title: 'Calm, cool and collective' vs 'calm, cool and collected'

text: What is the difference between _calm, cool and collective_ and _calm, cool and collected_? What is the meaning of _collective_ or _collected_ when used in this way? I checked the dictionary but still do not get it. > collective [kəˈlɛktɪv]   >  adj   >  1\. formed or assembled by collection   >  2\. forming a whole or aggregate   >  3\. of, done by, or characteristic of individuals acting in cooperation   >  n   >  1\. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)   >  a. a cooperative enterprise or unit, such as a collective farm   >  b. the members of such a cooperative   >  2\. (Linguistics / Grammar) short for collective noun


title: Placing a comma after a conditional statement

text: I've always had difficulties in figuring out where commas should be placed. For example, in a phrase containing a conditional statement, how should I write...   * If they don't arrive by noon, she'll be worried.    * If they don't arrive by noon she'll be worried.


title: Is "What a big like deserves this picture" correct?

text: While I was doing some facebook things, I shared a picture and this sentence came to my mind. I was wondering if it is correct to use this sentence when you want to share your feelings about something (in this case that picture): > What a big like deserves this picture, doesn't it? What I meant to say was: > I think this picture deserves a big like, don't you? If it's correct, could you please tell me about the detailed structure of the sentence? I just made it up and my mind naturally says it should be correct.


Is there a specific term for when you combine two unrelated terms in a headline in order to grab attention? For example: > Bolivian Kick Boxer Meets US Marine Or: > Kickboxer Meets a Marine (1) The high level concept here is pretty simple: two people fight; see who wins. My question is about when you dig a little deeper. It's pretty obvious that two unrelated terms are being compared in this headline. Kickboxing is a form of martial arts (hybrid of several actually), whereas the Marines is a branch of the United States Armed Forces. **Is there a term for this tactic?** * * * _More explanation follows._ Some fans of martial arts love to debate which form would win in a real fight, say Wing Chun versus Jiu-Jitsu for example. However, the aforementioned headline is _not_ :   1. pitting one form of fighting against another (2)   2. pitting a member of one branch of the U.S. military against a member of a different branch of the U.S. military   3. pitting a member of the U.S. military against a member of the military in a different nation In other words, **it's an apples to oranges comparison.** One person in the fight is a practitioner in a certain form of martial arts, the other person is a soldier in the U.S. Marines (which means that person very tough, but for other reasons). The goal of any headline author is to grab attention. _I believe that the author of this particular headline intended to **gain extra attention points** by stirring emotion in some readers, particularly readers in the U.S. that would feel a sense of patriotism._ Now it's not just about cheering for your favorite martial art form, instead it's about cheering for your country. **I'm trying to figure out what this headline writing tactic is called.** I hope this question wasn't too long winded. There's many other examples of this tactic, but I think this one conveys my point well. Perhaps this is more of a marketing or psychological question, so feel free to let me know if I should ask on another site. _(1) There happens to be a viral video going around with this headline today_ _(2) I do realize that the "Marine Corps Martial Arts Program" is a form of fighting also, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the author of the headline meant._


title: One word for someone who eats hurriedly

text: What do we call someone who hurriedly pounds on food and eats like as though never seen before. I would like to know an alternate word for that person, either an adjective or noun.


title: Origin of "More X than you can shake a stick at"

text: What is the origin of the phrase "more X than you can shake a stick at"? Every website I've seen on this basically says the same thing (e.g., http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-sha2.htm):   * Recorded history since 1818 - _Lancaster Journal_ of Pennsylvania dated 5 August 1818: “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can **shake a stick at** ”.    * Other early examples:      * Davy Crockett’s _Tour to the North and Down East_ of 1835: “This was a temperance house, and there was nothing to treat a friend that was worth **shaking a stick at** ”.      * _A Book of Vagaries_ by James K Paulding of 1868: “The roistering barbecue fellow swore he was equal to any man you could **shake a stick at** ”.   * Only guesses as to the etymology for the phrase:      * Maybe it's Native American?     * Maybe it's military?     * Maybe it's from a form of a boys' game "playing" military?     * Maybe it's from counting herd animals? Does this community have any ideas (and support for those ideas)? Also, is this solely American? Solely North American?


title: What does "pink primates" mean?

text: What does this sentence mean? > What was over there?   >  Freaky pink primates! Why 'pink' ? What is the exact meaning? It was in Over the Hedge.


title: Morphological process for derivation of the word "ish" from suffix "-ish"?

text: "Ish" is a recently derived word (free root) conveying a sense of "so-so" or approximation. It is most commonly used as an adjective but occasionally as an adverb. I would not be at all surprised to see it appear in standard dictionaries within the next decade. Is there a term for the morphological process that derived the term "ish" from the derivational suffix "-ish"? Or is this an example of slang/colloquial usage?


title: Why is there a "one" before "hundred", "thousand", etc. but not "ten"?

text: As the title says, why is there a "one" before "hundred", before "thousand", and so on, but not before "ten"? This seems shared between _some_ languages, including Chinese (10 = 十 = ten, 100 = 一百 = one hundred), but not others, like French (10 = dix = ten, 100 = cent = hundred).


title: In the language of XXX

text: I am trying to express a sentence in the language of graph theory. Is that right to say "In the language of graph theory"? I googled and did not find similar sentence. If not, how can I express my meaning?


title: alternatives words and sentences

text: I am proofreading a paper written by a collegue, which is full of "The following result was the culmination of a series of papers in the context of XXX", "It is a classical result that XXX", "This is a non-trivial result due to XXX". I think it is too many "results", what is the alternative words or sentences pattern to write them better? Thanks!


title: When should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen?

text: I generally know how to use a hyphen, but when should I use an en-dash instead of an em-dash, or when should I use a hyphen instead of an em-dash?


title: When to use -, – and —?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? This is about hyphens (-), en-dashes (–) and em-dashes (—). When to use which one? To be honest, I always use em-dashes unless I join words with a hyphen, but I never use an en-dash.


title: What is the difference between `-` and `--`

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? Is there any difference between: `-` and `--` or in some cases, a long dash I have seen these two used lots of places but I really don't know the difference.


title: What's the difference between - and -- in a phrase?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen? When do I put a - in a sentence? Is it a more powerful comma? With a bigger pause?


title: What word means "the thing you added"

text: What word means "the thing(s) you added to something"? It's something like 'addium' or something Latin-like! But I can't really remember. I remember seeing it used in some context as follows.   1. You write a comment.   2. Then you want to add something to it, you'd write: > Old comment.   >   >  [the word goes here]   >   >  New comment. > And it's not _edit_ or _P.S._


title: Etymology of "minniebush"?

text: I was playing a spelling game and got this word. I tried looking it up on etymonline.com but I didn't get any search results? I assume it is from combining two English words, but I was wondering if anyone could produce a more specific answer?


title: What is the difference in meaning, if any, between these two past perfect simple and continuous sentences?

text: Past perfect simple and continuous can normally be used interchangeably with verbs like work, wait, sleep, etc., but I think there have to exist some differences in meaning. I would like you please to help me find out the differences the following sentences may arise: > John found it difficult to wake up early this morning because he **had > worked** hard the night before. > > John found it difficult to wake up early this morning because he **had been > working** hard the night before.


title: "A friend of his" type expression for abstract entities

text: Like many non-native speakers, formulations like "a friend of his" strike me as counter-intuitive, but I'm trying to adapt. Now I have a strange situation: I want to apply it to abstract entities. The sentence would be: > "What can we do with assignments and hierarchies of theirs?" (I use assignments because I'm trying to avoid repetition. In the real text it's "blabla transmogrifying assignments"). I think this sounds awkward, and I can't recall ever having read anything like that. Is it possible that this type of construction is only valid for people? Or maybe it's a slightly different meaning of "of", and there's no possessive aspect to my usage of "of"? I'm aware of Why do you say "friend of mine" instead of "friend of me" ? and Is "a friend of his" a used phrase? but all the examples had a person as the possessing subject.


title: Clause following 'as same as'

text: I'm learning how to use 'as same as'.   1. It's as hot as it was yesterday.   2. It's as hot as yesterday.   3. I go to the same school as you do.   4. I go to the same school as you. I think only 4. is wrong. The clause can be omitted only if it's 'someone/something is' but not 'someone/something does'. Is this correct?


title: What is the difference in meaning between "photo" , "image" and "picture"?

text: I checked some other questions, and found that "a photo is an image taken by a camera". But what is an image? What is the difference between _image_ and _picture_?


title: What is the difference between "image", "picture", "photograph" and "illustration"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the difference between "photo" and "image"?   >  Difference between “picture” and “photo” For my magister dissertation I need to rely on an accurate definition of what an _image_ , a _picture_ , a _photograph_ and an _illustration_ refer to. Therefore, I would like you to help me figure out the differences.


title: Structuring sentences without using the word "but"

text: I seem to have a habit of using a lot of sentences that involve the word "but": "I haven't tried it yet, but I think it should work"; "I could easily resort to chicken, but I want to see how far I can get with alligator" etc.. It's probably deeply rooted in my style of thought, but (there I go again) I'm starting to get bored of seeing myself use this structure so often. Is there anything I can do to break free? I know one way is to use "though" or "although", as in "Although I could easily resort to chicken, I want to see...". Anything else I could do to diversify my sentences a little?


title: How to use "you" word in a way that suggests it's singular/plural form?

text: In my mother's language there are two words for "you" - for singular form and for plural one. I want to translate a joke which happen to rely on this particular characteristic of my language. What words should I use to say e.g. "How can I serve **you**?" Is "Ye/Thou" still recognizable or is it too archaic? Edit: An example: Let's suppose I am a fan of FC Barcelona, the soccer club. Me and my friends are in England to see the Champions League finals. There is a pub with "Manchester United fans only" sign on it and we hear some loud yells coming from inside. I ask my friends if they are willing to go in with me and they say "Yes, sure, we are just behind you. Go!" So I grab my FC Barcelona scarf, go inside and see many MU fans in the middle of the party. Suddenly place goes silent and all the gazes point at me. That is the point when bartender should say "How can I serve **YOU**?" in a way that makes me realize my friends are not with me. So, what says bartender?


title: Do "figure out" and "realize" mean the same?

text: Talking about noticing something, do both mean the same? For example: >   * I just figured out that the ball is blue. >   * I just realized that the ball is blue. >


title: What is the right description of the word "squeaky" in "squeaky clean"?

text: Is _squeaky_ in "squeaky clean" an onomatopoeia? Is there a right word to describe this word, other than simply an "adjective"? It's something that uses the description of a sound as an adjective. This word is simply a form of "imagery". However, I'm still not sure how I would go about describing this word. "An adjective eliciting imagery"? Is that actually describing _onomatopaeia_?


title: What does "stocktaking analysis" means in this sentence?

text: "Without GEF support, Iran will not be able to execute the priority actions identified in its stocktaking analysis, capacity enhancement and consolidation of institutions will be slow or may not occur" thanks in advance


title: Is it common to use the word "tiptoeing" even if the person is just standing?

text: Definition by Google: > **tip·toe** walk quietly and carefully with one's heels raised and one's > weight on the balls of the feet. But can I use it in a situation where the pension isn't walking?: > The girl twisted around and, tiptoeing like a ballerina, kissed the boy.


title: Is it correct to use the word "devastated" to refer to the pain we feel towards other people?

text: I think the word _devastated_ is mainly used when something bad happens to oneself (maybe I'm wrong?) Say, can I use it in the following way? > I felt **devastated** after watching the survivors of Hurricane Katrina. If not, what's a better option?


title: What does 'address an issue' mean?

text: I always understood 'address an issue' to mean fix or solve an issue. However, a colleague of mine questioned this today and after doing a web search it seems that the more correct or common meaning of this phrase is 'to bring under discussion'. What is the accepted meaning/usage of this phrase?


title: How can we distinguish between "I would" and "I had" if someone says "I'd"?

text: How can we unambiguously distinguish between **I would** and **I had** , if the native English speaker used the contraction **I'd**? For instance, **_I'd read the newspaper._** We can mean the above sentence as either   **I had read the newspaper**.   _or_   **I would read the newspaper.** Any help will be appreciated!!!


title: 'how we make a car' or 'how do we make a car'?

text: I don't know the difference between _how we make a car_ and _how do we make a car_. I searched on the internet; there are examples for both but I do not understand in which cases they would each be used.


title: What is the opposite of "authentication"?

text: An authentication is the action word for "to authenticate". "To disauthenticate" and "to unauthenticate" do not seem to exist (I might be wrong). So what is the most appropriate opposite action of an authentication ? **Edit:** As more precision has been requested, I'm more searching a name for the act of reversing/canceling an authentication. Think of it as comparable to the Login/Logout, Sign In/Sign Out, etc. but I want one with "Authenticate / **?** "


title: Interpreting ambiguous agreement

text: > We're proud of our tortilla chips and we hope **you'll agree**. It may seem trivial but I've seen similar remarks on other products and it just doesn't feel like a valid sentence because I can't determine what they hope I'll agree with them about. I don't think I'm just missing out on the context as this sentence is preceded by nothing and is only followed by one more: > Remember, your satisfaction is always guaranteed with [our] brand products. Am I supposed to share their pride? Am I supposed to be agreeing that they are proud of their product? If so, is there really a difference between their statement and an example of me saying, "I like pizza and I hope you will agree." Does anyone know if there is any sort of common characterization of this type of flaw?


title: What do we call people who work out at home?

text: This question was very interesting: What do we call people who go to the gym? Now I am wondering if there is a word for someone like me who works out _at home_. What I refer to is weight training, work with bars, HIIT (high intensive interval training) and some yoga or stretching exercises.


title: Nobody must [+ verb]

text: "Must not" vs. "don't have to" is a famous false friends for many languages. That said, what about a phrase like, say, "nobody must know": Does that mean that a) nobody is allowed to know, or b) that obviously nobody knows, or both? Is that sentence OK, poor style, or to be reworded to make unambiguous? How would I use "must not know", as in "is not allowed to know" together with "nobody"?


title: Is there a sequence following "ace" (as in "ace pilot")?

text: If an expert pilot or covert operative or other specialized profession can be referred to as an "ace", is there a word that describes someone who is less experienced or lacks some of the expertise? Is it sequential? What pattern does it follow?


title: Need help constructing consistent sentences, and naming parts

text: I'm a software developer and I'm trying to write a consistent "grammar" for an audit log feature. An Audit log is basically a list of actions that happened. As it's a part of the database I need consistent naming for the parts of the sentences. Now I'm not natively english, so I could use some help. Each example sentence below i suffixed a number to some words. Each of these words should be of the same "type" (e.g.: subject, object, ... other).   * Anna[1] created[2] the_comment[4] on the_article[3]    * Mark[1] voted[2] on the video[3]   * Jessy[1] signed_in[2]   * John[1] added[2] Jessy[4] to the list[3]   * Anna[3] was blocked[2] by Dick[1]   * Louis[1] replied[2] to the_conversation[3] with his_message[4] I'm pretty sure 1: is the subject, and 2: is the verb. However I don't know how I should name 3 and 4, and I have a suspicion some sentence constructions should change. Could you help me out?


title: Footage shot in advance

text: Is there a word meaning "footage shot in advance" in English? I mean, there's a live TV show and before the host starts interviewing his guest, some material from her earlier life and work, or probably some interviews with her family members are shown first. I'm translating some materials into English and the dictionaries I'm using are rather clueless.


title: How did the phrase "are you nuts" come about?

text: What is the connection between "nut" and the character? How was the phrase "are you nuts?" used at first?


title: Prepositions: "in" vs. "on" a tab/widget

text: In my quest to grasp the dichotomy between "on" and "in" I have found another example that left me in doubt. >   1. Initializes the widgets added on the tabs. >   2. Validates the information on the widgets. > At the first example I think the widget is being added **in** / **into** the tab.   As far as the second example once again I think the information is validated **in** the widget not on the widget because the information is inside the widget. Could you help me here clarifying this ? **Note** : If you are not familiar with the concept of tab and widget you can check it here.


title: What does the expression "we are looking to you" mean?

text: What does the expression "we are looking to you" mean in the following sentence? > Now that you have taken the test and have an understanding, **we are looking > to you** to teach this to your subordinates.


title: Is "has has" form correct?

text: Example sentence: > Skype _has has_ since confirmed that a solution is in the works. Shouldn't it be: > Skype _has had_ since confirmed that a solution is in the works.


title: Is cruel standard use as a noun in poetry? Are there terms for non-standard English specifically in regard to use in poetry?

text: I hope this question isn't off-topic.   I heard a madrigal with the following verse which bothers me somewhat, grammatically. _Cruel, wilt thou persever?   Peace to leave ever?   Peace shalt thou have and gladness,   But when in sadness,   When thou the morn seest ev'n,   To fall from heav'n._ Thomas Morley (1597)   http://www1.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Cruel,_wilt_thou_persever_ _Cruel_ seems to be used as a noun instead of an adjective. Is this non- standard or common use of the time? Even if so, and allowing for poetic license, how is this to be understood: personifying cruelty and addressing it or some other way? Also, but are there separate terms for the following kinds of liberty taken in poetry?   1. terms for using non-standard grammar from an unexpected part of speech (as in _cruel wilt thou persever?_ ) or a double negative, (as in _I can't get no satisfaction_ \- Rolling Stones) in a line in order to get the lines to scan?    2. a term for using a contractions to get the lines to scan, as in _ev'n_ and _heav'n_   3. I was able to find a term for using a word to rhyme that doesn't quite rhyme, as in _come_ , _one_ and _home_ or _ev'n_ and _heav'n_ : ( _assonance_ ), but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


title: Future tense in conditional clauses

text: All the textbooks I have ever come across during the course of my studying English emphasize that future tense should not be used in conditional clauses. For example, > If it rains in the evening, we will not go for a walk. ( ~~if it will rain > in the evening...~~ ) > > We decided to go for a walk if it didn't rain in the evening. ( ~~...if it > wouldn't rain in the evening)~~ However, in the following sentence I'm really inclined to use the future tense. > Don't implement this feature if it will significantly increase the > complexity of the user interface. According to all the rules I know of, the future tense is illegal here. However, my gut feeling tells me that the sentence is correct. If I am wrong, the question ends here. Otherwise please read on. I find the last example different from my first two because:   * In the first examples we must wait and see if the condition is true, and then make a decision accordingly, whereas in the last example, we must actually analyze/predict/forecast the future in order to make the decision in the present.   * (might be irrelevant) In my first language - Armenian - where we have a special mood for conditions, the translation of the third sentence actually uses indicative, whereas the first two use that special mood (the conditional mood, as it were).  Since the second would-be principle is easier for me to experiment with, I noticed that every time a condition uses the indicative mood in my language, I'm inclined to use the future tense in English. As another example: > I will give you the money if it will make you happier. Am I imagining things or are my examples of the future tense in the conditional clause valid? If they are valid, what rule would you suggest to distinguish the cases when it's OK? (I do realize that translating a sentence to another language and analyzing the translation doesn't really count as a rule).


title: "When I am 18, I will..." or "When I will be 18, I will..."

text: Should I say: > When **I am** 18, I'll take my driving test or > When **I'll be** 18, I'll take my driving test Which one is the correct sentence?


title: What is the meaning of "I read a book once"

text: I saw an image on Missed Connections few days ago, and the image text is: > Friday, January 29, 2010 \- m4w - 23 (L train) > > How did you get those bruises? I wouldn't let anything happen to you. You > were reading some book, and taking notes. I read a book once. And I saw people comment below that the last sentence "I read a book once" is really sad... but I don't quite understand the hidden meaning of that sentence. Thanks for your help.


title: Words that originate from Icelandic

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  English from Icelandic? Are there any English words that are of a common or semi-common use that originate from Icelandic?


title: Depression and happiness

text: * Are "depression" and "happiness" antonyms?   * Are they mutually exclusive?    * Does the absence of one imply the presence of the other? (I am trying to ascertain the semantic validity of using depression-metrics as a gauge of happiness)


title: confusing trail

text: Which of the following construction is the proper or more conventional use of the verb form of the word "trail"? Team A trails (following behind - in scores) team B. Team B trailing (keeping behind - in scores) team A.


title: What is the opposite of gem-like?

text: Does anyone know what would be an appropriate antonym for _gem-like_? That is, a word for something that is not valuable, not beautiful, brilliant, or clear, and may be soft, where a gem is hard. _Edit:_ We can say _gem-like_ to mean someone with attractive qualities. I was looking for an opposite along that line.


title: Greeting Question

text: We're working on a web/mobile application, and in our home screen we greet the user with the message _Hi John, What are you up to today ?_ , we're offering him the option to find deals around him, places, movies and traffic status. I want to randomize the _What are you up today_ question with an additional set, maybe _Looking for a night out?_ , so the services we offer would be relevant as answers, e.g. he can go the movies, or a restaurant, and check the traffic on the way. Any other ideas for more sentences?


title: Is there a single word that expresses "music end-users / enthusiasts"?

text: To help a soon-to-be sister site out here, I was thinking English.SE perhaps could lend a helping hand as this is the best place for "word choice and usage". I'm not looking for "naming", but rather want to see what shorter words exist for expressing " _music end-users/enthusiasts_ ", these could be " _journalists, reviewers, music fans and listeners_ ". I've tried, but can't come up with something... ~~Audiophiles~~. From Urban Dictionary I have _selvyn_ which is another word for a Music enthusiast of the Modern age; but yeah, it's UD and I don't think _selvyn_ is really English to begin with... So... do you know of a single word to express " _music end-users/enthusiasts_ "?


title: Should an apostrophe be used with a z at the end of a word?

text: I know that if a word ends with an **s** then it should be made plural or possessive by use of an apostrophe with no extra s (e.g. "Thomas Harris' book was a riveting read." as opposed to "Gary Barlow's voice is so distracting.") What about if the word ends with a **z**. For example, would it be **Gomez'** album or **Gomez's** album?


title: When do we use "arrive at" versus "arrive in"?

text: When do we use "at" and "in" with "arrive" talking about place, not time?


title: The use of "except"

text: Here is a sentence I saw using the word except: > valid claims were granted patent to land free and clear, except for a small > registration fee. What does it mean? How does the word except here related the registration fee to the previous part of the sentence.


title: Specific word used for the combining of past and current experience

text: I am looking for the specific word used for the combining of past experience with new. It is one word and I don't think it was Latin based but I just don't remember...


title: Alternative to "wide-ranging" adjective for "audience"

text: What is a good adjective that describes an audience as coming from a wide spectrum of different backgrounds?


title: difference between “increase of ” and “increase by”

text: Is there any difference between _there was an increase of 2%_ and “there was an increase by 2%”?


title: Use of "B defers to A" when A takes precedence over B

text: If A takes precedence over B, is it correct to say _B defers to A_? I searched the web for `precedence antonym` but found nothing useful.


title: Word for person who is always dizzy or high

text: What is a single word for a person who is always dizzy or high? I am sure it is not the same as a person who drinks a lot. Here Always means without an end.


title: What does "Rolling in the deep" mean?

text: It's the title of the song from Adele. I wonder what "Rolling in the deep" means.


title: What is the difference between "wealth of knowledge" and "breadth of knowledge"

text: Can they be used interchangeably? For example: To work in ABC you first must gain wealth/breadth of knowledge about ABC's products


title: Need a generic term for "model types" and "platforms"

text: We are a team of 2 developing a web application. It allows scientists to upload files with measurement data. My question is about how we should name one kind of metadata. An uploaded file might be the output of some measurement instrument or some scientific model. Both types are connected to some higher level element:   * _instruments_ are loaded onto _platforms_ which might be ships or airplanes transporting them during the measurement   * _models_ are distinguished by their _model type_ Now we'll have lists and database tables with both of them. The lower level element we call _data source_ because it's just the very entity producing the data. Can you think of any reasonable name for something which might be a _platform_ or a _model type_?


title: Can I drop 'might' in this sentence without changes in meaning?

text: I was interested in the following sentence which appeared in an article titled “Rethinking the Afghanistan War’s What-Ifs" by David E. Sanger in The New York Times (July 31, 2010). > The British spent a century arguing over whether a lighter hand or > devastating military _might could have put down_ the American Revolution. I'm already confused about differences between _might_ usage and _could_ usage, but the chaos explodes in my mind when I see they together. According to this Kosmonaut's answer, I should reword "might could have put down" with "might be able to have put down", but I'm not sure on this correction because this fragment does not make sense to my ear. Indeed, I would drop "might" and I would reword the sentence as follow: > The British spent a century arguing over whether a lighter hand or > devastating military _could have put down_ the American Revolution. Can someone clarify if the fragment "might could have put down" could be reworded dropping "might" without changes in meaning? Or, is it right what Kosmonaut said?


title: What does “him as writ plays” (etc.) mean in old newspaper clipping?

text: Quotation from _A history of the cries of London ancient_ (p23). ![old newspaper clipping](http://i.stack.imgur.com/TMcnn.jpg) > ... famous theatre afterwards to be so widely known. The sunshiny time of > our literature and life, making a red-letter period in happy old England's > history. We were interrupted by a kindly-faced, round-shouldered man of the > bargee type, who asked us 'if it was Shakespeare, him as writ plays, we was > a torkin' on ; if so be it were, he could show us the werry 'ouse he used, > least ways, all as is left on it.' After a twisting tramp through Cardinal > Cap Ally, we were brought out opposite the public-house known by the name of > the ' Smith Arms,' which had just then only escaped entire demolition from > fire by a very near chance--(the damage done has since necessitated the > rebuilding ; so the sketch stands as a bit of rescued old London.) Especially，I don't know what is meant by "him as writ plays" and "the wery 'ouse": > who asked us 'if it was Shakespeare, him as writ plays, we was a torkin' on > ; if so be it were, he could show us the wery 'ouse he used, least ways, all > as is left on it.'


title: Difference between 'in order to', 'so as to,' 'to'

text: I'm a Korean and I learned in school that 'to' is equal to 'in order to' and 'so as to,' if they are used in expressing intent. Are the sentences "I study in order to achieve my goal" and "I study so as to achieve my goal" same, in terms of nuance? If there's even the slightest difference when viewed by a native speaker, please elaborate! :)


title: Meaning of "opps" and "come out of retirement"

text: What's the meaning of _opps_ and _come out of retirement_? > Whats the longest you've gone without having sex? > > 3 years. > > wo > > And get this, I've only slept with 2 women in my entire life. Was a save it > till you're married guy... 1st girl I was engaged to. > > Had plenty of opps before and after her. I really like my current girl so I > decided to come out of retirement.


title: How are embedded quotations used?

text: How would embedded quotations be used when quoting from passages/sources within an essay? What would be the difference between normal quotations and embedded quotations?


title: When should single quotes be used?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the Difference in Usage Between Using Single and Two Quotation > Marks/Inverted Commas? I know that they are used inside double quotes for a quotation within a quotation, but when else should they be used? I've seen them used in all sorts of syntactical situations, but where do I find a comprehensive guide to its proper usage?


title: What's the difference between using single and double quotation marks/inverted commas?

text: I'm quite unsure regarding the usage of single quotation marks (') and double quotation marks (") in English. I had thought that double quotation marks were usually used to quote sentences from passages/given sources, nouns/things ("Westminster Bridge", "alliteration", or "voice" regarding its usage in poetry), as well as some less common/important uses including being snarky and using them to indicate a sarcastic remark. Someone had told me today that you were supposed to refer to things with two inverted commas (") instead of one. Which one is correct? Could someone explain the usages between the two different types of quotation marks?


title: Difference in quote signs?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What's the Difference in Usage Between Using Single and Two Quotation > Marks/Inverted Commas? There are two quote signs, : > **'**   >  and > > **"** Is there a difference between these two and are there are occasions when one is used and not the other?


title: Dealing with multiple layers of embedded quotes

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How are embedded quotations used?   >  What's the Difference in Usage Between Using Single and Two Quotation > Marks/Inverted Commas? Let's say I want to write a question here at ELU about how to deal with punctuation in the case of embedded quotes. How would I deal with this three layered beast of a quote? "Something like "Is this meaning okay: 'The police suck because they are bad because they only want my money'?", perhaps?" I guess using a double for the first layer, single for the second and a double again for the third and so on would make most sense.


title: How to punctuate a quote within a quote?

text: > **Duplicate of:**   >  What’s the difference between using single and double quotation > marks/inverted commas?   >  How are embedded quotations used?   >  **And:**   >  When should end punctuation go inside quotes?   >  Is it correct to use “punctuation outside of the quotations”, or “inside?” Let me know if this belongs on Writers.se. Furthermore, I have a strong feeling this has already been covered, but I wouldn’t know where, since I don’t know what to name this situation. Moving on, I will express a dialogue like this: > A: “What did he say to you?’ > > B1: “He leaned close to me, and said in a gravely and drunken voice, “It’s > not easy.” ” Or would it be, > B2: “He leaned close to me, and said in a gravely and drunken voice, ‘It’s > not easy.’ ” Or, > B3: “He leaned close to me, and said in a gravely and drunken voice, “It’s > not easy”.” I’ve tried to be helpful (and probably failed), but let me know.


title: Usage of 'carved in stone'

text: I have always seen the expression 'carved in stone' used in the negative in sentences like: 'It is not carved in stone that..., Could this expression be used in the positive or, alternatively what other expression could I use to say that something is 'unchangeable' ?


title: Is there a word or expression to call someone who easily gives credit, especially to insignificant efforts?

text: A common example would be a professor who is too mild in his marking of a poor assignments. Another example could be someone who doesn't add or say much with his words, but still receives a lot of credit (*gets a lot of votes) from voters during an election. Another example might be a rather poor musical performance which, however, is being (too) highly praised by the audience. A mum, who praises her 10 year old son too easily on tasks (such as, getting dressed, drinking his cup with two hands, ignoring his teat) that a 4 year old would normally be praised on.


title: A single word describing something that needs attention

text: After a work is peer reviewed, it moves into a state in which the author of the work must review critiques and answer questions from the peer who reviewed the work. What would be an appropriate word to describe the state the work is in? E.g., in a state trail: > Completed → Reviewing → _____ → Fixing → Accepted


title: Looking for the opposite of "drill down"

text: I am a programmer working on a chart component that allows to drill down on selection of a node. Drilling down will show the details of that node (like its children etc.). But I am struggling to find out a word to describe the opposite of drilling down. "Drill up" sounds wrong. Does anyone have a nifty little word that conveys the opposite of "drilling down"? Something to convey the action of moving from something more specific to something more general.


title: Where does the sentence fit?

text: Look at the four letters ( **A** , **B** , **C** , **D** ) that indicate where the following sentence can be added to following passage. This explains how, for example, alpine cushion plants have been found growing at an altitude of 6,180 meters. Where does the sentence fit? Above the tree line there is zone that is generally called alpine tundra. **A** Immediately adjacent to the timberline, the tundra consists of a fairly complete cover of low-lying shrubs, herbs, and grasses, while higher up the number and diversity of species decrease until there is much bare ground with occasional mosses and lichens and some prostrate cushion plants. **B** Some plants can even survive in favorable microhabitats above the snow line. The highest plants in the world occur at around 6,100 meters on Makalu in the Himalayas. **C** At this great height, rocks, warmed by the sun, melt small snowdrifts. **D** The answer is D, but I see that the choice C is also make sense. Could you please help me with this problem? Thank you so much!


title: "Create an Account" or "Create Account"

text: I have a registration form I want to name. Should I name it: >  -  "Create Account" > >  -  "Create an Account" (or "Create the Account") Also, which words should be capitalized if this is a header.


title: What does this sentence mean ? "Heaven and earth, are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?"

text: In Pride and Prejudice, when an old woman (Catherine) asks a young lady (Elizabeth) whether she is engaged with her nephew or not, the young lady neither confirms nor rejects such relationship in a dissembling way.   Lady Catherine censures Elizabeth and criticizes the scandalous elopement of her sister. Then she says this sentence: > Heaven and earth! Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted? What does it really mean?


title: "Enter the password 1234" vs. "enter 1234 for a password"

text: Which sentence is correct? >   1. Enter the password 1234. >   2. Enter 1234 for a password. >


title: What should I do when two clauses that must be in parenthesis sit next to each other in my sentence?

text: I'm writing my thesis dissertation and in the results section I'm showing my results with this sentence: > A small correlation between hit position and time was found for SS2 > ($r=-0.143, p<0.01$) but not for SS1 ($p>0.05$) (see Figure 3.2). I believe I'm following APA guidelines for reporting statistical results and I want to show the reader the figure as it shows graphically my results. But, I don't like having these two parentheses next to each other. What can I do?


title: Phrase for the idea that we experience life as a narrative and contribute to it?

text: There is this poem by Whitman who paints a picture of life as a narrative that we contribute our story to: > **O Me! O Life!** > > Oh me! Oh life! of the questions of these recurring, > > Of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities fill’d with the foolish, > > Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who > more faithless?) > > Of eyes that vainly crave the light, of the objects mean, of the struggle > ever renew’d, > > Of the poor results of all, of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around > me, > > Of the empty and useless years of the rest, with the rest me intertwined, > > The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life? > > _Answer._ > > That you are here—that life exists and identity, > > That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse. My question is - **is there a phrase that describes this idea of life as a narrative?** (My guess is 'hi-story'. )


title: "Don't cry" or "Don't you cry"

text: "Don't cry." is universally accepted sentence form. But I also notice some books also provide "Don't you cry." Both means "not to cry". Are they all correct?


title: Is "encrusted with dust" correct?

text: > A big black vehicle rumbles through the streets of the slum. Its battered > exterior is encrusted with dust. "Encrusted" means that water or oil has been combined with dust (or something) and then applied to an object and allowed to dry as a crust. So I think "encrusted with dust" has to be wrong, but "encrusted with mud" could work. Am I right?


title: How should one punctuate a sentence like this?

text: How should one punctuate a sentence like the following? > If she were to find out about our . . . "secret plan" shall I say . . . it > would be the end of everything.


title: I need a synonom for the phrase "took place"

text: My sentence says "Tom Robinson's case..." I wanted to say "took place" but I'm using it in the sentence right after it. Help!


title: Word for "outside of school"

text: The word probably has the prefix "extra-", but I am not thinking of extracurricular, as that only pertains to that which is outside of the educational curriculum. Any ideas?


title: Lobbyist's Counterpart

text: A _lobbyist_ is a person tries to influence the votes of legislators on behalf of a special interest. What would the correct term be for the legislators being lobbied? _Lobbyee_ might be a logical conclusion, but it looks and sounds terrible (at least to me). Note: If the word you suggest has more subtle connotations, e.g. it describes a legislator that is particularly easily swayed lobbyists, please be sure to mention that.


title: What would you call a list of parts in a single word

text: What is a single word to describe a list of parts, tools, and instructions to be assembled later to form an object.   Examples:   Bag of parts/tools/instructions for a DIY crib   A group of parameters to be sent as an object with both properties and methods to describe how to build out the object _(software-factory pattern,IOC)_   List of car parts/schematics/assembly instructions to be assembled in the factory. To clarify, I am looking for a general term that could apply to any or all of the scenarios above.


title: Is there a less misleading way to write this sentence?

text: "The reason we hired an agent who's come back temporarily to be an instructor is..." The agent who has come back temporarily was hired to be an instructor. But another way to read this sentence is that the agent came back temporarily for the purpose of becoming an instructor and he was hired. Is there a way to word this so that the meaning is clearly the former? I should be a little cleared here as well. When I say, he's come back, I don't mean he stopped working there previously. I mean that he normally works somewhere else—like in a different country for example.


title: The problem with the word "quite"

text: "Quite" is probably the most ambiguous word in the English language. Merriam- Webster defines it three ways: 1: completely, wholly, totally (quite mistaken) 2: to an extreme : positively (quite drunk) 3: to a considerable extent : pretty, rather (quite near, quite ill quite rich) So if someone tells you someone else is "quite drunk", how do you know this person is: a) completely drunk? b) very drunk? c) pretty drunk? Or how about "quite difficult?" Does it mean rather difficult? Or extremely difficult?


title: Are these garden path sentences grammatically correct?

text: **Background** A garden path sentence is one that is exceptionally hard for the reader to parse. English is especially prone to this because it is an analytical language and so many words can be many different parts of speech. I read that as a person reads a sentence, he builds up a likely meaning for each word and a meaning for the whole sentence word by word, then if a "disambiguating word" appears that changes the meaning, he switches to the new meaning and continues. When the disambiguating word is far away from the ambiguous word, the sentence can be very difficult to understand. The classic garden path sentence, as far as I am aware, is "The horse raced past the barn fell." The ambiguous word is _raced_ and the disambiguating word is _fell_. For those who don't think this is a perfectly grammatical sentence, the meaning is the same as "The horse [that was] raced past the barn fell." Or perhaps more clearly using a different word, "The horse driven past the barn fell." Before I ask my question, since these things are so cool (to me, anyway), here are a few more examples:   * The old man the boats.   * While Anna dressed the baby spit up on the bed.   * The man returned to his house was happy.   * Fat people eat accumulates.   * She told me a little white lie will come back to haunt me.   * We painted the wall with cracks. **The Question – My Own Garden Path Sentence** After enjoying these and many other garden path sentences I read about, I invented one of my own. Recently I told it to a friend, but he didn't really get my example garden path sentences (the horse, the old, and Anna) and argued that they and mine were not correct grammar. So I submit it to you for your analysis:               The men run through the arches screamed.      As explanation, the men were stabbed in the feet, possibly as a form of torture. I swear I had several others I invented five to ten years ago, but I can't remember them. Perhaps I will invent some new ones. Is that sentence correct grammar? As well as the others? Feel free to edit my grammar. No comment necessary.


title: How do I ask for advice politely?

text: I came across the following phrase: > I was wondering if you might be able to give me some advice. Is it a natural construction for a conversational context? Can I use the following instead in order to sound less formal: > I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Or is it less polite? Or which phrase would be better to use instead?


title: Do you suppose the boys in her went before I knew her? (To Have and Not Have by Hemingway)

text: I don't understand the last sentence, "Do you suppose the boys in her went before I knew her?" This is from Hemingway's To Have and Have Not. > He sat at the table and looked at the piano, the sideboard and the radio, > the picture of September Morn, and the pictures of the cupids holding bows > behind their heads, the shiny real-oak table and the shiny real-oak chairs > and the curtains on the windows and he thought, What chance have I to enjoy > my home? Why am I back to worse than where I started? It’ll all be gone too > if I don’t play this right. The hell it will. I haven’t got sixty bucks left > outside of the house, but I’ll get a stake out of this. Those damn girls. > That’s all that old woman and I could get with what we’ve got. **Do you > suppose the boys in her went before I knew her?**


title: Is the use of "what" over "which" correct in this sentence?

text: I was filling out an application form, when I had noticed this sentence: > If bilingual, please provide in _what_ languages. If I was writing this, I'd form it as _which languages_ , instead of _what languages_. Is the sentence above correct?


title: What does "take out your book" mean?

text: What does this phrase mean? "take out your book" Because I have found no relevant meaning of take+out as a phrasal verb in the online dictionaries. Can any one help me?


title: difference between "to summarize" and "to recap"

text: recap: state again as a summary; recapitulate: a way of recapping the story so far | [ no obj. ] : to recap, it’s been a year full of ups and downs. Is there any difference among "to sum up", "to summarize", and "to recap"?


title: First Order Logic

text: IF "No first-order theory...has the strength to describe fully and categorically structures with an infinite domain", how then does the domain of the first order describe any real thing? Is this related in any way to the problem of induction?


title: Claim a stake or stake a claim?

text: Which of the following is a correct usage? > CLAIM A STAKE or > STAKE A CLAIM I am highly confused about these two. How to use them in sentences? Though the first one appears to be correct to me, the dictionary suggests the second. Why? Why is the first one wrong?


title: What is the meaning of "I don't give a damn for someone that can only spell a word one way."

text: What does it mean when a person says _"I don't give a damn for someone that can only spell a word one way"_ when talking about give and take relationship? The situation goes like this: My friend helped her classmate with her research paper. Then, after a week when my friend asked for help from her classmate, she refused to help back. That's when he said _"I don't give a damn for someone that can only spell a word one way."_


title: Origin of "you lot" and other plural forms of "you"

text: I've often heard the phrase "you lot" in British programs on PBS, e.g. "Oi! You lot! Shift y'selves" or thereabouts, and have sometimes wondered about its origin and how it gained currency. It seems both elegant (short, easily understood, and accurately expressing plural of "you") and crude (on PBS, only heard in broad comedy) or perhaps colloquial. Its use seems to have sharply increased ca. 1960. Why the increase, or is it an artifact of the corpus? Are "you lot", "you-all" and "you guys" (as mentioned in the middle of Wikipedia on "you") cognates? Is there a more appropriate term for the group?


title: "got to have" in a sentence

text: Is the following sentence right: "You got to have that satisfaction to never being satisfied" English is not my first language and a friend of mine wants this as a tattoo. I can't shake the feeling that he will be walking around with a wrong sentence the rest of his life


title: Why do Americans add "The" in front of a team name, but the British do not?

text: I'm not certain that there is an answer to this one: Americans refer to our teams as The > Example: The New York Yankees The British in my experience do not. > Example: Manchester United I know that occasionally the British will throw in a the, such as _The Arsenal_ , but I believe this is a nod to the actual Woolwich Arsenal. We also tend to pluralize our teams, where I don't believe the British do this typically. (Not certain on that one . . . A bit of help from across the pond would be appreciated.) Could the pluralization be compelling the usage of _The_? Of note, the only time _The_ gets truncated from an American team name is when it is used as an adjective. _e.g._ Legendary New York Yankees pitcher Mariano Rivera retired this past season.


title: "Longer running time" vs "high performance"

text: I am always confused about the correct usages of words like _longer_ , _less_ , _higher_ , _high_ etc., for comparing performance of two programs. For example, if a program A completes its work in 10 seconds, while another program B completes its work in 20 seconds, i.e., A gives high performance compared to B, then which one of the following sentences is best to express both _A is better than B_ and _The short running-time program is better_? Maybe the following sentences are bad. If so, please provide me your suggestions to improve them. I have seen that people use short sentences in parentheses as shown below in technical research papers. Can I use parentheses as below? I have also used google and google ngrams, and I could see that the words _longer_ , _short_ , _low_ , etc., all are used along with _running time_. >   1. B has a longer running time compared to A and therefore A gives high > performance. >   2. A gives higher performance (low running-time) compared to B. >


title: Use of majority to refer to quantity

text: Is it correct to use 'majority' to refer to quantity? For example: More than half the garbage in our city is recycled . The majority of garbage is recycled. If this is incorrect, why?


title: What is an alternative term for "Swiss army knife"?

text: What is an alternative term for _Swiss army knife_? As in a general multi-purpose tool. It is a word that everybody understands, but I would like to know some alternatives. Clarification: The term _Swiss army knife_ is often used to express a multi- purpose, versatile tool outside the contexts of knives or armies.   * The Swiss army knife for writing books.   * Perl is the Swiss army knife among programming languages.   * Swiss army knife of codecs (Google's search entry completion). I think that "multi-tool" or "one stop shop" are adequate alternative, maybe there are more?


title: Trolling: billy goats gruff or fishing reference?

text: Where does the internet jargon "Troll" come from? The way I see it. If it's a fishing reference, then you can't accuse someone of "Being a troll" and if it's a mythology reference then someone isn't really "Trolling" they're just "Being a troll". It seems like it has roots in both, because   * it's like they're waiting under a bridge to pop out and get you    * it's like dropping a line in and waiting for someone to take the bait while moving around a lot.


title: What's the meaning of the phrase "take cares of"?

text: What is the usage, and why use plural? The context is here: > The automatic support for long - running workfl ows that the WF > infrastructure provides is the most evident benefi t. The execution of a > long - running workfl ow can be suspended or resumed on multiple points, so > the internal state of the execution and activities must be preserved. WF > automatically **takes cares of** saving the workfl ow state through the use > of confi gurable providers. Therefore, you do not need to worry about these > details.


title: Okay to assume association between separate parentheses clauses?

text: Take a look at this: > By the way, I marked (the tag that includes) position 2854 (in the code that > the tag is inside). Is it okay to use a couple of clauses that are dependent of each others like this (in order to convey the right meaning)?


title: Classical language

text: What are classical languages? How they are different from other languages? Is English is an example of classical language?


title: Eddy vis vortex

text: **What's the difference between eddy and vortex?** When one talks about vortical flows what is more correct to use?


title: It is (was) ... that ... in plural forms for emphasis

text: I need to emphasize two items using **It is (was) ... that ...** grammar, but I am not sure in such plural forms, should I change to **They are (were) ... that ...**. Specifically, if I want to emphasize this sentence: He read three books in the library yesterday. Then, I can use: > It was he who(that)read three books in the library yesterday. > > **It was three books** that he read in the library yesterday. > > It was in the library that he read three books yesterday. Just want to make sure the second sentence is grammatically right.


title: Alternatives to leading a sentence with the conjunctive adverb "However"

text: The word "however" is used to lead off a sentence that counters a previous thought. Are there any alternative words or phrases that can substitute? I'm even looking for old English and obsolete words and phrases. I'm trying to add some creativity to my writing. I'll start by including words that are nearly as tired:   * Nevertheless   * Moreover (not exactly the same thing as "However" and "Nevertheless", but can in limited cases be used) Anyone have anything better?


title: "support to" vs. "support of"

text: Which preposition should be used in this sentence? >   1. Thank you for your continued **support of** the John Q. Public > scholarship >   2. Thank you for your continued **support to** the John Q. Public > scholarship >


title: Has there been an Anglo-Saxon movement in English?

text: We know there has been an influence (or attempt at influence) of Latin grammar on English, especially in the 19th century. And of course, many new words coined today in (say) the sciences draw upon Latin sources. In the opposite direction, I vaguely seem to recall reading about a movement (or several separate movements) in English that championed the use of words derived from Anglo-Saxon, eschewing words from Romance, Latin, and possibly Greek roots. For instance, as in the examples here, "people" would be replaced with "folk", "sense" would be replaced with "meaning", and so on. Does anyone know more details about such movements? Who were the advocates? How well did they succeed? And most importantly, are there examples of works written in (or "translated" into) such English? **Edit:** To clarify, the question is not about a mere _preference_ for Anglo- Saxon words, which quite a few usage writers have advocated, but a near- fanatical attempt to expunge _every_ Romance word from writing. I recall reading about some outlandish words coined as part of this attempt.


title: Does “bloodripe” actually exist as a word?

text: I’ve come on the adjective _bloodripe_ in Nabokov’s _Lolita_ (bold emphasis added): > . . . it had become quite a habit with me of not being too attentive to > women lest they come toppling, **bloodripe** , into my cold lap. The passage contains a metaphor likening women to ripened fruits, so _bloodripe_ is easily defined as _fully ripe_ (although it’s quite an ironic adjective for a paedophile, such as Humbert Humbert). Yet, I can’t find it in any of the dictionaries at my disposal: for example, it is not in Merriam- Webster or Oxford Dictionary. Does it actually exist, though not listed in the dictionaries, or is it Nabokov’s brainchild?


title: Word for mixing a dish with a fork or spoon

text: I am looking for a word that can serve in the following context: > After the pasta is cooked, put some sauce on top of it and use a spoon to > _mix_ it together. Mix seems to be too general, I am looking for something that is related to mixing with the use of a spoon or fork.


title: Can I "wear an umbrella"?

text: Does it make sense to say the following? > Yesterday I wore an umbrella and a coat.


title: "compiled with gcc" vs "compiled in gcc"

text: >   1. "This program was compiled **with** gcc." > >   2. "This program was compiled **in** gcc." > >   3. "This program was written **in** C++." > >   4. "This program was written **with** C++." > > Note: gcc is a widely used compiler by C/C++ programers. What are the subtle differences between the pairs of sentences?


title: On the expression "some... and not others"

text: I want to ask a simple question. One often uses _some_ and _and not others_ or _but not others_ together. For instance: > (1) Why does cancer attack **some tissues but not others**?   >  (2) Why do interventions work in **some places and not others**? Is _and not others_ or _but not others_ put after _some_ just to emphasize the noun after _some_?


title: Correct usage of the verb "do"

text: Is it correct to use the word "do" twice in a row? For instance; "I do do that" or would you say "I do that"? "You do do that" or "You do that"? Which is correct, or are they both correct?


title: Meaning of "run flat out"

text: What does "I can run flat out for a half mile before my hands start shaking" mean? It was said in The Bourne Identity. I am not a native English speaker. I know the meaning of the individual words, but have never heard the expression "run flat out" before.


title: complement vs adjunct

text: > “Funny, isn’t it,” she said, “how the law can have a soft spot like that? > No, someone had seen her in the village at the time Robin went missing, so > she wasn’t really a suspect. It was decided that because of her. . . because > she was . . . well, not to put too fine a point on it, that Meg was best (1) > **left** out of things entirely, and that’s how it was done.” > > “So it was Dieter who found the body then.” “Yes. He told me about it that > same evening. He was still in shock – hardly making sense: all about how he > had come (2) **racing** down from Gibbet Wood, yelling himself hoarse . . . > leaping fences, sliding in the mud . . . running into the yard, looking up > at the empty windows. Like dead eyes, they were, he kept saying, like the > windows of the Brontes’ parsonage. But as I said, poor Dieter was in shock. > He didn’t know what he was saying.” (The Weed that Strings the Hangman’s > Bag) I guess the first participial construction is a complement of the adjective _best_ , while the second participial construction is an adjunct for it’s not necessary to complete the meaning. Am I right?


title: "Sit down" vs. "sit up"

text: When someone is lying down, you say _sit **up_**.   When someone is standing in an upright position, you say _sit **down_**. What in the situation when you want to ask a very small kid to sit down to a chair, but the chair is too high for him so he has to _climb **up_** the chair to _sit down_ on it? See a picture. _Sit down_ sounds like not matching the context. Would you still use _sit down_? What I want to find is if for the native English speaker the phrase _sit down_ is stronger than the idea of the logical direction as in _sit up_ (which seems more natural to me as the non-native speaker). So if you really _had to_ choose and you had no other options, what would you select. (I believe this is not a duplicate of lying down and then sit up/down?)


title: "Add connections" or "Create connections"?

text: I am building an interface for making connections between items. When viewing a particular item, the user has the possibility of connecting it to other existing items, by selecting them from a list. Which expression is better? Is "add connection" even correct?


title: What is the term for a shortened word that is pronounced based on phantom letters?

text: I'm only posting out of curiosity. But recently I've begun to wonder what you would call a shortening of a word that only sounds correct when spoken, and the pronunciation cannot be inferred from its spelling because the pronunciation is based on “phantom" letters”. Offhand, I could only think of the example below. I'll add more if I remember them. For example: In England, someone might order a _Veg_ Meal. _Veg_ is pronounced /vɛdʒ/ but words ending in _g_ have a _guh_ sound. However, _Veg_ is pronounced as if the _egtable_ part was still there.


title: What is the standard rule for using or not using hyphen and diaeresis on the words like reelect , reexamine, and cooperate?

text: I found that diaeresis is used on the word, reelection in the following sentence of the article titled “Rational Irrationality” in the New Yorker magazine (April 27). > “This morning’s news that economic growth slowed markedly between January > and March is an unmitigated bad for Obama and an unmitigated good for > Romney. The President’s reëlection chances largely hinge on being able to > point to evidence that the economy is finally improving.” As I don’t think I’ve come across diaeresises being used in the articles of today's journals so often (Correct me if I’m wrong), I checked dictionaries at hand and online. Cambridge Dictionary online resisters reelection without hyphen nor diaeresis on ‘ee’, same as Merriam Webster online. Both Oxford Dictionary online and Oxford Advance English Learners’ Dictionary register ‘re-election’ with the former coming with the notation - Spell ‘re- elect’ with a hyphen after the first e. Other words beginning with re- that have a hyphen are re-educate, re-emerge, re-enact, re-enter. New Yorker used diaeresis on ‘reelection’ as shown above, and their separate article titled “The Curse of the Diaeresis’ (April 2) stated: > “The special tool we use here at The New Yorker for punching out the two > dots that we then center carefully over the second vowel in such words as > “naïve” and “Laocoön” will be getting a workout this year, as the Democrats > coöperate to reëlect the President.” I find no consistency of the use and non-use of hyphen and diaeresis among Cambridge Dictionary, Oxford Dictionaries and New Yorker magazine. What is the standard rule or custom of using, not using a hyphen and a diaeresis on the words including ‘ee’ ‘oo’ letters?


title: Why doesn't English use umlauts more frequently?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is the standard rule for using or not using hyphen and diaeresis on > the words like reelect , reexamine, and cooperate? I was reading this article in the New Yorker when I came across the word _uncooperative_ spelled with an umlaut over the second 'o' ( _uncoöperative_ ). I'm assuming a magazine of that stature wouldn't misspell such a word, but then it got me wondering why the use of umlaut isn't more common in English, when clearly common use cases exist (uncoöperative, naïve, etc.)?


title: Writing double voiced vowels

text: I have a pretty straight forwards question I think. Of the following three spellings, which one is generally accepted as correct (I've seen them all, well, something like it)               reemerge     re-emerge     reëmerge      The first looks wrong, the second looks like there is emphasis on the "re" part, and the third is archaic (but I like it and it emphasises there are two vowel sounds).


title: Why do I never hear people say “I get to go now”?

text: This word _got_ has been confusing me for a long time. Is it against the rules of English grammar, because _got_ is the past tense of _get_? Why do I never hear people say it this way: > I get to go now.


title: Why "exclamation mark" but not "exclamation sign"?

text: I wonder, why **`!`** symbol is called _exclamation mark_ , but **`=`** symbol is called _equal sign_? Is it only tradition or there is something behind?


title: Meaning of "Taking a Glister"

text: I am reading _Candide_ by Voltaire. Candide urges a sick man to find a cure for his illness, and the man responds with > "Alas! how can I?" said Pangloss, "I have not a farthing, my friend, and all > over the globe there is no letting of blood or taking a glister, without > paying, or somebody paying for you." A search of the word _glister_ typically redirects to _glisten_ or _glitter_. But these lead to the expected definitions about the behavior of light. Searching the phrase _taking a glister_ led to a result that claims the action can break a fast, which may imply impurity or consumption. From the information I found I think it may be:   1. Slang for a hygienic (like "take a shower") or medical (with "letting of blood") practice    2. A form of measurement, perhaps like "take a pill"  What does the phrase "taking a glister" mean?


title: What does the term "Urban Legend" mean?

text: I heard a great story the other day about a guy with a bloody hook for a hand - but then, when I retold it to my kids at bedtime my Au Pair informed me that it was just a silly Urban Legend. What does she mean by that?


title: Why is this show called "Singapore Idol", not "Singaporean Idol"?

text: In other cases, a [country] Idol show titles use the demonym: _American Idol_ , _Malaysian Idol_ or _Indonesian Idol_. Why is this show called _Singapore Idol_, not _Singaporean Idol_?


title: "Cry" versus "weep"

text: When to use _cry_ and when to use _weep_? Which one goes more formal? Which one should have preference in general use?


title: How can I phrase a question about a theoretical event in the past, which cannot happen anymore?

text: I'll try to give some specific examples, as this one is rather difficult to explain. Example 1: Imagine you have been attending a kindergarten in Canada. Now you are 30 years old, so you won't go to kindergarten again, but I want to ask you whether you would be happier today, if you were attending a US kindergarten in the past. Would it be like this? > Would you like to have been attending a US kindergarten? Example 2: You have been brought up by a stepfather. Now you are an adult, so nobody is, nor will be bringing you up anymore. But yet, I want to ask, whether you would be happier, if it were your real father who brought you up. Would it be like this? > Would you like to have been brought up by your real father? Alternatives, or how are they different? > Would you have wanted to attend a US kindergarten? > > Would you have wanted to be attending a US kindergarten? > > Would you have wanted to be brought up by your real father?


title: Is there a word to describe indecisiveness between two things?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  What is a word/idiom for ‘unable to decide’? Is there a word to describe indecisiveness, specifically between **two** things? I tried online dictionaries, but did not find anything.


title: What one word means “unable to decide which one is correct”?

text: I am trying to find one single word in English that means “unable to decide which one is correct”.


title: What does "You have successfully split a hair that did not need to be split" mean?

text: What is the meaning of the following sentence? > You have successfully split a hair that did not need to be split. Source: this post on the Programmers Stack Exchange.


title: Why are only some "u" words pronounced with a glide in American English?

text: In most words with a long U that doesn't start a syllable, it is pronounced /uː/. Examples: _student, reduce, introduce_. However, in some words (such as _music, mule_ ) it is pronounced /juː/. I've heard that in other countries, even the first examples are pronounced like the second (/ˈstjuːd(ə)nt/, /ɹɪˈdjuːs/, /ɪntrəˈdjuːs/). What's with the discrepancies in the American pronunciation?


title: "Interfere in" vs. "interfere with"

text: I was taught that when _interfere_ is followed by _in_ , it means _to get involved in something that doesn't concern you_ ; when followed by _with_ , it means _to prevent something from being done_. And this is confirmed by British English speakers on the other sources I have read. However, when I looked up this word in Dictionary.com, I just found this entry: 2. to take part in the affairs of others; meddle ( **often followed by with or in** ). Is this a difference between American English and British English? As an American English speaker, will you also use **interfere + with** (as it says in Dictionary.com) when you are trying to express, for example, "Don't interfere in other people's business"?


title: What's the proper word for  a person waiting in a queue?

text: I have tried to use _candidate_ or _queue member_ to indicate a person waiting in a queue, but the former is not accurate and the latter is not a noun. Is there a better word for a person waiting in queue?


title: Etymology of "chatterbox"

text: Etymology Online dates _chatterbox_ to 1774, understandably as a concatenation of the words chatter and box. To me, it seems like the connection stems from "a heavy blow of gossip/chatter". When was this word first used and in what context, more specifically as a noun?


title: What is the opposite of "green"?

text: What best completes this sentence? > Joe, in opposition to environment-friendly sentiments, has decided to go > **___ __ ___**.


title: Which one is right? "Check out for... online" OR "Check out online for..."?

text: Which one would be right? Check out for offers online. OR... Check out online for offers.


title: Addressing religious authorities

text: I want to write letters with the same content but addressed to religious authorities of different religions and levels, from the local Christian priest to the Dalai Lama. Is there a greeting I can use for all of them or must I research the title for each letter recipent to ensure I am not offending them?


title: What does "white knight" mean in this context?

text: The term "white knight" has been well documented in places such as Wikipedia or various online dictionaries. But none of those definitions seem to encapsulate the meaning from this quote: > [White knights] are renowned for beating around the bush and not saying what > they actually think instead they cover their real thoughts with stupid > compliments. [White knights] also notice things that your typical man would > not (see below) > > Typical white knightish sentence to a girl: You look fantastic did you get > your hair done? > > Typical non white knightish sentence to a girl: I'm hungry/horny The above portion has a handful of various grammatical oddities but their use of White Knight does not fit the definition from the dictionary: > white knight -- > >   1. a hero who comes to the rescue. > >   2. a beleaguered champion who fights for a cause. > >   3. a company that comes to the rescue of another, as to prevent a > takeover. > > What does noticing new hairdos have to do with rescuing people?


title: Is my analysis of the grammatical structure of this sentence correct?

text: > If you want something in your life you’ve never had, you’ll have to do > something you’ve never done.   * Dependent clause      * _You_ — subject     * _want_ — main verb     * _something_ — direct object, assertive pronoun     * _in_ — preposition     * _your_ — possessive pronoun     * _life_ — noun, direct object   * Relative clause     * _that_ (elided) — relative pronoun     * _you_ — noun     * _have never_ (adverb) _had_ — present perfective    * Independent clause     * _you_ — subject     * _will have_ — main verb     * _to do_ — infinitive     * _something_ — direct object, assertive pronoun   * Relative clause     * _that_ (elided) — relative pronoun     * _you_ — noun     * _have never_ (adverb) _done_ — present perfective


title: Is there a better word than "just" for describing the recency of an event?

text: So, in the US, we make ample use of the word "just" in a context such as: "I just finished my homework." (I finished my homework very recently -- perhaps immediately preceding this statement) or "He had just gotten his driver's license when his father's car was stolen." (pointing out that there was very little [if any] time between the two events) I only recently learned that this is, apparently, an Americanism. Is there a better, more universally accepted way of expressing this? I feel that "recently" is not quite "recent" enough.


title: Pterodactyl and Archeopteryx: Silent P vs Voiced P

text: These words share the Greek root πτέρυξ (pteryx), meaning feather/wing, but the P in pterodactyl is silent (in the initial position), while the P in archeopteryx (in the middle of the word) is voiced. Why is this, and what's the rule? Is it just that that's how the ancient Greeks pronounced it, or is there something more subtle going on?


title: "Make a score of"

text: Besides for telling the score on a test (as in "He made a score of 88 out of 100 on the test"), can the phrase "to make a score of" be used to describe the score in a soccer/association football match? For example: > England made a score of two goals to zero. [If the final score is 2-0.]


title: Where do the idiosyncrasies in the spellings of English words come from and why do they survive?

text: For example:   * GH in _enough_ is pronounced "F"   * O in _women_ is pronounced short "I"   * TI in _nation_ is pronounced "SH" Why aren't the words spelled enouf, wimen, nashon, or why not spell fish "ghoti"? It seems like there are a lot of odd spellings in English, why is that? Over time I would have expected the odd spellings to have been replaced with more phonetically spelled versions, but that's not the case, why?


title: Should we use "come" or "comes" here

text: I ran into this sentence in a ESL testing, "It really is like a dream come true." Just wonder why should we use come instead of comes here.


title: If only you could see what I have seen with your eyes

text: I watch film science fiction The Blade Runer and man says this sentence. he is holding eye in his hand. I see in in a subtitle but I am not understanding this meaning. Can my friends in a Language and Usage website help me understanding meaning? Is this an idiom of English Language?


title: What is the word for "All Being" (similar to omnipotent for all powerful)

text: I'm looking for a word for "All Being" to describe deity existing, always existing, and existing for eternity. Other words often used to describe deity include:   1. omnipotent—all powerful   2. omnipresent—present everywhere at the same time   3. omniscient—all knowing None of these words describe a being/deity that has always existed and will always exist. A being that exists because he/she exists; i.e., needs nothing/nobody else to define his/her existence. Does such a word exist?


title: Meaning of the word "brook" in Rise Against song "Lanterns"

text: The song lyrics are here, with the following:               The black brook calls     It sings a chorus     While the gathering swells     The flames grow tall     Right before us     As drums keep pounding     And the masses now are fusing     Bodies pressed and tangled     As we revel in confusion     Our inhibitions thrown into the fire      Wiktionary lists the following meaning for the noun:   1. a body of running water smaller than a river; a small stream.   2. a water meadow.   3. low, marshy ground. Does this word really mean the soil, ground in this context?


title: Why are so many important verbs irregular?

text: In many languages, including English, the most important verbs are irregular. Examples include:   * to be    * to do    * to get    * to go    * to have    * to make The same applies (roughly) to many other languages I know about (Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Swedish) and presumably to many other languages too. Is there any reason why these everyday verbs tend to be irregular?


title: Is this the right way to use "wouldn't"?

text: I apologize if this is a duplicate or anything for that matter but I didn't locate any questions on it. I have this phrase I wrote and it is confusing me a little bit. > An OAHU Agent can help at no extra cost to you! _Wouldn't_ you want an extra > layer of protection during this very confusing time?    _Wouldn't_ breaks down to _would not_ if I am correct and which can also be written as in: > _Would not_ you want an extra layer of protection during this very confusing > time? That just doesn't make sense to me. I know I am not an expert in English language, but it does sound right as _wouldn't_. Any ideas? Am I using it wrong all together?


title: delutherer, deluderer

text: My dad (who is Irish) has been using the word "delutherer" since I was tiny. It derives from "to delude" and is used to affectionately/teasingly denote someone who is trying to trick you or cajole you by using charm. Today I googled it and to my astonishment found only one reference, via google books, in an old book called Humours of Irish Life. Yet I know it must be reasonably common in Ireland and I'm sure I've heard it used outside of my family. Does anyone know of any other sources where this word is used? Or have you heard it used?


title: "Write in the language you are writing" or "... you are writing in"?

text: So, I'm watching this lecture. One of the slides (at minute 27) in that lecture contains this sentence: > "Write in the language you are writing." But shouldn't it be: > "Write in the language you are writing in." It's about a programming language. Programmers _write in_ that programming language. They do not _write_ that programming language. ![Screenshot from Crockford's lecture](http://i.stack.imgur.com/gT8V1.png)


title: What are exchanges like "How are you," "I'm fine," and "See you later" called?

text: Some verbal/written exchanges convey almost no meaning but are part of the protocol of conversation. For example, somebody greets you with "How are you?" and they're not usually not listening for actual information, just for you to say, "Fine," or similar. Or when you go through any sort of service transaction, it seems like half a dozen "thank yous" are exchanged between both parties. Is there a term or phrase describing the phrases we use for maintaining the facade of politeness?


title: Meaning of "running off" in this context

text: I do not understand the use of "run off" in the following sentence. Neither was I able to find any explanation so I guess it is not a phrase? > If your generator (software) was running off a different machine you would > type the server name or IP address of that machine.


title: Preposition repeated twice

text: > For your perusal and evaluation, I have enclosed my curriculum vitae for > further information. My main problem with this sentence is the double usage of the word _for_. My idea was to replace it with _with_ , would that be better? Just clarifying: This is at the end of paragraph in which I describe my skills and such.


title: Correct usage of "parallel" versus "in parallel" versus "parallelly"

text: I wish to know if any of the following sentences are incorrect: >   * Using A and B parallel. >   * Using A and B in parallel. >   * Using A and B parallelly. > Now I suspect most people are going to simply recommend that I use "in parallel" since it is the most common. However, this is a question formulated to understand the underlying English theory. Apart from that, I'm mostly interested in using that theory to determine the use of _parallelly_ and whether or not it is correct. Now some research on my end. I've found the use of _parallelly_ in several dictionaries:   * Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)   * Century Dictionary Along with that, Wiktionary is quite clear on the use of the word. Along with some rules on how to use _-ly_ which do not mention that the use of a word such as _parallelly_ may be incorrect. I don't know how Wiktionary is fact checked, so I have come here instead asking the question to professionals. Being a non-native speaker and having no background in human language apart from high school (computer languages all the way) this question and the following debate interests me greatly. The answer I am looking for probably makes a distinction between variants of English. I'll flag the post which provides the most comprehensive answer as the accepted answer.


title: Punctuating "waste not, want not"

text: How do you punctuate a sentence to indicate that the second phrase is contingent on the first, e.g. _Waste not, want not_? You could read this typical punctuation as meaning "waste not and want not" vs. "waste not, and therefore want not". Same for _Well govern, well serve yourself._ Dashes don't work, I don't think.


title: "Wake up Joe" or "Wake Joe up"?

text: Are they synonymous, or not? Looking at _wake up_ as a phrasal verb it seems that the more correct way is "I will wake up Joe" rather than "I will wake Joe up", but the second rolls better off my tongue…   I had a look around but could not find a rule.


title: What is the meaning of the word 'should' in the following paragraph, and how does it function?

text: > You might also be curious why the productsList variable is initialized as > new list of strings at the start of the method, only for it to be > overwritten by the code in the try block. This is a defensive mechanism that > ensures that the productsList variable is always set to a meaningful value > **should** the code in the try block fail for some reason. You will see an > example of how such a failure might occur in Chapter 3.


title: Which is the correct way to refer to the letter "Z" — "Zee" or "Zed"?

text: So I am giving a presentation to an American audience tomorrow, and I have rather cluelessly labeled some components on a Powerpoint slide using the alphabet. When I talk about "component Z", I want to say the right thing. It's too late in the night now to re-label with numbers. I grew up calling it "Zed", but noticed many Americans prefer "Zee"; I want to be correct, not herd-minded.


title: "Liberty" versus "freedom"

text: What is the difference, if any, between liberty and freedom? Does it convey the same meaning if "Status of liberty" is replaced with "status of freedom" ? or every occurrence of "liberty" in Declaration of Independence is replaced with "freedom"? > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Doesn't liberty imply the pursuit of Happiness?


title: 'co-opt' in US usage

text: 'co-opt' in US usage means to take over for a purpose for which it was not really intended, having a slightly inappropriate connotation, while in the British usage it means to choose or elect as a member. I can find a single reference that says the US usage started in the 50's but with no further explanation as to the reason for the shift in meaning. Any help would be appreciated.


title: Those who were or those who are?

text: I'm confused whether to use were or are on this... I detest liars, especially those who were/are making it up as a go-to-excuse. Thanks


title: Difference between "spine" and "backbone"

text: Is there a difference between _spine_ and _backbone_ in use or in meaning? I think they both mean the same and can be replaced by each other. However, I'd say _backbone_ is used more in figurative speech, but this is just a guess on my part.


title: "The train will leave" vs. "is going to leave" vs. "leaves" vs. "is leaving"

text: From the grammatical point of view all are correct, just the meaning are different, please bring your clarification, thank you. >   1. The Train will leave at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >   2. The Train is going to leave at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >   3. The Train leaves at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >   4. The Train is leaving at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >


title: "Will" vs. "going to" vs. Present Continious

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "The train will leave" vs. "is going to leave" vs. "leaves" vs. "is > leaving" Here are three sentences: > David is going to play football next week   >  David is playing football next week   >  David will play football next week In fact, I don't think that there is a difference between them. Am I right?


title: Origin of "man!", "(oh) boy!", and "oh brother"

text: Where did these interjections:   * man!   * (oh) boy!    * oh brother come from, and why are they all male? If you don’t know their current meanings as interjections, it sounds very strange to say _Man!_ when you are disappointed or frustrated, and _Oh boy!_ when you are excited (although people are increasingly using it for other emotional contexts), and _Oh brother_ (well, I'm not even sure of this interjection’s usage). Why are they used as interjections, and why are they all male?


title: What is the origin of the knock-knock joke?

text: Almost everyone knows about knock-knock jokes. Who made them up, and why did they catch on?


title: Meaning of the idiom "here falls the shadow"

text: What does the expression "here falls the shadow" mean? The context is a list describing how to teach your kids to become entrepreneurs: >  6\. **Teach the mental nexus**. Here falls the shadow. Rational people do > not become entrepreneurs [...]


title: Is "lays important groundwork" appropriate usage

text: As in: "My project lays important groundwork for a future project." Is my usage of 'lays' correct? I'm not sure why I'm hung up on this, it just doesn't sound correct to me.


title: Did the term "multitasking" come from the computer realm?

text: Given my advancing years I remember when "multitasking" became a buzz-word in PC operating systems, notably with OS/2. Arguably, earlier version of Windows supported a multitasking as well but I don't think this was not sold heavily as a feature. Soon after, it seemed the term "multitasking" entered the vocabulary to describe when a _person_ does more than one thing at a time. Is this just a coincidence or did the computer term cross over into the general vocabulary? Large scale computers have been multitasking for decades prior so I'm guessing that it took the advertising of the day to make the term better known in the general population (like user-friendly). Long and short question: where did the term "multitasking" originate in the context of humans.


title: Using "seldomly"

text: I'm not a native English speaker. If at all possible I try to use spell checkers while writing anything on the web hence using one in Firefox as well. Whenever I try to write "seldomly" it highlights it as incorrect. Is it really? Example: > This particular word is seldomly used.


title: “This video was recorded with a sandwich”

text: It is a top comment from this youtube video. I'm sure it is a way of expressing sense of humor, but I just can't get it. My guess is that they are just saying the video is just as short as the time it takes to make a sandwich.


title: English usage: Every vs all?

text: Today I was writing a simple message to be shown to the user whenever at least one field was not supplied. > Every/All fields must be supplied. I'm in doubt about the usage of Every vs All, which one do you think is the most appropriate here ?


title: Is there a non-religious word for someone who takes suffering onto themselves for a particular cause?

text: I am looking for a word like _martyr_ , but without any religious implications. Also, the idea is that the person doesn't kill themselves, but instead just takes on a great deal of suffering for the good of the cause.


title: Meaning of "science" and "formal"

text: The definition of logic is: the science of thinking about or explaining the reason for something using formal methods. Which definitions of science from OALD or MW apply to the above definition of logic? And formal means very correct here?


title: What is the exact meaning of this sentence?

text: The encouraging mails were not restricted to readers but also to some of the regular contributors to The Hindu .


title: Does the phrase "who's in?" or "I'm in!" exist in (informal) English?

text: I really think I've heard it in some American sitcom/sitcoms, meaning something like _participating in_. "I want to play football. Who's in?" — "Great idea, I'm in!" Does it really exist, or am I wrong? I've tried to search for it, without any result.


title: What is the opposite of interorganization?

text: What is the opposite of _interorganization_? Is it even a correct word? _Interorganization_ means the things that happen inside the organization (I think). What about the things that happen outside of the organization?


title: A word (or expression) which means paying someone with counterfeit money?

text: Just as _shortchange_ means cheating someone by giving insufficient money as change, the word I am looking for means _cheating through counterfeit money_. There are words as simple as _deceive_ , _bilk_ , _swindle_ , _cozen_ and others, but I couldn't find a word that means exactly what I need.


title: Word for person who doesn't want to hurt others' feelings

text: What is a word for someone who has a hard time denying other people's requests and who speaks politically correctly because he will feel guilty making someone feel offended?


title: Britich accent help me

text: **Hello! What can you tell me about british accent? How to achieve it? I love british tv-shows, british music so much but I'm not confident in my pronunciation. Help me please. Thanx for answer.**


title: I need point of view of native speakers on the perfect tense

text: My question could seem to be very simple, but the reasons why I ask it connect with the understanding of fundamental principles of the construction of the English language. That’s why my question is aimed at native English speakers. I would like to know their point of view, not from the position of grammar but how they understand this aspect of the language. So, my question is connected with the perfect verb form. In grammar books it is said that this verb form is made with “have” + “past participle” (for example: _I have broken my phone_ ). They also add that the verb “have” in this case loses its own semantic meaning and is used for showing time and voice, and that the participle gives the semantic meaning of the action. But I wonder if “have” to native speakers not only shows time and voice but plays the role of a verb that expresses state, like in old English where to make the perfect verb form “be” is used instead of “have” - for example “autumn is come” (in this example verb expresses state and action at the same time). So, my question is - for native speakers is the perfect form understood initially as a finished action (using the perfect form, the speaker means result of action (or its connection with the present and so on, but in general it is the action)) or is the perfect form understood initially as indicating state? (in this example – “autumn is come” we see that this perfect form of old English expresses state, not action)? How is it for native speakers in modern English?


title: "Change" or "Changes"

text: Is the following sentence right or should I use **"changes"**? > The present study aimed at quantifying the **_change_** in surface air > temperature and monthly total rainfall Here, by change I meant upward/ downward trend or no trends or any other type of patterns in the distributions of temperature and rainfall


title: What is the i with a dot on top and dot on bottom called?

text: I was watching a foreign film and I saw a "i" with a dot on the top as usual and a dot on the bottom. What is it called and is there a way I can find it and type it? More details:   It was a Vietnamese film published by a French company. I think it was Vietnamese text.


title: What does 'sucker for' mean?

text: I recently came across a couple usages of 'sucker for' which indicates that it means 'crazy about', 'enthusiastic for', or 'interested in'. For example, 'I am a sucker for sports.', seems to say, 'I am a sports enthusiast.'. My questions are:   1. What does 'sucker for' actually mean?   2. Can you elaborate with some typical usage?   3. Is it appropriate to use it in formal conversations e.g. while talking to a client?   4. 'Sucker', afaik, is used to indicate a 'loser'. If my understanding above is correct... how does 'sucker for' becomes an indication of an enthusiast and not of a loser? (I know 'suck at' indicates a loser.) Thanks


Are 'rich' and 'cold' relative or absolute terms? I said to my boss yesterday, ‘Man, it's cold out!’ He said, ‘Cold is a relative term.’ He has also said that 'rich' is a relative term. If that's the case, then it seems that all terms can be relative, right? I truly don't understand this at all.


title: Confusion between colon and dash

text: For example, take a look at the following sentence: > There’s nothing to see — no one can handle you, dear. What are the general guidelines?


title: Is there a term or a phrase for something that is both literally and figuratively true?

text: For example, when I tried to do my best at dancing, I "put my best foot forward". This is literally true because in dancing I put one foot in front of the other, but it's also figuratively true because I was sincerely giving it my best effort. Is there a word or a phrase that describes something that is both literally and figuratively true?


title: "Flash (one's attention/eyes)" for "focus/direct (one's attention/eyes)", and "flash one's eyes at" for "stare with lust or passion at"

text: As far as your English variety goes, is it acceptable in every which register of speech and writing, and rather common usage, to say "flash" for "focus/direct (one's attention/eyes)", but also for "display/expose (a certain feeling)"? Likewise, is it okay to say "flash one's eyes at someone" to mean to stare at someone with a glow of fire in one's eyes? E.g. _They **flashed their eyes** at one another like teens_... _The tigers and wildcats glared and **flashed their eyes** at each other_... _And **flashed their eyes** at cruel but fundamentally decent counts_... _I **flashed my eyes** at him_... _Grandma Terrant **flashed her eyes** on her watch_... _Sissy and Mom **flashed their eyes** on me..._ _All the other cats **flashed their eyes** on him_... _I was just sitting here working and **flashed my eyes** on your last_... _Hutch **flashed his eyes** on the door_... _Napoli and Bayern Leverkusen have **flashed their interest** in the player_... _Both **flashed their attention** to the bird_...


title: Personal pronouns for animals

text: In my native language German, every animal has an article. This is understandable, if one wants for example to distinguish a male pig (boar) from a female pig (sow). But if one just talks about the animal in genral, the article is basically at random. But how is it in English, when there may be the same distinction for animal genders, but for the animal a such there are no articles? So why for example does one say to a meowing cat `She's hungry.` without knowing if the cat is really a `she`?