title: Is "wot wot" or "what-what" an authentic British expression? If it's supposed to be mocking, what is it mocking?

text: Some background first: As I was reading some past answers on English L&U, I came across this old question, where the top accepted answer maintained there were distinct class differences in the use of the expression "cheers" amongst the British. Some people disagreed with the tone of the accepted answer; in particular, the answerer was accused of stereotyping in the comments, and his response was challenged by another user who in response gave what he obviously considered a laughable stereotype of upper-class English speaking: "Top drawer, what?!" I remembered then that I'd often seen and heard "wot wot" used in the same mocking way. For example, one of my childhood friends, if he wanted to play mock-Briton, might say something like: "Tally-ho, old bean, wot wot?" Googling informs me this usage isn't just idiosyncratic on his part; evidently, lots of people are interested in the history of this phrase, as Google suggests "wot wot British" as a query, with IMO few helpful responses on the first couple of pages. So is this impression accurate: Did upper-class (or any class, for that matter) British really use to speak like this, i.e. is this expression mocking because it's so archaic that it seems funny now? If not, where did this caricature come from?


title: Which form is correct?

text: I found a sentence in a paper which I believe to be wrong, I have couple of questions: Is it wrong? If not, which one is the correct form? The sentence: > ... these algorithms require successive control _messages exchanges_ between > MB and GA ... The part that I have emphasized confuses me.


title: "Go by foot" vs. "go on foot"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  "London By Foot" vs. "London On Foot" This is a very simple question, yet I did not find anybody that could give me a satisfactory answer. I would say “go by foot”, but it seems that “go on foot” is used more often. Which one is right? Are both right? Does it depend on the context? **Edit:** Searching with Google yields 26,000,000 results for “on foot” and 8,000,000 for “by foot”, so it seems that at least both expressions are _used_. However, whether they are both _correct_ is another issue.


title: Which is the head noun in "noun adjunct"

text: Is the head "noun" or "adjunct", and which is the correct plural form? "nouns adjunct", "noun adjuncts", or "nouns adjuncts"? "nouns adjunct" sounds the most correct to my ears.


title: Could you elaborate [S + V + O + Adj + To inf. + O] structure?

text: I want to find more detailed explanation about the following pattern. For me, this grammatical structure sounds special.   * Windows makes it easier for you to install the program.   * You may find it difficult to locate the bug. > Subject + Verb + Object + Adjective + To Infinitive + Object Please elaborate as complete as you can how to use this structure.


title: Term for homophones that have opposite meanings?

text: Is there a term for homophones that have opposite meanings to each other? For instance, **Whole** vs **Hole** Also, are there any more examples of such words?


title: Is the term "Break Glass Policy" or "Break Glass Procedure" used outside the healthcare field?

text: One of the defining questions of the Healthcare IT site  uses the term "break glass policy" and from this link I understand what it means in the given context. My question here is, if this term is used in other fields not related to fire alarms and emergency breaks.


title: Is esquivalience now a bona fide word?

text: Today, I came across WP's entry for the word esquivalience: > "Esquivalience" is a fictitious entry in the New Oxford American Dictionary > (NOAD), which was designed and included to protect copyright of the > publication. > > The word was invented by Christine Lindberg, one of the editors of the NOAD > and discovered by Henry Alford. > > It was leaked that the dictionary had put in a fake word in the letter "e" > and Alford set out to find the word. It was discovered after review of a > short list by several experts. When the editor, Erin McKean, was contacted > she admitted that it was indeed a fake word and had been in since the first > edition, in order to _protect the copyright of the CD-ROM edition_. > > The word is defined as " **the willful avoidance of one's official > responsibilities**." The first edition of the NOAD was published back in 2001 and two more have since seen print. Eleven years later, the word continues to be defined as a legitimate entry on ODO, Google, and going by the WP article, in the print editions. Is it now considered an authentic word? Or are OUP esquivaliently demonstrating the use of their esquivalience?


title: How does the hyphen change the meaning in expressions like "high performance" and "high-performance"?

text: I'm wondering about the distinction between expressions like "high performance" and "high-performance", or "high level" and "high-level" and other similar pairs of words which are sometimes used with a hyphen and sometimes not. Am I right that without the hyphen, the first word is an adjective and the second a noun, whereas with the hyphen, the pair should be used as an adjective and would need a noun to go with it? Also, am I right that some expressions, such as "high-performance computing" have an established meaning and are usually used with a hyphen? Examples:   * High-performance is often desired ... ( _incorrect use_ )   * High performance is often desired ... ( _correct use_ )   * High-performance computing is ... ( _correct use_ )   * High performance computing is ... ( _correct use but not following established norm_ )


title: What is the opposite of "personification"?

text: I want a word that means the opposite of _personification_. What is the correct word for describing people with the characteristics of an object/as if they are objects? I found the word _chremamorphism_ on some forums, but it doesn't seem to be included in the two online dictionaries I searched.


title: Meaning of "she will never get sore" in 1950s

text: This has been bothering me for a while... in Meredith Wilson's _The Music Man_ , there's a song entitled "Shipoopi" about the dream girl who is neither a hussy nor so prudish she can't be woo'd. One of the good qualities espoused is that "She will never get sore on the way to supper". From context, it doesn't appear any injury is taking place to be literally sore, so what colloquial meaning would this have had in 1957 when this play was first performed on Broadway? I found a couple likely candidates in the dictionary but I couldn't find dates when they became widespread.


title: Noun for "that which is reluctantly settled for because of the unavailability or impossiblilty of attaining that which was truly desired"?

text: This happens to me a lot, but I can't seem to find the right noun for it. In the saying "A string is useful until a rope could be found," what would you call the string? That's the noun I'm looking for. In relationships, I don't think I want to end up being someone's ___ because she couldn't find that special someone she truly wanted. O, yes, and adjective form, too?


title: Is “have a way to go” a just shortened form of “have a long way to go”?

text: Today’s (August 24) New York Times carries an article titled “Progress has seemed fitful for many at March” with the lead-copy; > “For Daniel R. Smith, 81, who attended the March on Washington in 1963, > **the country has a ways to go in realizing the dream** of the Rev. Dr. > Martin Luther King Jr.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/a-time-to-return-to-and-reflect-on-the- march-on-washington.html?hp&_r=0 I was drawn to the expression, “the country **has a ways to** go in realizing the dream of Rev. King” because first, the infinitive article (a) doesn’t agree with plural noun (ways) in “a ways,” second, I’m unfamiliar with the case that “have a way to go” being used in the same sense of having a lot of work to do as “have a long way to go,” which I’m familar with. Cambridge English Dictionary defines “a long way to go” as an idiom meaning a lot of work to do or improvements to make, but it doesn’t carry the phrase, “a way to go.” Oxford English Dictionary carries neither “a long way to go” nor “a way to go.” Google Ngram shows that usage of “have a long way to go” existed before / since 1840 and it is on a constant rise to a ratio of 0.000054% in 2007. On the other hand, the usage of “have a way to go” emerged in 1920, and its usage remains one digit low at 0.0000014% level in 2007. Here’s my question: Is “have a way to go” simply a shortened form of “have a long way to go”? If it is, doesn’t it get you confused with the other usages of 'a (the) way to go,' such as “If you wish, you have the way to go to college by getting scholarship,” “There should be a way to go in finding the solution.”?


title: "sallow complexion"

text: In Isaac Asimov's _Foundation_ series, in several places he describes people having a "sallow complexion". According to Collins dictionary: > **Sallow** > > (esp of human skin) of an unhealthy pale or yellowish colour Unfortunately I'm not a native English speaker, and from the context I can't decide whether he means a very pale Caucasian or rather an Asian. Not that it really matters for the comprehension of the story, but at first sight I thought it was a misspelling of _shallow_ and this aroused my curiosity, now I have to find out.


title: How to use the “not only . . . but also” construction?

text: I’m trying to create the following phrase: > It is important not only to `____` but also to `____` in general. But the way I’ve written it above doesn’t sound that good to me. Since I’m not a native speaker, could anyone please help me to improve this?


title: What is the opposite of free intended as "without"?

text: "Sugar free, taste ___ _" Which word could I use to tell the opposite of "free" intended as "without"?


title: Common synonym of tortuosity or antonym of straightness

text: What is a common synonym of tortuosity or antonym of straightness, as in the following: > Country roads typically have greater **___ ___** than motorways. Tortuosity or tortuousness is technically correct but rather uncommon. Is there a more suitable term in less formal/technical speech, preferably a short word too?


title: A phrase to mean "an acceptable deal"

text: I need a phrase that indicates the speaker find a bargain acceptable, but not particularly favorable. The natural expression, in American English, would be "I can live with it" but for reasons too complicated to explain, I cannot use the word "live" or any variation on it. **Edit:** People asked for more detail. I'm writing a story in which one character makes a bargain in which he might very well die. He's trying to explain why he accepted the deal. I don't want to write, "I can live with it" — since literally he cannot — and anything that implies acceptance _over time_ is wrong. If he doesn't die, then it's a great deal, so if he lives long enough to "come to terms with it" or "tolerate it", there'll be nothing to tolerate or come to terms with. I'm looking for a pithy phrase meaning "it's the best deal I could do and it was better than nothing."


title: Why does my sentence seem to require an adjective?

text: In the midst of a paragraph, one of my students write, 'They taught us a way of cleaning.' I felt it sounded exponentially better to say, 'They taught us a new method of cleaning,' or 'new way'. Why is that? Is there a grammatical principal?


title: Omission of agent in active voice

text: I love writing but grammar is seriously not my cup of tea so please forgive my ignorance. The case in point is: > Henry’s eyes were gouged out by George. Is it possible to write this in active voice and still omit the initiator of the action? In other words, given " **George** gouged out Henry’s eyes", how do I omit _George_ from the sentence? Do I have to resort to words like _someone_ or _somebody_? Is there an alternative?


title: What do call embedded words?

text: Example: The word stellar contains the word star. The word sanguine contains the word sun.


title: Can "sir" be used to address female officers?

text: The use of the term _sir_ as a form of address for men, especially those of higher rank or status, is discussed in several prior questions including this one. They all indicate that the term is reserved to males, and that there are a number of related terms for females, such as _ma'am_. A review of the first dozen online dictionaries at onelook.com confirms that _sir_ is strictly reserved for male addressees. For example ODO defines it as > used as a polite or respectful way of addressing a man, especially one in a > position of authority: _excuse me, sir_ On several recent television shows in the US, the term _sir_ has been used by a police officer to address his or her supervisor who was female. In the context, the use was sincere and was not objected to by the superior. Has the use of _sir_ when addressing a superior female in a military or quasi- military setting become acceptable, or is this merely literary license?


title: Institutionalised - Human Emotions

text: Most of us would be aware of the term **Institutionalised** , from the movie _The ShawShank Redemption._ They generally define it as in Wikipedia: Institutional syndrome. While it refers to something in terms of geographical boundaries, Is there any term to describe that emotion on a person? That feeling, that suffering, when someone very close to your heart is not near you. You cannot live without them. Could anyone point out terms ( _Love_ excluded) describing such emotions?


title: Are there similar metaphors to “It’s no use for a dojo (loach) to behave like a goldfish”?

text: Mr.Yoshihiko Noda was inaugurated as the 95th Prime Minister of Japan on August 30th by winning the race among five candidates for Japan’s ruling party --the JDP’s leader election. The phrase he likened himself to was _dojo_ (loach), with which he wrapped up his manifestation address: > I’m like a dojo. It’s no use for a dojo to behave like (or imitate) a > goldfish. This became suddenly a hot word among Japanese electorates, and it was even quoted in many overseas news media such as Washington Post, New York Times and Financial Times. By saying _I’m a dojo. It’s no use for a dojo to behave like a goldfish_ he meant he is determined to pursue for steady, realistic and actionable goals and implement down-to-earth policies rather than chasing after gaudy, dreamy, but unachievable goals (as his predecessors have done in the past two decades and all failed). He borrowed this line from a popular poet called Mitsuo Aida known for the lines of his zen-like poetry. I wonder if there are any (or many) metaphors and popular lines in the English speaking countries that can be equated with the line, _It’s no use for a dojo to behave like a goldfish._ I would like to show off my trove of imported phrases to my English enthusiastic buddies.


title: Adjective defining a property of an object that is possessed by many of those objects

text: Is there a word defining an object's property possessed by many similar objects? Something like this: > Tommy bought a red balloon at the circus. Many kids have red balloons there. > Hence ballon's color is <the word I am looking for>.


title: Why is it not appropriate to appropriate?

text: When used as a verb, the word `appropriate` means "to take (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission". Basically, stealing. However, when used as an adjective, the same word means "suitable or proper" -- which stealing is definitely not. So, why is there such a conflict between two meanings of the word?


title: In farms or on farms?

text: 1. They live the quiet life on farms   2. They live the quiet life in farms Which is correct?


title: Comma in "new, difficult role"

text: I was told to remove the comma when I wrote: > He resigned from his job and took on the new, difficult role. Is this comma optional? Or is putting it up there wrong? As I understand, if the two words can be switched around while retaining the meaning of the sentence, then a comma is required. "Difficult new role" sounds ok to me.


title: Any synonyms for "left" and "right"?

text: I'm a technical writer and I tend to use unambiguous words in my tech writing. I find that "left" and "right" (as in "left hand" and "right hand") are both words with other commonly used meanings, and worse, adjective meanings. So, please help. You know, many technical articles are written in English and read by many people around the world. I'm from China and I've seen some quite bad translations of English IT documentation since I've entered the industry. Using explicit words can save time in helping us understand those tech docs.


title: Is "sore" the origin for "so"?

text: Most of us are acquainted with this line: "The shepherds were sore afraid." Recently, in reading mysteries by C.J. Sansom, set in the time of Henry the Eighth, I see his characters using phrases like "sore cold" and "sore tired," leading them to request to sit by the fire or suggesting another might offer a place to rest. In other words, it is causal, as in "I am sore disgusted by the smell that I must leave this place." This suggests that these were such uncomfortable times that "soreness" or addressing Maslow's basic caloric need or safety need motivated much human behavior. It further suggests that the word "sore" might be the source of "so." I sorely need to know if this is so.


title: Is there a term to describe an event which happens every 18 months?

text: Obviously every year is annual. Every two years is biennial. Does the English language have a term for every 18 months?


title: "Have to split" in the film "The Running Man"

text: In the film _The Running Man_ (1987), Arnold Schwarzenegger cut a man into two halves. His name was Buzz Saw. Then another man said: "Where did Buzz Saw go?" And Arnold Schwarzenegger said: "He had to split." In the cinema people laughed to hear this, but I don't understand why.


title: What does“low wattage” mean in “A politician not being mocked for low wattage”?

text: Time magazine (October 25) carries the article titled “The Populist Egghead” with a caption: > “ **Sen. Cruz isn't being mocked for low wattage the way Palin and Reagan > had been**. He's being singled out for a lack of common sense born of his > rarefied résumé.” The sentence follows: > The populist claims to possess the horse sense of the electorate and has no > need for fancy schools, with their eating clubs, trays of sherry, and > debating societies. That was Sarah Palin's (and Reagan’s) posture. > http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/10/ted_cruz_is_a_populist_egghead_the_texas_senator_has_elite_credentials_but.html I understand ‘low wattage’ is a figurative adaptation of electrical power, but what does it exactly mean in the above quote? Is it a common expression? Were both Sara Palin and Reagan really ‘low wattage’?


title: What is the etymology of the adjective "bumper"?

text: Looking at Etymonline and Dictionary.com only reveals that it was slang from 1759. Why did _bumper_ come to mean _unusually abundant_ , and why is it always paired up with the word _crop_?


title: Double Adverb Use e.g. *equally shockingly*

text: Yesterday, my biology instructor said (I'm paraphrasing here): "Shockingly, this cell does blah blah blah, and _equally shockingly_ , the cell blah blah blah." Is this proper grammar (I speak American English incase that is important to know)?


title: Perfect vs Perfect Continuous

text: I saw this sentence the other day and it struck me as awkward. I went online and saw many instances of the Present perfect being used in such manner. > She has worked here since 1995 Shouldn't this be written in the Perfect progressive > She has been working here since 1995 The ngram shows the perfect taking over. It feels wrong. Am I justified here? (comments can only be edited for 5 minutes) Really? Who is coding this baby? Is it a chess tournament? I don't but could I help my child if it had fallen on its face? Can't press enter in the comment? Oh the freedom of the humanity!) (meant to be a comment, which I thought over for more than 5 minutes) I don't mean to sound defiant but the "HAS WORKED" gives me the impression that she has just been fired. I might be being over analytical and it seems that "the Present Perfect has become the standard" and that "the Present Perfect has been used / has been being used" since 1980. wouldn't the exception be "subject + have/has + been + adjective/noun" as in "It has been the standard since". I am adding some more sentences to the question and appreciate the help. > He has travelled to São Paulo since the beginning of the year. > > He has been traveling to São Paulo since the beginning of the year. I see it as a convention for the misuse of the verb tense. (http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=has+worked+since%2C+has+been+working+since&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=) > OXFORD the form of a verb that expresses an action done in a time period up > to the present, formed in English with the present tense of have and the > past participle of the verb, as in I have eaten. > > CAMBRIDGE the form of the verb used for actions or events that have been > completed or that have happened in a period of time up to now: The sentences > 'She has broken her leg' and 'I have never been to Australia' are all in the > present perfect. > > BRITISH COUNCIL We use the present perfect tense: for something that started > in the past and continues in the present: > > WIKIPEDIA The present perfect is a grammatical combination of the present > tense and the perfect aspect, used to express a past event that has present > consequences. The term is used particularly in the context of English > grammar, where it refers to forms such as "I have left" and "Sue has died". > These forms are present because they use the present tense of the auxiliary > verb have, and perfect because they use that auxiliary in combination with > the past participle of the main verb. ... ... English also has a present > perfect progressive (or present perfect continuous) form, which combines > present tense with both perfect aspect and progressive (continuous) aspect: > "I have been eating". In this case the action is not necessarily complete; > the same is true of certain uses of the basic present perfect when the verb > expresses a state or a habitual action: "I have lived here for five years." I wanna say that I stand corrected. And the evidence is here. I will be honest with you and say that I personally disagree. Especially with "all my life" and "since" I guess it is because I learned that the action does not continue but has implications in the present. There is absolutely no need for the Present Continuous if I can manipulate the meaning of the Perfect with the predicate.


title: What's the antonym for 'word'?

text: What is the antonym for _word_? I first thought _silence_ , but that doesn't quite fit; you can have written words. My next thought would be _illiterate_. So far I'm on the fence for that one too, because you can have speech. So, what is the antonym for _word_? So far I've checked a dictionary (just gives synonyms) and synonym-antonym finder that gives me _silence_ (I explained why this didn't work above).


title: Difference between "proscribe" and "prohibit"

text: For a long time, I've been looking for the difference between "proscribe" and "prohibit". Unfortunately, I couldn't find any exact answer to my question, though I inferred from a passage that "prohibit" is related to law.


title: As if + would is correct as in idiomatic use?

text: Is the second sentence grammatically correct? "- I want to drive a Ferrari" "- As if you would be able to drive it" I know the sentence "As if you were able to drive it" is correct, but can I use the other one instead of "As if!", for example? Thanks


title: Must conditional sentences begin with "if?"

text: I've been looking at conditional sentences (conditional clauses). Every example I've see is along the lines of, "if [x] then [y]." I've seen alternatives/substitutes for the _if_ part:   * were I you (instead of "if I were you")    * on condition that    * unless    * were  Yet, these still follow the same pattern: "condition [x] then [y]." Is that the only way to have a conditional?   Is it not possible to invert/switch around the structure?   Would it still be a conditional clause (or conditional sentence) if I put the condition after the occurance?   * If he eats that, he'll be sick.   * He'll be sick if he eats that.    * Unless you win this round, you are out.    * You are out unless you win this round.  If those are not conditionals, what are they?   Would they be considered as "acceptable" if I were to be editing/rewriting something, or would it be seen as bad/improper/incorrect/having a sufficiently different implication?


Is there a name for a personality trait (or psychological condition?) for adopting the accent, mannerisms, idioms or traits of others? I mean, unconsciously adopting, not "consciously making fun of". Also, possibly, the case of consciously immitating for the purpose of fitting in, rather than making fun of, might be included in this definition.


title: Why do you drive on a "parkway", and park on a "driveway"?

text: I've always been fascinated by these two words, as they seem to have the exact opposite meaning as expected. Is it because of the etymology? Or perhaps the meanings were switched at some point in time?


title: The Drop - meaning of "get to"

text: What does "get to" mean in the following excerpt taken from the book "The Drop" by Michael Connelly? The "Get to" is at the end of the excerpt. I have written it in bold. Thank you very much for the help. > “Harry,” the lieutenant said. “Hang back a second.” Bosch looked at Chu and > raised his eyebrows. He didn’t know what this was about. The lieutenant came > around from behind her desk and closed the door after Chu and Marcia had > left. She stayed standing and businesslike. “I just wanted you to know that > your application for an extension on your DROP came through. They gave you > four years retroactive.” Bosch looked at her, doing the math. He nodded. He > had asked for the maximum — five years non-retroactive — but he’d take what > they gave. It wouldn’t keep him much past high school but it was better than > nothing. “Well, I’m glad,” Duvall said. “It gives you thirty-nine more > months with us.” Her tone indicated that she had read disappointment in his > face. “No,” he said quickly. “I’m glad. I was just thinking about where that > would put me with my daughter. It’s good. I’m happy.” “Good then.” That was > her way of saying the meeting was over. Bosch thanked her and left the > office. As he stepped back into the squad room he looked across the vast > expanse of desks and dividers and file cabinets. He knew it was home and > that he would **get to** stay — for now.


title: What is the difference between "in-between" and "between"?

text: Do _in-between_ and _between_ have different meanings?   What is the difference between _in-between_ and _between_?


title: How many spaces should come after a period/full stop?

text: In the past -- or at least, when I was in elementary school -- periods/full stops were followed by two spaces. Lately, it's become more and more common to see just one space. In the modern world, should we still use two spaces between sentences, or is just one okay? Does it depend on the situation? Or are both acceptable, with the choice simply coming down to personal preference?


> **Possible Duplicate:**   >  How many spaces should come after a period/full stop? > Possible duplicate: How many spaces should come after a period/full stop? Is it true that you are supposed to put two spaces after the end of a sentence? If so, why don't you see this in very many bodies of text?


title: How should I describe a woman who serves food and drinks on a plane?

text: When I want to speak of a woman who serves food and drinks to passengers on a plane, should I use 'air hostess' or 'stewardess'? What's the difference? And when I take a plane, how should I call her?


title: Direct object for the verb "imbue" that isn't on this list

text: I originally posted this question on RPG StackExchange, as my use of the word would be for a custom Dungeons & Dragons class. There weren't a lot of thoughts there, so I thought I'd try here. Fill in the blank: ### Someone _imbues_ a **______** on an object, giving it magic powers. I need a word that serves as the direct object in this sentence, but there are a lot of caveats on the sort of word I need. Some background: in D&D, there are a number of different "types" of magical ability, and to keep things straight each one has various terms associated with it, most importantly a verb and an object. For example, you might say someone   * _casts_ a _spell_   * _manifests_ a _power_ , and may _augment_ that _power_ as well   * _invokes_ an _invocation_   * _initiates_ a _maneuver_   * _utters_ a _true name_   * _infuses_ an _infusion_   * _activates_ a _magic item_   * _binds_ a _vestige_ (in the game, a sort of spirit)   * _hexes_ (someone with) a _curse_ This is just a fairly simple way to keep the different types separate, which is important because they behave differently under the rules. So if we say someone _casts_ something, we know to look at the rules for _spells,_ etc. So I need a word that fits well in this pattern, but doesn't use one of those already-taken words. It also shouldn't refer to, or appear to refer to, existing game-terms, like   * arcana   * artifact   * conjuration   * effect   * enhancement   * enchantment   * sorcerer   * transmutation   * wizard   * witch RPG SE came up with "imbuement," which... I do not care for in the least. I'm not exactly tied to the word _imbue_ so alternatives are acceptable if they come with a good object. For reference, the magic would be used to improve or augment items. Along those lines, RPG SE suggested _endow/endowment_ (which sounds either collegial or phallic and neither is what I'm going for), _empower/empowerment_ (little better than imbuement), _bewitch/bewitchment_ (confusing since there is a witch class), and _ensorcell/ensorcellation_ or _ensorcell/ensorceration_ (again, might be confused with the sorcerer class). Don't let the fixation on having the object be the noun-form of the verb confuse you; that may be a desirable (ish) property, but it's not necessary (see _cast_ a _spell_ ).


title: Can I express future action without the exclusion of former activity?

text: Consider the following scenario. Someone is hired for a job and is new to the career field. For instance, a new accountant. After being an accountant for a very short period of time, and doing an excellent job as a novice, someone encourages the worker by stating "You will be an excellent accountant." My question is in regards to the statement "You will be an excellent accountant." Does the statement suggest that if the individual _will be_ a good accountant, which would imply that they are not currently doing a good job? Or, does it mean that the individual will be a good accountant, **regardless** of any good or bad work they have already accomplished? I ask this question because there have been times where I have actually wanted to encourage people who are novices but show great potential for success because of the good work they have done. One person I know personally is quite keen to respond with "Oh, so I _haven't been_ doing a good job?" which would seem to imply that such as statement denotes that previous work does not fall within the category of "excellence". I know this question bridges the gaps of English, logic and etiquitte. If there is no simple answer, I am certainly interested on the community's thoughts and suggestions on how to make such a comment without being excessively verbose or awkward.


title: Alternative expressions to 'you have to trust me''

text: In novels, movies etc. especially when someone asks or tells to do something rather risky, new etc. they say 'you have to trust me' which sounds a bit _dramatic_ to me. What alternatives for this expression for everyday, common usage can you suggest?


title: Is there a difference between “antithesis” and “juxtaposition”?

text: My question is as simple as the title, is there a difference between the two words. In my searching, I have found nothing yet, and it seems strange to have two words with not even a difference in connotation.


title: What does Bloomberg's 'concessionary tone' mean?

text: I found the phrase 'concessionary tone' in today's New York Times: > **Bloomberg Is Criticized on Storm Response as He Tours City Beyond > Manhattan** > > The mayor on Thursday delivered the message that every street had been > plowed, but his **concessionary tone** was met with frustration in the > boroughs beyond Manhattan. What does 'concessionary' mean in this particular context? None of the translations in my English-Japanese dictionaries seem to fit the case. Can somebody give an appropriate interpretation?


**How to write in English for international readers?** I'm not a native English speaker but I've been learning the language for many years in many fields (Mathematics, Physics, Mechanical Engineering and Programming to name some). Every now and then I find something explained in 'basic' English that I just cannot figure out without some search. Along the way I learned some small tricks for writing English for foreigners. Assume that the reader has an **intermediate-high English level** to answer this. The **reading fluency** is the main concern in this question, not the learning of the reader. I also wanted to give my 2 cents in this so I'll answer my own question in community wiki format, so please **add your advice** there. This question came up to me after reading the word 'Jeopardy!' in this stack overflow blog post. EDIT: I read this afterwards (which seems pretty mistaken): > John Saunders: I wonder what proportion of StackExchange users don’t know > what “Jeopardy” is? > > Jeff Atwood (author): @john I suppose the same proportion that don’t know > what “Wikipedia” and “Clicking a Link” is.


title: What is the opposite of a "one-trick pony" or a "one-hit wonder"?

text: I'm thinking of "a one-shot gun" vs. "an automatic machine gun", or vs. "an all-purpose tool" (although _tool_ lacks oomph). Any ideas?


title: "Recommend someone to represent..." vs. "recommend someone represent..."

text: Looking at the sentence below I have a feeling it is wrong, though I can't explain why: > I highly recommend Dave to represent you in Korea with your software. I have thus rephrased it to the following: > I highly recommend Dave represent you in Korea with your software. Am I correct?


title: What is the opposite of an electronic document?

text: I need an all-encompassing term that covers all kinds of written documents, except electronic ones: printed (on a printing press or the result of a computer printout) as well as hand-written documents. I've used various alternatives in the past, documents in writing, documents on paper, documents in paper form(at), but none of them are really satisfactory. When it's obvious that hand-written documents can be omitted, I've usually used the term printed documents. Edited to add: The context involves official documents and specifically the introduction of legally binding electronic documents. However, at times these need to be differentiated from hand-written documents from before the invention of the typewriter.


title: Usage of "upon"

text: Is "Let us have the ushers wait **upon** us" proper syntax?


title: Should I say "more exact"/"more precise"?

text: My understanding with the words **_exact_** , **_precise_** and **_accurate_** is that they are absolute. Meaning, there cannot be **_less_** accurate or **_more_** accurate. Is my understanding correct? If it's exactly 1 meter, then there cannot be _more exact_ than 1 meter. Also, are these words (exact, precise and accurate) exact synonyms? I have read their meanings in the dictionary and they are, well, the same. I am writing a blog that has a title "Love and Lust". I want to point out that it is _more accurate/precise_ to say that the title should be "Romantic Love and Lust", as there are three kinds of love.


title: "He grew up around cars that would later become classics."

text: My question is about the use of _would_ in the following sentence. > He grew up around cars that **would** later become classics. The use of _would_ in this particular sense always looks confusing to me because it's so different from: I _would_ like to know...   I don't think he _would_ agree to that...   _Would_ you mind....   _Would_ it be alright if I...   etc. The above sentence, as I see it, means "he grew up around cars which _were going to_ become classics in the future". Is that correct? If yes, does it also mean that the cars _actually became_ classics later?


title: Term for "lower numeric bound" - analogous to “capped”

text: What term should be used for describing limiting the lower range of a number? We (often) use "capped" to refer to a limit on the upper value of a range. What is the analogous term for limiting the lower end of the range? * * * More: I want a past tense word that means "a hard lower limit has been placed (on something)". In the same way that we might say "Your medical costs have been capped at $5000" (that's the most you will pay), I seek a word where I can say "Your medical costs have been XXXXed at $200" (that's the least you will pay).


title: Nasty way to go

text: I watched a film with Simon Pegg yesterday. The film is "Hot Fuzz". It is a very funny film I recommend you to watch. There is a phrase which is repeated for several times during the film. > **Nasty way to go** Could anyone please tell me what that means? I google it, but no result found. Thanks in advance. Cheers from Kazakhstan!!!


title: What is “Who are ya?” and whence it came?

text: “Who are ya?” seems a popular chant or taunt with English football fans, both on and off the stands. Is it a fair assessment that it means to diminish the opposition as unknown and insignificant? What are the guidelines to its usage? I understand why it is being chanted when the opposition is announced before the match, but I’ve also heard it being used when someone on the opposing team stumbles, or makes egregious error, or otherwise fails conspicuously. Is there specific reason for this, or it was somehow adopted just because it is neat chant? Can it be used against officials? Can it be used against unpopular management (e.g. if the coach or club president present at the game is announced) or players (that had angered the supporters’ community) of own club? Where did it come from? Is it used by football fans only, widely used across different sports, or it varies? Was this used somewhere outside of football/sport context? Is there any date to its origination or when it started to be used profusely?


title: What is the difference between 'as' and 'while'?

text: > **As** the owls flooded into the Great Hall as usual, everyone's attention > was caught at once by a long, thin package carried by six large screech > owls. > > A thousand live bats fluttered from the walls and ceiling **while** a > thousand more swooped over the tables in low black clouds, making the > candles in the pumpkins stutter. (Harry Potter book1) In the examples, what’s the difference between ‘as’ and ‘while’? Can each be changed with each other?


title: How to express reduction from 10 or 100 billion to 1 billion

text: What word or phrase would correctly describe the reduction of 10 billion to 1 billion, and from 100 billion to 1 billion? I need to have it sound scientific: Reduce an amount from 1010 to 109, and from 1010 to 108.


title: Word to describe not liking adornments and "frills", liking simple "things"

text: I am looking for a word that describes a person that does not like to dress things up, whether it be people, ideas, objects. Almost the idea "simple man" but as an adjective?


title: Nasalization in IPA

text: I am learning IPA to learn the English pronunciation. When "n" is inserted after a vowel and it is not followed by another vowel, how to know if /n/ is pronounced or it is only a mark to nasalize the vowel? The pronunciation of "dune" in the dictionary is /djun/, and "sun" is /sʌn/. But I listened to those words and "dune" ends with an "n" sound (the tongue moves), but "sun" does not. The IPA does not tell the nasalized phoneme in diphthongs. In "find" /faɪnd/, "a" is not nasalized, but "ɪ" is. In "saint" /seɪnt/, both "e" and "ɪ" are nasalized.


title: How to say formally 'once he paid off all the debt'

text: I am translating an article of association from Japanese to English. I am stuck at a sentence which means:               His membership shall be terminated once he paid off all his debt     from the Association, if he owes any.      How to write this sentence formally? As 'pay off all his debt' sounds a bit weird to me. I'm not a native speaker. Please help, and thanks in advance. ;-)


title: A synonym for "over" in "over a distance"

text: Could you give me the best synonym for _over_ in this situation? > Aqueduct: artificial channel for conducting water over a distance. I know it is the best preposition for this context. But I wonder if there's a synonym for it and its definition.


title: Is there a word for the mental state of laughter?

text: We speak of _madness_ when someone is in a fit of anger, and being _smitten_ when someone is in love(with someone), etc. But what about when someone just can't stop laughing? i.e, when someone is "cracking-up" - is there a more formal word?


title: Sub edge, sub-edge or subedge?

text: In fields like geometry and numerical methods for solving differential equations we often use words like _sub-face_ and _sub-edge_ , referring to parts of a geometrical object. For instance, a cube has 6 faces and 12 edges. It is often necessary to refer to parts of these objects as sub-edges and sub- faces.. In the academic literature, all three forms ("sub edge", "sub-edge", and "subedge") are in use.. What would be the correct/preferred form to use? (The word "sub-edge" cannot be found in the Oxford Dictionary, whereas "subface", can be found meaning "The undersurface of a rock formation", which is not the meaning of subface I was looking for..) See also: Should I use hyphens with prefixes like “sub” and “semi”?


title: Term for "sum of durations"

text: While writing to a friend, I attempted to ask which web browser they used most. In the end, I asked which browser they used “more frequently”, but this was not the true object of my curiosity. By using _frequently_ , I effectively asked which browser they **turn on** more times within a period of time. I also considered using the term _volume_ , as in, “use with the greatest volume”, but that would have also been incorrect. I would rather use that term solely in reference to cubic measurement. Specifically, I would have preferred to indicate the sum of durations; perhaps: > Over a period of time, which browser is used for the greatest part of that > period? Is there such a term?


title: Noun for "person with intermediate skill"

text: I'm looking for the noun form of "person with intermediate skill". For example, in the context of a particular activity, "person with no skill" might be designated a _novice_ , and "person with much skill" might be designated an _expert_. However I know of no such word in between these two extremes. My only thought is _amateur_ , which has a distinct meaning from describing level of skill, although skill level can often be inferred. I'm looking for a better solution. **EDIT** : due to the attention this question has received, I'll try to offer some clarification in order to reduce repeat questions.   1. "Journeyman" would certainly not work. I am a software developer by profession. However the word I'm looking for should hopefully be profession-agnostic.   2. I am trying to designate the skill level of the person that some learning material might be appropriate for. The word that I'm looking for follows the preposition "for".     * `For Beginners`     * `For [word for intermediate-skilled person]`     * `For Experts`   3. Sorry, but even after all the great answers, I'm still learning towards "amateur" even though it is technically incorrect. Also, the word should not be so esoteric that only people with English degrees know what it means. Keep the ideas coming!


title: Is there an intermediate level between junior and senior?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  Noun for "person with intermediate skill" I would like to refer to the intermediate level of a Human Resources Analyst. She is not a Junior HR Analyst anymore, but she is not a Senior HR Analyst yet. What is this intermediate level she is currently in?


title: Answer or solution to an exercise?

text: In the context of the word _exercise_ , e.g. in a textbook, is it more common to say _answer_ or _solution_?


title: Right usage of "undergo" with syndrome

text: Is the sentence.... XYZ _(n)_ is undergoing ABC syndrome. Right?


title: Difference between **timid** and **coward**

text: While I was reading one-word substitutions in R.S. Agarwal's _General English_ book, I came across the following question: > **One who always runs away from danger** > >> a) escapist   >  b) timid   >  c) coward   >  d) shirker They have given **b** as the correct answer. I reckoned that **timid** and **coward** both are the same. Can you please tell me the difference between _timid_ and _coward_?


title: Noun adjuncts, possessive or using "of"

text: this is my first time on your site. I have been teaching English for longer than I care to mention (native speaker). I am trying to find a way of explaining to some intermediate students why we can say the Channel Tunnel entrance (in Folkestone) but we cannot say "the Eiffel Tower top" for example. I have seen some discussions on use of noun adjuncts/possessive but not on this example using 'of'. Thanks in advance for your answers. Jennifer


title: "One plus years experience in..."

text: My girlfriend is going through resumés and thought this sentence fragment was grammatically incorrect: > "One plus years experience in..." She thinks it should be either: > "One plus years' experience..." or > "One plus years of experience..." Which one is correct?


title: Capitalization for law of sines

text: The law of sines is a mathematical formula. I have seen it written as both **Law of Sines** and **law of sines**. Which one of these is correct? Edit: According to Google Ngrams, the lower case option was preferred historically, but the title case version has gained in popularity in the past couple of decades.


title: "Died in an accident" or "killed in an accident"?

text: When speaking of someone who lost their life as a result of accidental circumstances are the two phrases below interchangeable? > He was killed in an accident. > She died in an accident. I've seen both used and I'm wondering if there is a rule here. Would we say _was killed_ when the victim was affected by someone or something else? If so would we then say simple _s/he died_ when the victim was the source of the accident?


title: Why not concatenate two frequently used words into a new one?

text: I will probably get a lot of flak about this, but why not combine the often used together words "with the" into "withe" which is pronounced _similarly_ , and it much shorter and easier to write? I am sure there are other candidates for such concatenations, which are bound to show up especially in the world of Twitter and SMS messages. PS. English is my 2nd language.


title: Why is the word "whatnot" a construction of "what" and "not"?

text: I've done some online etymological research on the word "whatnot", but I've been unable to figure out why it is a construction of "what" and "not". How does the combination of the words "what" and "not" relate to the meaning of "whatnot" (simply, _anything_ )?


title: How to indicate "now" in storytelling?

text: The following sentences - > I was humiliated by him, and now he was standing next to me. and > And now, I was looking at him, preparing for his entrance. Are these grammatically correct? I mean, I'm saying "now" but using the past tense. If not, how can I correct it?


title: Should the word Boolean be capitalized?

text: I keep second guessing myself on this one. On one hand it seems like it should because the word Boolean is derived from the name of George Boole, the inventor of Boolean logic. However, the term as it is commonly used is not meant to imply something is like George Boole in any way. I suppose the same question could be asked for any technical term that is named for its inventor, for example Cartesian coordinate systems (René Descartes). So the titular question stands; should I capitalize **Boolean** when using it to refer to 2 state logic or variables in a computer program? **Clarification:**   By "...or variables in a computer program..." I don't mean the actual code of a program. I meant in documentation that refers variables in a computer program. For example "Implement a variable using the the Boolean data type for the particular programming language that you are using."


title: "A half a cup of [something]"

text: Watching a cooking show a few days ago, the lady that presented it used the expression _a half a cup_ or _a half a teaspoon_ several times during the programme. I've heard _half a [something]_ used before lots of times, but never with an extra _**a**_ stuck at the front as in _**a** half a [something]_. Is this a typical American expression? Is it slang? Is it a dialect? Background:   * It was shown on Food Network UK, but obviously was an American show. (Just checked while writing this, it was presented by Paula Deen).   * I'm not a native speaker, never been to the US, but been to the UK countless times, so I wouldn't necessarily know anything that's specific to the US.


title: What does "It's not me, it's you?" mean in the phrase, “So why are more of us telling our banks, "It's not me, it's you?"

text: The article of Time magazine (September 13) titled, “America to Banks: We’re just not that into you” begins with the following lines: > “The number of Americans who have cut the cord with mainstream banking has > risen by 821,000 households in just two years. One in 12 households or 8.3% > are unbanked, while another roughly 20% are what researchers call > "underbanked." We're ostensibly well into economic recovery, so why are more > of us telling our banks, " ** _It's not me, it's you?"_** I guess the ending phrase, "It's not me, it’s you”” means “It’s not me (underbanked / unbanked Americans), but it’s you (banks) who are benefitted by recent economic recovery," but I’m not sure. What does “it” represent for? Why does it end up in interrogative form? Is question mark necessary at the end of this phrase (It's not me, it's you?) ? If it is, isn’t it better to say “Why are more of us _asking_ our banks, "It's not me, it's you?," instead of “Why are more of us _telling_ our banks, “It’s not me, it's you?"?


title: Question on usage of "clientele"

text: Between these two sentences, which (if either) is correct in American English: > Our clientele range from a small non-profit to a billion dollar > corporation... or > Our clientele ranges from a small non-profit to a billion dollar > corporation... A collective noun is usually treated as singular. If that holds true here, then "ranges" would be correct. But that just feels wrong. For some reason I can't quite articulate, "range" feels right. Thoughts? Which is correct and why?


title: Which definition of commitment is correct in this sentence?

text: According to Macmillan Dictionary, the word "commitment" has these 5 definitions:   1. a promise to do something   2. strong belief in something   3. enthusiasm   4. duty/responsibility   5. use of money, etc. Which one fits the following sentence? > "The manager attributes the Conservancy’s success to having a local presence > and a **commitment** to working with local residents."?


title: Are 'probably' and 'actually' mutually exclusive?

text: I had an argument with my acquaintances:               [discussing the same translations of the phrase to various languages]          xxx: the German sentence is wrong, for what it's worth     yyy: the French one is too     yyy: they probably all are, actually     me:  yyy, congratulations. The last sentence, that you wrote is an oxymoron     xxx: how's that an oxymoron?     yyy: probably … actually? Arguably, the actual fact is that it is likely they all are wrong          [this is followed by an argument]      To tell the truth, none of us is a native English speaker, but my knowledge of the language is worst out of the three people. So, I have a question. Is 'they probably all are, actually' sentence an oxymoron or not?


title: Keep myself right on this train

text: In _Underdog_ , a song by Kasabian, I have some difficulties to understand the meaning of > Kill me if you dare ok > Hold my head up everywhere   * Is it an ellipsis for "I hold my head up everywhere", meaning that I won't look down   * or is it "Kill me and hold my head up", meaning you kill me and you show my cut head on a spike, like in medieval age? > Keep myself right on this train What does this mean?


title: English idiom similar to "grab one, hit the other"

text: In my native language there is an idiom which literally says "grab one, hit the other". It is used to express that a group of people possesses the same negative personal traits, habits, vice, etc. and usually it shows frustration and/or annoyance. My question is: Is there any idiom in English which is identical/comes close to the above meaning?


title: Meaning of "due" in "when my second child was due"

text: What does due mean in _when my second child was due_? I would interpret it in three ways:   1. just born.   2. about to be born soon.   3. just got pregnant. Which is correct?


title: What do you call a person who loses interest after achieving something?

text: I know about the term _butterfly_, but I am looking for something a little different. What do you call a person that is greatly motivated to achieve a goal, but loses interest the second after that goal is achieved? The difference to the butterfly example metioned above would be the **provided** achievement of said person. It would also be great if anyone could mention a literary reference to such a character.


title: "I was going to be called Kate if I was a girl"

text: This is an excerpt from a grammar book by Longman. It was discussing tense and time distinctions and the excerpt is about future time. > As you can see in the next example, the reference can be to a situation that > never actually occurred: > > 'I was going to be called Kate if I was a girl.' What I get from the example is the impression that the narrator is a man and before he was born his parents decided upon the baby's name if it were a girl. What I want to know is shall I use the subjunctive form _were_ instead of _was_ in "...if I was a girl."? Or is the sentence correct?


title: What's the difference between phonograph and gramophone?

text: I've been reading about the **Grammy** award, and found that it was named after the invention of _Emile Berliner_ , the `gramophone`, after considering the name **Eddie** (for the `phonograph`'s inventor, _Thomas Edison_ ). I didn't find what's the difference between the two. Sources also mix up the inventors of them. Notice also that the names kind of consist of the same 2 words, written in different order.


title: Etymology of "nutmeg"?

text: What's the etymology of the British informal usage of the word "nutmeg" as a verb to mean "kicking a ball through a player's legs", usually used in football? It doesn't seem to bear any relation to the noun.


title: If a clause is a direct object, its pronoun is nominative because the whole clause is the object

text: I am sure this has been asked before; I couldn't locate a definite answer (grammar websites on direct objects do not seem to explicitly state the answer). I think it may have been addressed in my previous question indirectly and I was hoping for some clarification. With a clause as a direct object, the pronoun is in the nominative case because the entire clause is the direct object, not just the initial pronoun. Is this statement in anyway accurate? For example:   * _"He intimated [(that)_ **_he_** _would go today]."_ I believe the direct object of "intimated" is within the brackets, and the direct object clause should be treated as a if it were "self-enclosed"; therefore, "he" should be nominative because it is the subject of the verb "go". I think this is true, but I would feel more comfortable with clarification/correction.


title: Why does 'threescore' mean sixty?

text: I wonder why _threescore_ means sixty. I only found it means three times twenty, the math is correct, yet what link between twenty and "score" ?


title: Is "eachother" correct?

text: I recently saw someone intentionally use "eachother" instead of "each other". In what circumstances would this be correct?


title: Is usage of the word epitome in a negative sense correct?

text: Can the word epitome be used in a negative context like in this statement > He is the epitome of corruption. And should I be using _the_ epitome instead of _an_ epitome?


title: Phrase request for 'Choice Robot'

text: There is a phrase in Turkish `Tercih Robotu(Choice Robot)` I need the English word for it, let me explain what it is. In Turkey before going to any university you should pass through a set of exams then your point is calculated, there are several point types, then by looking at those points you can estimate which univerity you can go :) And I am developing an application which does that for you in English. What might be the right phrase or word for this?


title: Is the phrase, onto the platforms below… essential, as I feel the sentence doesn’t flow?

text: Is the phrase, **onto the platforms below** … essential, as I feel the sentence doesn’t seem to flow? > The waiting room at Leipzig Central Station was cold. Even the stuttering > coal fire burning in a 30’s era fireplace seemed reluctant to continue its > futile efforts to warm the passengers waiting inside. Outside on the streets > of Leipzig it was raining; the day over caste and grey, the light barely > managing to filter down through the soot stained windows in the arched roof > overhead, **onto the platforms below** …


title: "Atop" versus "on top of"

text: I'm sure this is silly and won't be terribly difficult to answer: can one climb atop a mountain or is it proper to say climb on top of. Or does it matter? I'm thinking the latter is correct.


title: The original usage of past participles

text: I have heard that the origin of the present perfect construction is that sentences like "I have it done" (passive) changed to "I have done it" (present perfect). Is that true at all? If that's the case, would anyone mind giving me an explanation in detail on how the change took place? Moreover, if the passive construction used to be the only usage of past participles, why are they called "past participle" in the first place?


title: Word for "someone who does the same job as me"

text: Is there a word that means something like "someone who does the same job as me"? I've thought of **colleague** and **co-worker**. These both indicate that someone works at the same place, or some other kind of work relationship, but they don't indicate that the job is the same. The best I've come up with is **my fellow-X** , but this feels cumbersome.


title: I appreciate your (advice / advise)?

text: Which sentence is much better?               I appreciate any advice given.          I appreciate any advise given.      or are there better word to fill in the blank?               I appreciate any ____ given.


title: Meaning of "Caucasian"

text: When I search the definition of _Caucasian_ in the NOAD, I find the following definition (it's the first of three definitions): >   1. (often offensive) of or relating to one of the traditional divisions of > humankind, covering a broad group of peoples from Europe, western Asia, and > parts of India and North Africa. [ORIGIN: so named because the German > physiologist Blumenbach believed that it originated in the Caucasus region > of southeastern Europe.] • white-skinned; of European origin. > In a note, the dictionary says also > In the racial classification as developed by anthropologists in the 19th > century, _Caucasian_ (or _Caucasoid_ ) included peoples whose skin color > ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and > India). Although the classification is outdated and the categories are now > not generally accepted as scientific (see usage at _Australoid_ and > _Mongoloid_ ), the term _Caucasian_ has acquired a more restricted meaning. > It is now used, especially in the U.S., as a synonym for _white or of > European origin_ , as in the following citation: _the police are looking for > a Caucasian male in his forties_. Is _Caucasian_ understood to have these meanings also in other English dialects?


title: What does ‘Young Americans are far less “white” than older generation’ mean?

text: I stumbled on a phrase, _Young Americans are far less white than older generation_ , in an article of today's New York Times titled _In Census, Young Americans Increasingly Diverse_. I don’t think _white_ refers to the color, of course. In a dictionary at hand, there is a definition of _white_ as a slang meaning (1) _fair and righteous_ , (2) _credible_ , (3) _generous, well-intentioned_ , (4) _happy, well-off_. Does the phrase _today’s young Americans are far less white_ here implies they are far less well-off (or happy) than old generation? Is the word ‘White’ used in this notion very often? The text in question reads: > Demographers sifting through new population counts released on Thursday by > the Census Bureau say the data bring a pattern into sharper focus: Young > Americans are far less white than older generations, a shift that > demographers say creates a culture gap with far-reaching political and > social consequences.


title: Usage of "make up my mind"

text: Can "made up my mind be used" in context like: > I made up my mind about quitting smoking. I am being persuaded that _resolved_ should be used instead, but it seems to me that both versions are correct but differ in a level of resolution of speaker.


title: Equivalent of local idiom "The potter drinks from a broken jar"

text: There's an idiom in a native language which literally means "The potter drinks from a broken jar". _i.e._ a potter will not spend a lot of time making a beautiful jar for himself to drink from, he uses a poor quality one or one that's been broken for himself. It means that someone who is good at a profession usually _sells_ his high quality work instead of using them for himself and doesn't use them for his own benefit. Is there an English idiom that conveys the same meaning? **UPDATE** FYI, I was interested in this idiom because my own website consisted of 1 page displaying my email address and saying "We'll have more soon!" during my many years of web development and making websites for others.


title: why was there a surge in the name 'Tiffany' in the late 1980s?

text: Last night Tiffany Porter won a gold medal for Britain in the European Athletics Championships (Womens 100m hurdles). It came as no surprise to discover that she began life as an American. Apart from her accent, I know of no English girl or woman with the name Tiffany. Apparently there were 10,000 Americans per year named Tiffany in the late 80s and early 90s. (Porter was born in 1987.) What interests me is why the name, which is an Anglicization of the Greek Theophania, was so popular. Did it have anything to do with 'Breakfast at Tiffany's'? Is it ever shortened to 'Tiff'?


title: "A [...] of riches" — what word is missing?

text: There is a phrase that goes "a X of riches" which suggests that one had so much to choose from, lots of good choices. What is the missing word?


What is the meaning of "clubbed to death?"


title: How do I spell "subdistrict"?

text: Geographically, there are voting districts, taxing districts, and school districts. There are also subdistricts. I have found different spellings of this word ( _subdistrict_ , _sub district_ , _sub-district_ ). Which one is correct for the USA?


title: Word to describe being useful to many people

text: I am trying to find a word to describe a project I am working on. This project has one function, but will be useful to as many people as possible (as many people as meet the requirements to use the project). I would like to use it in the context of something like the following sentence:               "My application is adjective, adjective, and ______________."      Does anyone know of a word that would fit here? Thank you!


title: Is there an alternative to the word "coincidence" to describe when two say the same word spontaneously?

text: Is there a word to describe a scenario where two people having a conversation utter the same word/phrase together, simultaneously, and unconsciously? Something else than just a coincidence.


title: What's the difference between "stall" and "stall out"?

text: Can a car engine stall out? It seems to me that a plane can stall out, but a car can only stall.


title: Gin & Tonics vs Gins & Tonic vs Gins & Tonics

text: When I order multiple G&Ts which should I ask for?


title: What are some good books on articulation?

text: I am fully capable of speaking, reading and writing (British-)English and my native language, but I find that I tend to mumble and muffle my voice. Furthermore, I would love to perfect my speech in all the ways possible, and I find that the science of articulation (articulatory phonetics) would be the best ways to do this. I don't want to hit up random books on Amazon, so do you know which books are the bibles within this areas? Maybe theatre-oriented books would deal with articulation and contain some exercises?


title: "Event is raised when maintenance occurs or scheduled" vs. "or is scheduled"

text: Which sentence is correct? >   * Event is raised when maintenance occurs or scheduled. >   * Event is raised when maintenance occurs or **is** scheduled. >


title: Is it correct to use “increasing” in this context?

text: I want to use this sentence in my paper. Is it correct grammatically? > Microaggregation, as a Statistical Disclosure Control (SDC) method, provides > lower Disclosure Risk (DR) at the expense of increasing Information Loss > (IL). I’m not sure about the word “ _increasing_ ”.


title: Usage of "flavour" vs. "version"

text: Software systems undergo versioning when changes are made to them. E.g.: "Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows RT etc. are some popular versions of the Windows Operating System." Similarly, some software also comes in different flavours. E.g.: "BOSS, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint are some popular flavours of Linux." I fail to understand whether _version_ and _flavor_ of a **software** mean the same thing, and can be used interchangeably. Or are there some not-so-subtle differences?


title: What does "fiend angelical" stand for?

text: > Juliet--"Beautiful tyrant! fiend angelical!" (Act III Scene ii Line 77) When Juliet refers to Romeo as a "beautiful tyrant," she is expressing an oxymoron because the acts of a tyrant will rarely be referred to as beautiful. What does "fiend angelical" stand for?


title: Should I use a hyphen in the term "in(-)situ visualization"?

text: The term _in(-)situ visualization_ denotes a visualization or graphics that is depicted in place, for instance, a sparkline that is embedded into text. As the dictionaries tell, the adjective or adverb _in situ_ is written as two words. But for concatenated terms in scientific language, oftentimes, _in- situ_ (with a hyphen) is placed in front of the main noun. Searching for the term in Google and Google Scholar, I find both alternatives about equally frequent. Also, the COCA Corpus lists both versions for related terms such as _in(-)situ burning_. What is the correct spelling of _in(-)situ visualization_? Is there a specific rule that applies?


title: Replace "follow" in "Something follows the following steps"

text: The sentence "The analysis follows the following steps" doesn't sound good, but I can't think of a more formal synonym to either of the follow-s.


title: Does the word "but" sound odd here?

text: I'm being influenced by another language, which is why this might sound so natural to me. Still, I wonder what others would think about sentences like these. "I realized it when we were shopping earlier, but you have really good taste in clothing." Is the "but" in that sentence awkward?


title: Geopolitics *and* economics?

text: What word or concise phrase in English covers international politics and economics? My Merriam-Webster defines geopolitics as "politics, esp. international relations, as influenced by geographical factors." Is there a word that covers this AND international money issues?


title: What does "Tingling toes" mean?

text: I was listening to a song _Top of the world_ by _Bridgit Mendler_. She sung some words > I'm weak in the knees when... You're holding me close.. got tingling toes > tonight What does **tingling toes** mean here? I know the meaning of both words separately but it is not making sense together for me.


title: Partially same authors

text: Is there a word or common phrase that expresses the idea that two works have some but not all authors in common? For example if I have these papers > (1)How to Count Red Bottles, Gee M. S., Queen H. R. H., Bacon K., Damon M.   >  (2)Bottle Counting Meta-analysis, Queen H. R. H., Damon M., Goldblum G., > Kendal F. Is there a word or idiomatic way to say > _Partially same authors_ argue in (2) that... _Partially same authors_ does not seem a common phrase after searching Google.


title: Which tense to use in this situation?

text: I am writing a summary for last year and I have just realized that I do not know what tense to use in the following situation: Since 2009 I have been developing a computer program. As I am describing what I was working on last year, what tense should I use? I think I cannot use simple past tense because I am still working on that. I also think I cannot use present perfect because the description will relate to period of time that passed. Could anyone help me on this? Thank you


title: Differences between "tutorial", "guide" and "how-to"

text: The categorization on Android Wiki looks pretty arbitrary and redundant to me contemplating the single articles in the categories. In every one you find a _tutorial_ , _guide_ and _how-to_ on for example _How to root an android phone_ , so these are mostly step-by-step instructions or a numeric list on how to proceed. This differentiation seems kind of pointless to me. Aren't they all synonyms? Only _guide_ and _how-to_ imply to me something like a written manual, while _tutorial_ can also be verbal instructions in a seminar or a YouTube video. But on a webpage with only written articles, does this differentiation make sense?


title: When is "L" doubled?

text: Some verbs can have double Ls in the gerund form; for example:   * modeling; modelling    * traveling; travelling Which form should we use, or which form is used more in the literature?


title: "Canceling" or "cancelling"

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is "L" doubled? I'm confused about the two spellings. In which contexts do I have to use _canceling_ or _cancelling_? Google returns 15.6 million results with canceling and 18 million with cancelling, so I don't know what is the good spelling. Why are both possible, and are there other such pairs?


title: What's the difference between 'modeling' and 'modelling'?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is "L" doubled? If I am using the word _model_ in the context of financial models and the UK, then which of these words should I use? Also, are there any key difference in the meanings of the two?


title: "Traveller" vs. "traveler"

text: There was a time when _traveller's cheques_ were emitted and sold by the banks in England and by Thomas Cook. However the cheques emitted by American banks/American Express were named _traveler's cheque_ , with a single L. I have always wondered why. My English dictionary only has _traveller_ with two Ls.


title: Signalling or signaling?

text: > **Possible Duplicate:**   >  When is "L" doubled? Most of the spell checkers are correcting it to be single `l`, from the other side many official technical documents/standards are using double `l`.


title: Meaning of sentence with 'would'

text: The sentence is: **What would the people eat?** Can it mean "What are the people going to eat?" in future Or, "What were the people going to eat?" talking about future from past Or, both?


title: "Lead to" vs "result in"

text: I am bit confused about the differences between _lead to_ \+ gerund and _result in_ \+ gerund. Example: > This process might **lead to** increasing the costs. > > This process might **result in** increasing the costs. In essays, should I prefer one of _lead to_ and _result in_ to the other? Why?


title: Difference between "response" and "reply"

text: As far as I understand, _replies_ are a subset of _responses_ : A _reply_ is a response in words or writing. However, _responses_ can take many different forms, e.g. when a country responds in force to some perceived aggression. Is this correct? What is the difference?


title: Why are "bollocks!" so often "old"?

text: Prompted by this question _(How old is “Bollocks!”?)_ , I wonder why it's so often " **old** _bollocks_ ". Where I live (South-East England), _"giving it all that old bollocks"_ is a fairly common expression in certain circles. That's probably quite localised dialect, but googling the net suggests that _a load of old bollocks_ , _the same old bollocks_ and other _old_ variants are quite common in the world at large. When people say _"Don't give me that old crap!"_ , it normally means they've heard your line before, and don't want to hear it again. But I don't get that implication of repetition with _old bollocks_. With _"That's a load of old bollocks!"_ I can discard _"a load of"_ and/or _"old"_. None of the variants seem to imply I've heard it before. I don't feel quite so comfortable with _"That's old bollocks!"_ though - maybe I only accept it at all because it sounds like _"That's_ **all** _bollocks!"_ I hear plenty of _"That's balls!"_ , but they never seem to be _old_. Why is this?


title: Correct meaning of paraphrase

text: I've always understood paraphrase to mean the repeat a quote without using the exact words. However, recently I've seen increasing use of the word paraphrase to mean repeating a famous quotation with a twist. I.e. the original quote is given almost verbatim but applied to an entirely different area. Am I correct in understanding that this second usage is incorrect?


title: "Whether they are congruent"

text: A geometry test asks a student to find the length of two pairs of line segments and then instructs the student to > tell **whether they are congruent** for each pair. Is the student obligated to tell if a pair is **not** congruent, or only if the pair **is** congruent?


title: -ed and -ing adjectives

text: What is the difference? > I am interesting in mathematics. versus > I am interested in mathematics. Murphy intermediate grammar Unit 97 tells me that I cannot use the former. Extended and general explanations will be appreciated.


title: "Description to follow"

text: My co-worker sent me a message with the text below: > "description to follow" Actually this is the only text inside of the message where there are some pictures attached. I got what it says "Description will follow" or similar to that but what I want to learn is which grammar rule can explain this type of usage?


title: “Leakage” in context

text: I have been reading a text about spotting lies by analysis of voice, gestures, etc., and cannot understand the word _leakage_ in this sentence: > ... clues of emotions... These are what provide leakage or deception clues. Is it related to clues (leakage clues or deception clues), or does it mean leakage on the liar’s side (unintentionally revealing he is lying)? All dictionaries mention only two meanings of _leakage_ : physical (such as of liquid) or deliberate disclosure of information. Neither fits here for me.


title: “bigamy” and “digamy”

text: * _**bi‑_** from Latin with the meaning of _two_.    * _**di‑_** is the Greek counterpart of _bi‑_ , with the same meaning of _two_. Are _bigamy_ and _digamy_ words with the same meaning. If not, why?


title: It might be defined different/differently?

text: In the following example, `realtype` stands for a computer data type defined by a computer. The data type might be different on different computers; _ie_ the definition of `realtype` is machine-dependent. > If my [computer] code is executed on another system, `realtype` might be > defined { different / differently / something else }. Which of the alternative endings should I choose? Please say why, in plain English. I prefer an answer with simple rules that I can remember and easily apply. I tried to understand an earlier question, to no avail.


title: "Support team lead" or "support team leader"

text: Which is correct: _support team lead_ or _support team leader_? I think _team leader_ should be correct since _leader_ is a persona while _lead_ looks more like a verb. But I see some multinational companies use _team lead_ in their job description. Is there something I am missing?


title: Meaning of "That is not anything much yet"

text: Could you explain the meaning of the sentence in bold? Does it use an idiom? > Sesame Street is...with lapses, the most intelligent and important program > in television. **That is not anything much yet**. _Renata Adler, The New > Yorker, 1972_


title: Correct way to say "km^2"

text: How do we say _km 2_ in words? Do we use _km exponent by two_ , _square kilometer_ , _kilometer squared_ or something else?


title: What is the service that hotels offer called?

text: I am developing a service for hotels to increase their bookings. How is the hotel business called? Is it correct to say "to increase your bookings" where I mean to get more customers?


title: There were injured on both sides - grammar

text: Source: http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-says-30-pro-russian-insurgents- killed-071845546.html > Avakov said Monday that pro-Russia forces in Slovyansk, a city of 125,000, > were deploying large-caliber weapons and mortars in the region and there > were **injured** on both sides. Government troops were facing about 800 > insurgents, he said. Is the way it's written grammatically correct? Do we not have to precede the word with **the** to denote that we are talking about a group of people?


title: How to use "resulting" and "resultant" as qualifier properly?

text: If I say that "the resulting object A" and "the resultant object A", do the two statements mean the same thing always, sometimes, never?


title: What does "our Mayan moment" mean here?

text: In a brief article I read, it is stated that: > For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment: 2012 is when the > nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between > rounds of drinks. Could anybody shed any light on what an author is likely to mean when referring to something as "our Mayan moment"?


title: Is it possible for a new irregular verb to appear in English language?

text: Consider these verbs in past tense: > faxed, emailed, googled they are all regular verbs made out of new nouns.   Are there any new _irregular_ verbs that I'm not aware of?


title: Is it "to shave my beard" or "to shave my face"?

text: > I shaved my beard this morning.   >  I shaved my face this morning. Which one is the correct sentence?


title: What is a word that means someone who is involved in the arts without implying a specific type of art?

text: Is there a word that encompasses artist, poets, architects, dancers, musicians? The correct word to use is surely "Artist" but in my context that word is confusing as it connotes someone involved in the visual arts making it unacceptable for me. Is there a word that covers creative pursuits?


title: What is the correct usage of the word "Cartesian"?

text: While working on an essay for my English class I included this sentence: > The best solution is to take a page out of Cartesian theory and take a > proven approach. However, my teacher corrected it as follows: > The best solution is to take a page out of **Cartesian's** theory and take a > proven approach. However, this strikes me as wrong, "Cartesian" is not a person and this correction doesn't seem to make sense to me. I would understand if it was "Descartes' theory" as that would make it the theory of Descartes, but I don't understand how you can use a possessive with an adjective like in the correction. My teacher hasn't been very helpful, her best explanation is "English is just like that". But I still would like to understand it, could someone explain it to me? I also would like to know if there's a need to capitalize "Cartesian" in this case.


title: Is there a synonym for "satisfied customer" or "one who can testify"?

text: For example, I wish to borrow a book from someone. In order to assure that person that I will treat their book carefully, I want to refer them to someone I have already borrowed a book from in the past who knows that I am responsible. What is the word for that person who can recommend me?


title: Ellipsis or Ellipses?

text: Inspired by this question: What is the correct term to use when describing the "three dots" (. . .), ellipsis or ellipses? And are either of these terms considered plural? For example, if I wanted to say "the **x** is/are in the wrong location", which sentence is correct?   1. The ellipsis is in the wrong location.   2. The ellipsis are in the wrong location.   3. The ellipses is in the wrong location.   4. The ellipses are in the wrong location. My gut instinct would be #4, with #1 a close second. #3 seems likely to be wrong, and #2 is a wild card.


title: Single word for someone who is being impersonated ("impersonatee"?)

text: I'm writing about impersonators and people being impersonated in general terms and having 'the impersonator' and 'the person being impersonated' is cumbersome at best. 'Impersonatee' sort of works, but isn't great. Any ideas?


title: "The wind is blowing of the fan" vs. "The wind is blowing from the fan"

text: What is the difference between "of" and "from" in the following sentences: > The wind is blowing of the fan. > > The wind is blowing from the fan. Not sure if they are properly worded!


title: When did Greenwich begin to be pronounced as "Gren-ich"?

text: I just read an interesting question here on Greenwich Mean Time. I'm interested to know when **Greenwich** received its peculiar pronunciation. Has it always been pronounced as "GREN-ich" (/ˈɡrɛnɪtʃ/), and is it just a simple contraction or something more? I'm from Northern England and would say that GREN-ich is used nationally and globally, but I agree with Wikipedia that I've heard it pronounced GRIN-ich in London.


title: What does “goo up” mean? Is it a well-received idiom?

text: I found the word, “ _goo up_ ” in the following statement of New York Times’ (April 2nd) article titled “Desperately seeking synonyms,” which was written by Constance Hale as a series of writing lessons. Though it’s a little bit long quote, I thought the lines being of particular interest to foreign English learners: > Writers sometimes forget that the primary role of nouns is to paint a clear > picture, and they pile up abstractions and leave us clueless as to the > people, places, things or ideas they are writing about. > > Sometimes this is intentional, as when a spokesman for Hasbro said that the > closing of a Scrabble plant in Fairfax, Vt., in 1999 was part of a “global > improvement product.” Other times, it is unintentional, as when novice > writers _goo up_ descriptions with a lot of lush adjectives, rather than a > few precise nouns. I can vaguely imagine what “ _goo up_ ” means from the word “goo,” but am not very clear. Cambridge English dictionary registers “goo” only as a noun meaning “an unpleasantly sticky substance. No mention on verb. Oxford English Dictionary registers only the definition as a noun meaning, 1. Sticky or slimy substance. 2. Excessively sentimentality. No mention on verb. Google Ngram registers usage of “goo up” declining since 1900. Though I think the writer used the right word in right place as this is a part of series of “How-to write” lesson, can “goo” used as a verb, which neither CED nor OED does provide? Is “goo up” popular or well-worn idiom? What are its exact meaning and easier analogues?


title: "if you were" vs. "if you did"

text: In the following two sentences "did" and "were" seem to be conveying the same meaning. If that's the case, what is the difference between the two and which one is more preferred? > If you studied, you would pass the exam. > > If you were to study, you would pass the exam.


What is the difference between "Come on home" and "Come home"? In this case "Come on" is a phrasal verb?


title: Is "premises" always plural?

text: On-premises ... On-premise I see these terms frequently used to describe software systems hosted within a company's datacenter vs. software systems hosted externally by a third party (in the "cloud"). The term is also frequently abbreviated to "on-prem" or "OnPrem" or similar with the same meaning. The full spelling is the issue. I take "premises" means the environ of a company or organization, whereas I take "premise" means the basis for a logical argument. Is there any valid usage of "premise" sans "S" to mean a company, or is it simply slangy misspelling of "premises"? Related: As the plural of "premise" in the logical argument sense is "premises", does this cloud the issue a little?


title: Etymology of "to be cuter than a monkey with a puppy"

text: I think that this is an idiom, but I didn't find any explanations. I wonder about the _monkey_. Just _to be cuter than a puppy_ would be clear. _Monkey_ 's (if it refers to the animal) are known for being silly or a bit stupid, primitive. Doesn't it have a slight negative connotation? Why is it called " _to be cuter than a monkey with a puppy_ "?


title: "Nose" is to "nasal" as "throat" is to what?

text: We use _nasal_ as an adjective for something related to _nose_. What is the word to refer to something related to _throat_?


title: desired vs. desirable

text: I have written a paper and the reviewer said me that I must change "a more desired solution" to "a more desirable solution". I am not sure about the differences. I have also some similar usages of this combination. It would be grateful if you could suggest me which one is more applicable. N.B: I have a number of solutions (points) that the data publisher checks them and selects one of them, or in another scenario, she first states her preferences, and our algorithm finds the best one for his. Similar usages:   1. ... or even direct the method toward a desired point.   2. He checks it with different parameters to attain a desired trade-off between A and B.   3. ... which usually results in an undesired quality degradation of published data.   4. with the possibility to direct the anonymization process toward a more desired trade-off point.    5. it to reach a desirable trade-off point.   6. results in the desired partitioning.   7. After applying X, the desired partitioning is produced.   8. ...explicit expression of the desired values of the objective functions makes the algorithm more effective.   9. It can converge toward the desired point in an effective manner.   10. ...to achieve a desirable trade-off point.   11. ...that usually results in an undesired decrease of information utility.    12. ... and capture some undesired information.   13. ... to reach a desired point.


title: Got their wires crossed.

text: Regarding a policy meeting I read: _the meeting was a complete disaster, all members got their wires crossed before everybody left._ Does it mean that they quarrelled and came to blows?


title: Double prepositions: 'a rate of around 30%' or 'a rate around 30%'?

text: > "The treatment has a complete necrosis rate of around 30%." Or should the preposition "of" be deleted: > "The treatment has a complete necrosis rate around 30%." To me both sentences mean the same, but which one is grammatically correct?


title: Is "try taking these ones" correct? (doctor speaking to a patient)

text: A patient is complaining that the pills that he had given her a week ago don't help, so he opens a drawer, takes another pack of some other pills and says: "Try taking these ones". Is it correct to say like this? Does it sound natural?


title: Is the usage of among in "Some philosophers are addressed, among who Deleuze, Derrida,..." right?

text: I would like to know whether my usage of _among_ in the following sentence is correct or not: > Thus, a dialogue is developed with some philosophers who discuss and unfold > the concept of ‘being’, among who, Deleuze, Nietzsche and Foucault.


title: Is 'mind you' a question tag?

text: > “That plate is hot, **mind**.” (Angela Downing, English Grammar)   > Prof. Angela says ‘mind’ above is a question tag.   Is ‘mind you’ below the same tag?   > "Don't know why he's so bothered," said Ron. "If I'd brought a toad I'd lose > it as quick as I could. **Mind you** , I brought Scabbers, so I can't talk."   >  (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)


title: "had initially" or "initially had"

text: As in "I initially had planned to cite my sources" vs. "I had initially planned to cite my sources"


title: What is the best word for "brain drain" within a company?

text: I'm writing a proposal for work. For it, I would like a word that describes the concept of brain drain - lots of people leaving the country and taking their knowledge with them - but that is limited to within the same company. Wikipedia (and others) defines brain drain as: > ...the large-scale emigration of a large group of individuals with technical > skills or knowledge. What I'm looking to describe, however, is a situation where one or two very knowledgeable people change jobs, switch departments, or leave the company (not necessarily leaving the country) without imparting that knowledge to others. Is brain drain the best fit or are there better words?


title: "When it comes to doing something" Are there alternatives?

text: Do you think " _When it comes to_ " is a formal or informal expression?   I want to use this in the TOEFL writing paper.


title: Can you use a semicolon after an interjection/exclamation?

text: The usual form for using interjections involves following them with a comma, period, or exclamation point. For example... "Well, I honestly have no idea."   "Dude! Where's my car!"   "Wow. I have nothing to say to that."      You get the idea. So! Can one use a semicolon after an interjection? I had never seen it done, prior to today, and I was curious.


title: learn how to [verb] vs. learn to [verb]

text: 1. "learn to [verb]"   2. "learn how to [verb]" Is [1] merely a less formal version of [2]? If not, does [1] communicate something subtly different? Consider the following: In [2], the object of learning is explicitly "how to [verb]" (for instance, "I will learn how to speak French"). Is the object of learning in [1] "to [verb]" or is it something implicit and abstract that allows the subject "to [verb]"? For instance, in "I will learn to speak French", the object of learning would be the prerequisite elements for speaking French: "French phonemes, grammar, syntax, etc.".


title: Can "respectively" be used to refer to more than two items in a series?

text: Is the following a proper use of "respectively"? And if it is not, what is the proper construction of this sentence: > Counts 10, 12, and 14 of the indictment charged Mr. Client, along with Mr. > Co-client, with First Degree Murder While Armed (Premeditated), in violation > of D.C. Code §§ 22-2101, 4502, 2104.01(b)(4), 2104.01(b)(6) (2001 ed.). > Counts 11, 13, and 15 charged Mr. Client, and Mr. Co-client, with Possession > of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence or Dangerous Offense, in violation > of D.C. Code § 22-4504(b) (2001 ed.). Each of those counts related to one of > the homicide charges. Count 18 of the indictment charged with Mr. Client > with Carrying a Pistol Without a License, in violation of D.C. Code § > 22-4504(a) (2001 ed.). Count 29 charged Mr. Client with Obstruction of > Justice, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-722(a)(6) (2001 ed.). When the > charges were submitted to the jury, the above listed charges were > respectively renumbered 1-6 and 8-9.


title: When could we use perfect tense?

text: Could you recommend me any grammar taskbook like Murphy with a lot of tasks and explanation of perfect tense? I haven't quite understood the meaning of the perfect tense and all cases when it should be used. I have to train much more...


title: How do I reply? 'It's time you started [to trust me]' or 'It's time you started to [trust me]?

text: Given the following sentence: 'I don't trust you' - what's the proper way to end the following reply:'It's time you started' or 'It's time you started to'? Is there a rule governing the inclusion/omission of 'to'?


title: "Uncapable" or "incapable"?

text: In Microsoft Word, _uncapable_ is marked as wrong. It sounded pretty alright to me, thus, I checked it up on the Web and found that many dictionaries do not have "uncapable" in their entries, but dictionaries such as Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster list it to be a synonym of _incapable_. My question is: is _uncapable_ considered a "proper" word?


title: "Same old, same old"

text: "It is the same old, same old style." In this sentence, what kind of phrase is _same old same old_? Is it a adjective?


title: Is there an English word meaning "snacks eaten as an accompaniment while drinking alcohol"?

text: I'm currently travelling in Korea and Japan and learned that both languages have words specifically for snacks that accompany alcoholic drinks, or at least go with beer and spirits such as sake or soju. It can include but is not limited to chips and nuts, sometimes salty or spicy. But it occurred to me that English doesn't have an equivalent word. The best I can think of are "snack", "munchies", "nibbles", and "finger food". For those wondering, the Japanese word is "おつまみ" (otsumami) and the Korean word is "안주" (anju). What's the best English word for a drinking snack?


title: Using "can" to express future ability

text: To refer to future ability we should strictly use _will be able to_ in certain instances, while in other cases it is possible to use either _can_ or _will be able to_. Why? How can one account for that convincingly? For example, > _I'll be able to use a typewriter perfectly after a few more lessons_ > > but > > _We can/will be able to sit at home tomorrow and watch the match in > comfort_.


title: What is the difference between "information", "data", "knowledge", "science"?

text: I know it may be dumb but what is the difference between the following words?   * _information_   * _data_   * _knowledge_   * _science_ Especially the difference between _data_ and _information_? I know it but cannot explain it well to my teacher.


title: Difference between "would have + past participle" and "would + bare infinitive" in the main clause of a past subjunctive sentence

text: I'm wondering about the difference in meaning, if any, between the two sentences in each of the following examples. Example 1. > a. If he was a serious leader, tackling the debt would have been a pillar of > the speech.   >  (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > b. If he was a serious leader, tackling the debt would be a pillar of the > speech. Example 2. > a. I am sure your father would have been upset if his boss got a gigantic > raise and he got nothing.   >  (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > b. I am sure your father would be upset if his boss got a gigantic raise and > he got nothing.


title: Division of a sentence into structural and functional parts

text: When I’ve first come across descriptive grammar it was really challenging for me to grasp the idea of division of a sentence into its constituent parts. As far as I remember, I failed to indicate the proper units constituting the structural and functional layers on many occasions, not to mention the time elapsed between the start and end of the task. Fortunately, after a while it all became clear and quite interesting to my surprise. With the following question and answer I would like to share my personal experience as an English language learner. > What is the difference between the **structural** and **functional** parts > of a sentence? > > Do these parts **overlap** with one another within a given syntactic unit? Feel free to improve my answer or post one yourself.


title: Use of "separation of church and state" in non-Christian countries

text: Does the term _separation of church and state_ also apply in non-Christian countries, for example Egypt? Can we say _separation of mosque and state_? Is there a generic, politically correct alternative that works for any country?


title: What is the difference between institution and department?

text: When I submitted manuscript to journal, I was asked to finish information on institution and/or department from, I'm a teacher of a college in an university, so, I filled the college in the institution column and university in the department column. it's right or not?


title: What is the difference between "cosmos", "world", "universe"?

text: Are these words different in meaning: _cosmos, world, universe_? Does _world_ mean just the Earth and not other planets?