


title: What does this sentence really mean?

text: “It would be ungenerous to affect not to know that your self-denial is to be referred to your consideration for her father" Chapter 10, A Tale of Two Cities.


title: Hallucinating + [preposition]

text: I’m trying to decide which preposition to use to complete a statement about Charlotte Perkins Gillman’s short story “The Yellow Wallpaper”. I am describing how a hysterical woman sees things in her wallpaper. Over time these things become the image of a woman. To introduce the situation, I have written the following: > She was hallucinating [ _preposition_ ] the wallpaper. _Oxford Dictionaries_ gives a usage example wherein _hallucinate_ is used transitively with no preposition: > I don’t care if they’re hallucinating purple snakes. This to me sounds like people are seeing purple snakes that are not there. I'm looking for the best way to say that a woman is looking at real wallpaper and seeing it move. An ngram search produces a lot of hits for `hallucinate about`, but those also largely represent that a person sees something that isn’t present. For example, > His last days were spent strapped down in a hospital bed _hallucinating > about_ snakes and people who wanted to hurt him. [ _emphasis added_ ] Is there a correct preposition to use with _hallucinate_ to mean that a person sees something unreal happening inside something real? Or is this improper usage of the word? Two prepositions I considered are:   * hallucinate _over_ (similar to _suffer anxiety over_ )   * hallucinate _on_ (similar to _trippin’ on_ )


title: How about my new epigram?

text: I'm a Transylvanian epigramist, I'm not so fluent in English, though I wrote several epigrams in this language. Here's one tooth them: **The theory of harmless excess** *When you are squiffy as a jelly, Be very sure that you have nothing, As long as you can stay on belly, But you don't need to cling to something.* Can anyone tell me if there is anything wrong in terms of logical expression, semantics or English grammar? Many thanks, Riti from Transylvania


title: can "happy" bells toll?

text: can "happy" bells toll: Say wedding bells? or does "toll" have an ominous connotation, suggesting doom, funerals, death, etc.? : "For Whom the Bells Toll", etc.


title: What word type is "before" when used as in this example?

text: I need to know the word type of "before" in constructions like the following: > Before going home, I had a beer. I do know the word types before can be in general, so no need for lengthy responses ;).


title: What is the difference (in terms of usage and connotation) between "loath" and "loathe"?

text: I'm having difficulty in understanding the differences in usage (and understanding which one is used from pronunciation/context) between "loathe" and "loath" - could anyone help clarify it ?


title: How to arrange in alphabetical order by maiden name but include married name

text: In a class list, what is the correct way to arrange in alphabetical order by maiden name but also include married name, so that someone who doesn't know the person and does not know the list is in alphabetical order by maiden name would be able to tell which is which?


title: How to say I may mislead you again?

text: How to say I may mislead you again:   1. because of my poor English,   2. in a good manner   3. the responsibility is mine (no need to speak out, just let she surely know this). i.e., I'm afraid of my poor English...


title: Can anyone give me a grammatical explanation as to why "that being said" is proper English?

text: A certain pedant is claiming that beginning a sentence with "That being said" is grammatically incorrect owing to the apparent logical contradiction in claiming that something in the past (e.g. the previous paragraph) is still "being said", i.e. unfolding in the present. He claims that only "that having been said" can be grammatically correct. I'd like a simple prescriptive grammatical argument to counter him. In my view, using "that being said" is permissible on the one hand as a collocated expression; on the other, owing to the fact that English grammar is full of apparent logical contradictions that have been brought about in order to advance the cause of expressing meaning. But this argumentation is too broad. Can anyone give me an airtight, standard grammatical explanation as to why "that being said" is permissible despite its supposed logical contradiction?


title: If additive is "something added", what would be "something subtracted"?

text: Yes I know I can check the dictionary. But I can't find this part. Additive is both noun and adjective. The antonym for the adjective usage is _subtractive_ , because it's an adjective too. But I can't find a **noun** antonym for the **additive** as a noun.


title: Is there a word meaning "true-on-average"?

text: Economist Bryan Caplan asks: > What's a good word for "true-on-average"? Can we help him out?


title: "In practise" or "In practice"

text: British English makes the distinction between 'practise' (verb) and 'practice' (noun). Based on this, I would judge the following sentence as **incorrect** : > In practise, computers often crash. Nevertheless, I see it frequently. Could 'practise' possibly be a verb in this phrase?


title: Is "Is it a girl or a boy?" really calling the infant an "it"?

text: So, my boss comes in, railing that "English is a stupid language!" Since this is pretty much a thrice-weekly occurrence 'round these parts, I barely raised an eyebrow, and waited for him to continue. "Mary just wrote to tell us that she's back from maternity leave, and I want to congratulate her and ask whether she had a girl or a boy, but I can't do it without calling the child an 'it'!" I blinked, then confirmed that yes, he believes the **it** in _"Is **it** a boy or a girl"_ is the impersonal pronoun, the same word you'd apply to an apple or a house. Is it the 'thing' pronoun, really? Or is it just a placeholder of some sort? I used to believe the latter: I gave the boss a mini-lecture about "it's raining" and the dummy subject pronoun. He wasn't convinced, however, and now he's got me doubting too. (Harumph. I really should know better than to listen to the boss.) I'm not asking about politeness, here; the former title was to be taken somewhat facetiously. I'm wondering about the grammar: **what role is that "it" playing in that sentence**? Is it a personal pronoun (and thus the infant has grounds for feeling offended) or a dummy pronoun (and thus those who perceive a politeness issue are just misunderstanding the grammar)?


title: Non-lexical words

text: I like suffixes and prefixes. I am wondering if I can use new nonlexical words such as: >   * Javasmith (-smith) >   * Javamaniac (-maniac) (just like shoemania!!) >   * Javaster (-ster) > The main word is "Java" : a programming language. What would you call these kinds of words? By nonlexical, I mean a word or term that you cannot find in the lexicon, for example, SOHO, NOHO (neighborhoods in Manhattan, NY).


title: “your heart just shrank” vs. “your heart just shrunk”

text: If I say: > Your heart just shrank two sizes too small. Is the verb shrank correct as is? Or should it be in participle form? > Your heart just shrunk two sizes too small. Which one would be correct in these two cases?


title: Changing tenses

text: I am a sports writer and was wondering if this sentence is wrong because it starts in the past tense and changes to past participle "Sophomore Chelsea Vujs recorded a double-double by scoring a game-high 21 points and pulling down 10 rebounds "


title: What part of speech is "only" in "Fame lights a fuse that leads only to extinguishment"?

text: My impulse is that it's modifying the verb _leads_ , and is thus an adverb; yet it seems that a case could also be made that it's exerting power on the phrase _to extinguishment_ , a noun, which would make it ... what, exactly? an adjective? I'm confused. > Fame lights a fuse that leads only to extinguishment.


title: What does "above" mean in this context?

text: I just read this lady's profile. The following sentence has drawn my attention: > I'm not **above** occasionally bending or breaking a grammar rule for good > cause. But I do believe clear, persuasive communication requires sensible, > well-respected language conventions. What does "above" mean in this context? I've rarely seen such usage before, nor have I been able to find anything online. My best guess is it might mean "against". Or could it mean "free from"? **EDIT** : so "not above" means "no better than"?


title: Common expression for "frame conditions" for a working concept/process

text: In German, the common expression "Rahmenbedingungen" (used both as plural and singular) relates, for example, to a set of conditions necessary for a business idea to work out (e.g. low taxes and wages for successfully introducing and manufacturing a new product). Mostly these conditions have to be implemented/managed by a 3rd person, external authority or surroundings, so that the business/political idea can work out. In that sense, it's not a pre- but a side-condition. So you can already start to make your idea real, knowing that, for example, a soon change of business laws will realize this necessary side-conditions. _Linguee_ gives out different phrases and expressions for the German counterpart. I would have thought this to be a rather unique and common expression in English too, as you use and need it in many contexts (technology, business, politics, etc.). Maybe I should simply stop using Linguee for finding expressions, as it's more baffling than enlightening for this purpose. But **dictionaries also name very different expressions using these words as components:** **_condition, factor, framework, requirement_** (well, at least **_factor_** and **_condition/requirement_** are two different things from a math/logic point of view, so some look like bad machine translations). So what is the common expression I'm looking for, used in different contexts? Or does it not exist and I have to check the context in English first and then choose the appropriate expression, according to the contexts mentioned above? PS: I'm not looking for the common term _boundary conditions_ in math, which translates to the German _Randbedingung_.


title: What does "Hungarian" mean here?

text: I think it’s a figurative usage as a reminder of blood, but not for sure. Why is the word _Hungarian_ used here? ( _He_ is a professional pianist who holds lessons open to the public.) > When I told him that one of the students had likened it to an energy > radiating from his hands into theirs, he laughed and offered his own image: > “I give them a blood transfusion right there on stage! After all, I’m > Hungarian.” ( _The Piano Shop on the Left Bank_ by Thad Carhart)


title: Why is the Elizabethan English incorrect in this quote?

text: I saw a Geico commercial with Elizabethan verb forms that bothered me because they were being misused: > Trick Number 1. **Lookest** over there!   >  _Servant looks_   >  Haha! **Madest thou** look!   >  So **endest** the trick! How would a native speaker of Elizabethan English have phrased these sentences? Specifically, what verb forms would they have used if this scene were authentic?


title: Are "smith" and "blacksmith" synonymous?

text: Dictionary.com says > **noun**   >  1\. a worker in metal.   >  2\. a blacksmith. Does this mean that they are the same?


title: Questions with 'would'

text: Why most questions in English get asked with 'would'? Grammar books say that it's used for making a polite request, but doesn't talk about the grammar of the 'would' part. Do we have to answer questions asked with 'would' also with 'would' or could we use other structures as well? For example: > Would you tell me who that man is? Possible answers: I wouldn't know him, I > won't know him. I don't know him, I cant tell you, etc. Could all of the above be possible answers?


title: Position of "of which" in the sentence

text: In a post here I found that both following sentences are correct..is that true? Is the first one really grammatically correct? > A camera of which the wires go through the wall. > > A camera, the wires of which go through the wall. I thought that "camera of which" is not correct..? Dictionary I have says "changes the importance of which is.."..so could I say "changes of which the importance is..?


title: meaning of parochial

text: As far as I know "parochial" means of or relating to a church/parish. My dictionary (and Google, or that matters, also says so.) But recently, I've heard it also means "narrow-minded" (or something similar). Can anyone tell if this is true? I know one should know better than to ask WHY a word means what it means, but I really want to know how/why "parochial" could mean "narrow-minded". Thanks,


title: What is a more humane term for 'user'?

text: Many websites refer to people who sign up as 'users', which may be considered a bit derogatory; these people also participate, they don't just use the site. In Russian, MediaWiki (the software that powers Wikipedia, Wikinews, Commons and sister projects) calls these people 'Участник', which literally is 'one who participates' [as a website user, and as a writer, as a reader, as whatever else you like; not as formal, active, or involved as 'participant' term expects]. What English language term is equivalent?


title: What term to use instead of "Company" to represent, well, a company

text: I'm in the process of (re) designing a software product, and I'm attempting to find the right term to use. Right now, our product has been targeted at a few different industries that operate on a distributor-dealer infrastructure, and our software has been sold primarily to dealers. As a result, we have come to refer to the company (or companies) that are represented within a single database as "dealers", even though they may, in fact, be distributors and the dealers are actually their customers. The package is expanding in scope and is now going to be targeted at other organizations that may not operate under this model, so the term "dealer" is becoming increasingly diluted. As a result, we are attempting to find a suitable term that is both generic enough not to be unintuitive, but also specific enough so as not to be easily confused with other parts of the database. In other words, simply calling them "Company" could be confusing because users already have other "companies" with which they conduct business entered into the system, and "Company" is the term used to describe them. So far, only "Company" and "Business" have been found to be suitably generic, but I'm not sure if they're specific enough. I know that software like QuickBooks refers to them as a "Company", but I'm curious if there is something better suited. **EDIT** : The database in question is the _customer's_ database, not our own. We design the database and the application, but it's their data. Perhaps a little more information will be helpful, as there seems to be some confusion about what I'm talking about. I was under the impression that people reading my question could actually read my mind, but in case that isn't true: As stated above, our current model uses the term "Dealer". In our database, we have a `Dealer` table that stores information about the dealer (or dealers) that our customer runs. In turn, we have a `Customer` table in their database that represents their customers, and a `DealerId` column in that table to associate a customer to a given dealership (some of our clients have multiple dealerships that they run out of the same database in order to share other things, such as product lists). What I'm looking for is an alternative to the term `Dealer`, as our target markets are no longer solely businesses that could be considered "dealerships". `Company` would work, but I am concerned with our interaction with the customer becoming confused by mixing usage of the word "Company" for their company with other "companies" that they might interact with.


title: A word that means 'hateful but indispensable'

text: Is there a single adjective meaning 'hateful but indispensable' or something close? (Not "love-hate"). British or American would be OK.


title: Is there a name for adjectives that are based around someone's name?

text: Some examples would include:   * Shakespearean   * Christian   * Mesmerized   * Pavlovian   * Newtonian   * Boolean   * Darwinian


title: Regarding 'for' used in the context of time

text: Is the following ambiguous? > He has not lived in Boston for 2 years. Could it mean:   1. It is not true that he has lived in Boston for two years. He might have been living in Boston for only one year.    2. It has been the case for two years that he has not lived in Boston.  Now consider the following. Are they ambiguous?   1. He has not lived in Boston for ages.    2. He has not lived in Boston for ages yet.


title: 'Parasitic' Phonemes

text: In searching for the reason for the mess **age** -> mess **enge** r shift, I came across the theory of the 'parasitic n.' Essentially, the idea is that during the post-Norman Conquests period in England, borrowed words from French containing nasalized vowels preceding a 'g' would be misheard by English speakers as containing velar or alveolar nasals, and as such were written or repeated containing an erroneous n. Are there other instances of such 'parasitic phonemes' in the history of English?


title: What are the open rooms called in business environment?

text: We work in an office which does not have rooms but instead has compartments which are split by dividing walls and have open tops. The walls are at shoulder height. What are these compartments called in business environment?


title: What does "bite" and "quarter-backing" mean in this context?

text: It's from the first few lines of the foreword to Karl Llewellyn's "The Bramble Bush": > These lectures grew out of an attempt in 1929 and 1930 to introduce the > students at Columbia Law School to the study of law. They were privately > printed in 1930, and met with reasonable favour. _But I found out early that > their **bite** for a beginning law student lies rather in November than in > September_; and a man's own ideas--especially on perspective and whole > view-- change as he gains experience Hence for ten years I planned and > worked over a rewrite. Then it slowly became clear that I have no business > to rewrite. The young fellow who wrote these lectures just isn't here any > more, and the job he did had its own virtue, and I have no right to mess it > up with _Monday morning **quarter-backing** which has used two decades in > getting from Saturday to Monday morning_. Can someone give me an explanation of, if not some interchangeable words/phrases for, 'bite' and 'quarter-backing' in respect of the above context? Thanks.


title: When to put a verb ahead of its doer?

text: I have read this at the Science.com, and it's in the second line of the last paragraph. > A bow and arrow or an atlatl allows users to attack prey—and enemies—from a > safer distance than **does** an ordinary spear. I would have put it this way: A bow and arrow or an atlatl allows users to attack prey—and enemies—from a safer distance than an ordinary spear **does**. So here are my questions:   1. Are both of the two sentences right?   2. When **can** I put the verb ahead of the noun? When is it a necessity?


title: What's the opposite of "bootstrap" (in business)?

text: When starting a project or business, there are two extreme approaches. One is where you do everything yourself without external help: learn the techniques yourself, develop your own tools, providing your own capital. The other extreme would be to find as much external help as you can: consulting/hiring domain experts, using COTS solutions, looking for investors/partners. Compared to the former, the latter tends to have less risk (for the founders), more capital cost, less retention of knowledge, less equity/control. The former, in certain forms, is sometimes called "bootstrapping". What would the latter be called? **Update:** I think I've mislead folks due to poorly presenting this question as a straight-forward antonym request for _bootstrap_. Bootstrap has a specific meaning in finance, pertaining to the acquisition of capital without taking on external liabilities or equity. I'd like to know what's the opposite of a more general approach to growing a project or business, one which is better covered in this article: "Ben & Jerry's vs Amazon". Here are some examples which better illustrate the dichotomy:   * Hiring consultants instead of employees   * Leasing a pre-furnished office space instead of building a new one   * Contracting out your IT management to a firm instead of growing in-house staff I think mainly it's a money vs. time payoff but there are other side effects such as expertise, culture and so on.


title: What’s the subject and verb?

text: > During these sessions, the court could rule on major issues, this time > around that includes the case about whether race should be a factor when > colleges decide which students to accept. For ‘this time around ... which student to accept’, what’s the subject and verb?


title: What do CI, CIM, CID, CIB mean?

text: I was talking to a friend about a girl, and he mentioned that “She can pretty much CI anything, CIB, CIM or CID.” I’m wondering what these mean. The context was sexual experience. Sorry if I missed some letters; English is not my primary language.


title: Differences among words describing someone who is expert in many things

text: I wonder how the following words for describing someone who knows many different things compare, and when to use which word. Some are adjectives, others are nouns:   * renaissance   * polymath   * versatile   * aficionado   * ... (possibly others if you don't hesitate to mention) Some background:   1. I encountered "aficionado" and "versatile" from a personal description here > "It's getting harder and harder for me to believe that you're just a > hobbyist. Aficionado would be a better term. And a damn versatile one at > that!"   2. When I told some American I hoped to be polymath, he said they would use "Renaissance" instead.


title: Is there a reason the British omit the article when they "go to hospital"?

text: Why do British speakers omit the article in constructions like "go to hospital" or "go on holiday"? Pretty much all American speakers would rephrase those as "go to _the_ hospital" and "go on _a_ holiday", I think. Is there any good reason, or forgotten sense behind those words that might explain why the articles are ommitted? Are there other common constructions other than those two that the British use that drop the article? **EDIT** : I just realized per Kosmonaut's comment that Americans do much the same thing with a few nouns, so this isn't all that special. Do grammaticists designate nouns that can have their article dropped with anything, i.e. do they have anything in common?


title: AE vs British English usage of hospital

text: We all know that Americans say: > Sara is going to the hospital While in the UK, they would say (and Americans would _never_ say): > Sara is going to hospital I'm wondering what the history of this difference is given that in AE, the usage of the "the" modifier seems extraordinarily arbitrary: Americans would say: > Sara is going to school to mean that Sara is going to _be enrolled in school_. While they would say: > Sara is going to the school to mean that Sara is going a particular school building (not enrolled). To me this intuitively suggests some sort of lack of "personal" connection with the concept of a hospital which is not there when it comes to concepts like "school" or "church". Now for the leap: does this perhaps have anything to do that in the US, healthcare has been a private entity (until recent occurrences), and not generally regarded as a personal right (but rather, a privilege)? I know this is a stretch, but this _could_ be an explanation for the "impersonal" way in which AE uses the word — unless my history is all wrong here? No politics here, just curious about the root of this difference.


title: Usage and confusion on "geek" and "hipster"

text: Within the circle I regularly communicate with the meaning of these words is commonly understood:   * _Geek_ \- someone with an obsessive interest in one field.   * _Hipster_ \- someone who ironically apes geek fashion, but is more interested in being cool. In particular in the UK a _hipster_ always refers to a Nathan Barley type. They even have a song. Does anyone know (and can provide citations) for when this usage of _hipster_ started? Online these seem much more confused; I regularly see traits from _hipsters_ applied to _geeks_. For instance someone described as a _geek_ for wearing an ironic t-shirt, while to me that would make them a _hipster_ (a _geek_ would genuinely be a fan of whatever it was). Occasionally I've seen _geek_ traits applied to _hipsters_ , for instance someone describing a _hipster_ as socially awkward (stereotypically UK _hipsters_ are all about being seen at the right parties). Is this a US/UK difference to what _geek_ and _hipster_ refer to? Is the meaning of _geek_ changing over time to refer to _hipsters_? Is there a US equivalent to _hipster_?


title: What's the word that describes this ability/quality?

text: What is the word that describes someone who displays the ability to think of alternative ways of dealing with a situation, especially a situation that calls for it and then acts upon it? In my native language, it is a relatively common word. As I thought of it, the idiom _think on your feet_ , and the word _nimble_ sprang to mind. It is the closest expressions I could think of, although it is similar, it does not contain the exact meaning of that word. Basically it's an adjective that describes someone who's able to quickly think of alternatives in a situation, especially in a situation that calls for it. He is able to accommodate to new situations as opposed to someone who, if faced with a similar situation, will become stuck, not knowing what to do and unable to think of any alternatives. For example, If someone who's shopping for ingredients for the desired dinner he's going to prepare for his party guests discovered that one of the ingredients for a dish he's going to prepare is not sold in any of his local grocery stores, he buys another similar ingredient as a substitute. He is (that word), because he has the ability to think of alternative ways in dealing with the situation where as someone who is not (that word) is rather dull and when faced with such situations, will propably decides not to prepare that dish and may also get frustrated/upset over the matter.


title: How did the term "Mistress" take on two rather different connotations?

text: One meaning of the word is "female master." The Latin equivalent would be Domina. Another connotation is "lover." Not quite what one associates with "Domina." Or was there a connection between the two made when men took "dominant" women as lovers? Could one possible instance of this phenomenon be the medieval "courtly love?" http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1125/what-was-courtly-love-amour- courtois


title: Describing Historical Events

text: When we describe historical events, like events related to the Roman empires, Persian empires, etc., what is the best way to describe peoples' thought with a connection to the present? > People **might have thought** the same back in those days, but you know it's > not always correct. > > People **had thought** the same back in those days, but you know it's not > always correct. > > People **thought** the same back in those days, but you know it's not always > correct.